Gita key verses course 23 – Can we be spiritual and rational? – Gita 07.07

Hare Krishna,
Today we will discuss two questions: Can a rational person be spiritual, and how can science and spirituality go together? At first, this topic might seem very basic. When we talk about subjects like the existence of the soul and God, they are often introduced in the early stages of spiritual courses, like those on self-discovery or the flow of the Gita. The Bhagavad Gita, however, was spoken in a culture where the existence of God was not questioned by the audience. When Krishna spoke to Arjuna, there was no debate about God’s existence. That’s why, in the Gita’s flow, there aren’t direct references to establishing the existence of God.

Instead, there is reasoning to establish the existence of the soul because that was directly relevant to Arjuna’s concerns. Arjuna’s immediate worry was how he could fight his loved ones, and one part of Krishna’s answer was that their souls are eternal, so they’re not truly being killed. The existence of God, however, wasn’t an issue for Arjuna or the audience Krishna was addressing. Today, we will focus not on proving the existence of God, but on how rationality and spirituality can coexist, particularly in relation to science.

In the Gita, Krishna states in verse 7.7:
“Māyā sarvam idam protam sūtra-māṇi-gana-iva”
This translates to: “Just as thread underlies and unifies all the pearls that comprise a necklace, similarly, there is the divine, the ultimate reality, Krishna, who underlies and permeates everything.”

This verse points to the fundamental understanding of God. Just as the pearls of a necklace are visible but the thread is not always easily seen, in nature, many extraordinary manifestations are visible, but what underlies them—the divine essence—is not always easily visible.

Three Parts of Today’s Discussion:

1. How rationality points to something more.
2. The three levels: rational, irrational, and trans-rational.
3. How science and spirituality can work together.

How Does Rationality Point to Reality Beyond Rationality?
Let’s first understand what we mean by rationality. Rationality refers to something reasonable, logical, and guided by reason. Human beings function in two primary ways in the world: through our beliefs (conceptions) and our actions (behaviors). These two factors—how we perceive the world and how we act upon it—shape our interaction with reality. If both beliefs and actions are guided by reason, then this approach to the world is called rationality.

The opposite of rationality is irrationality. In the context of science, rationality is the focus. For example, when there is a pandemic, like the Black Plague in Europe centuries ago, people initially believed the plague might be caused by evil spirits. Some thought it was connected to cats, others to rats, but it was eventually understood to be caused by germs. This rational understanding led to scientific progress.

Science focuses on finding explanations that are based on empirical observations or can be logically inferred from those observations. This is the core of rationality, and science has made tremendous advancements by using rational methods. But there are some questions that rationality cannot answer.

Questions Rationality Cannot Answer: One of the primary questions rationality cannot answer is: Why does rationality work at all? Why should the universe be rational and orderly? If the universe is the result of unguided, random subatomic particles, why should these particles organize themselves in ways that are rationally intelligible? Even more perplexing: why should our minds, which are thought to be a product of these unguided natural forces, be structured to work according to reason?

This question points to something deeper. Rationality itself depends on an underlying order or structure, but why should such an order exist? And why should our minds be capable of grasping that order? Rationality and logic seem to point to something more than just random, chaotic forces. This is where the limitations of rationality begin to show.

The idea here is that in the world outside, consider Newton observing an apple fall, which led him to formulate the equation f = G(m1 * m2) / r². Now, why should objects follow specific rules like this? And do mathematical constructs actually exist in nature? We can argue that basic operations like addition and subtraction exist in nature, but what about more complex mathematical concepts, like imaginary numbers or integral calculus? Do they exist in the natural world? The answer is no. So, why does the working of nature correlate with these constructs?

If math is something created by our minds, and nature exists independently, then why should there be any correlation between what we think up in our minds and how the world works? This is a mystery that many mainstream scientists have pondered. Nobel Laureate Eugene Wigner put it this way:
“The miracle of the appropriateness of the language of mathematics for the formulation of the laws of physics is a wonderful gift which we neither understand nor deserve. We should be grateful for it and hope that it will remain valid in future research, and extend, for better or for worse, to our pleasure, even though perhaps also to our battlement.”

This quote, though somewhat complex, asks a simple question: Why does math work? This is a question for which reason itself has no answer. If we consider the evolutionary worldview, all living beings are geared for survival, and nature is an arena where everyone struggles to survive. We are essentially biological robots driven by survival and reproduction. Given this, why should we even have the capacity to think abstractly in mathematical terms, or ponder life’s ultimate questions

If Newton was simply a product of unguided evolution, why, when the apple fell, didn’t he just eat it and move on? Why think of anything beyond survival? Why should our minds be capable of abstract mathematical thought at all, and more importantly, why should nature follow mathematical principles?

Mathematics is foundational to rationality as understood by science, especially when expressed through mathematical equations. But here’s the point: rationality works, but rationality itself has no explanation for why it works. If we only consider rationality within the logic used in modern science, then there’s no natural explanation for why material nature should organize itself according to mathematical laws, or why our minds should be capable of rational thought, expressed in mathematical terms.

God and Rationality: How Do They Relate?
The key insight here is that God is not an explanation for the unexplainable; God is the explanation for explainability. A common atheist argument is that in the past, when people didn’t know why rain fell, they attributed it to the will of gods. Similarly, when diseases occurred, they imagined spirits causing it and tried to appease those spirits. The argument suggests that primitive people used the idea of God to explain things they couldn’t understand, and even today, some religious people might argue that science can’t explain certain things, and therefore we need God.

However, this is not the view expressed in the Bhagavad Gita. The Gita talks about how the universe works under the supervision of the Divine, but it presents God not as the explanation for the unexplainable, but as the reason why things are explainable at all. For example, why should falling objects follow a particular mathematical formula, as described by Newton’s gravitational equation? Or why should matter and energy be interchangeable in a specific way, as stated by Einstein’s famous equation E = mc²? Why do these equations work at all?

It’s crucial to understand that if we present God as merely filling gaps in scientific understanding, we risk falling into a “God of the Gaps” fallacy. This concept implies that there are gaps in science, and God fills those gaps. The argument goes that as science fills in these gaps, there will be no room left for God. However, the Gita teaches that the reason why things are explainable at all is due to the divine order that governs the universe.

The Bhagavad Gita gives us a vision of God that is not simply a “God of the gaps.” Rather, it presents God as the fundamental essence that underlies everything, including the gaps in our understanding. What we can understand, we understand by the grace of God, and what remains beyond our understanding signifies that there is a higher intelligence behind everything. God is the thread that weaves through everything, including the gaps in our knowledge.

This idea connects to the metaphor of God being like the thread in a necklace, which we mentioned earlier. God is not merely at the top of a hierarchy of beings. While we might think of God as the best among beings, with a hierarchy like head of district, head of state, and so on, this is only a partial understanding of God. God is not just the best being, but the basis of all being. Without God, nothing would exist. God is the very existence that makes all existence possible.

If we focus only on the pearls in a necklace, we may never notice the thread, which is essential for the necklace’s existence. Similarly, we might question, “If God created everything, who created God?” This question, often seen as a “knockout” argument, actually reveals ignorance. Asking who created God is like asking, “Who made a circle circular?” A circle is by definition circular, and similarly, God, by definition, is the eternal existence that underlies all being. In the Bhagavad Gita, Krishna says that He is the existence that underlies all existence (Bucha 9:10, 39). God is the cause of all causes, and nothing exists without God.

To further explain this idea, consider the example of a child reading Harry Potter and the Philosopher’s Stone. If the child is intrigued by the story and later learns that J.K. Rowling is the author, they may wonder, “Where is J.K. Rowling in the book?” The answer is that she is not a character in the book, but she exists outside of it. She created the timeline, the characters, the settings, and the plot, but she does not exist as a character within the story itself. In the same way, God does not exist within nature. God is not like an undiscovered satellite around Jupiter waiting to be found. Rather, God exists outside the domain of time and space.

When we ask, “Who created God?” this presumes that God exists within time. But God creates time; God is not created by it. This is why the question itself is irrational—it assumes that God is within the realm of time, which is not true. Just as J.K. Rowling exists outside her books, God exists outside the domain of time, and we must understand that God is not a person like us. God exists in a different category of being.

Now, let’s move forward and look at God and science. God is not an alternative explanation to science, but the explanatory foundation for all explanations. The more science advances and uncovers astonishing truths about reality, the more our conviction in God’s existence can grow. For example, today’s smartphones have more processing power than all the computers in the world did in the 1960s. We marvel at how fast technology works, but the principles behind it were not created by science—they were discovered. The semiconductor effect, which allows for microchips and telecommunications, existed long before we understood it.

While we appreciate the brilliance of scientists and researchers, we must recognize that the foundational realities—such as the semiconductor effect—were not created by science. If there were no semiconductor effect, there would be no electronics or telecommunications. The difference between how something works and why it exists is crucial to understanding God’s role in the universe.

The Relationship Between Technology and God

Why does the semiconductor effect exist at all? Why are some elements conductors and others insulators? Technological advancements do not challenge God’s existence because God is not an alternative explanation to science or technology. Instead, God is the foundational basis of all explanations. Technology works within the framework of natural laws, but these laws exist because of a higher intelligence—God.

Rational, Irrational, and Trans-Rational

Let’s move on to the idea of rational, irrational, and trans-rational. We usually operate within the rational realm, using reasoning and logic to understand the world. Irrational behavior, on the other hand, is when someone makes illogical or unreasonable arguments that don’t stand up to rational scrutiny. Trans-rational, however, refers to something that transcends rationality—something that rationality cannot fully grasp. This means that rationality, although useful, has its limits.

The Limits of Atheism and Rationality

Why does rationality work? From an atheistic worldview, there is no explanation for why rationality itself should work. Rationality depends on a logical structure, but within atheism, there’s no reason why things should be logical. Atheists often criticize religious practices, labeling them superstitions or illogical. But if we look at atheism through a rational lens, it presents its own contradictions. For example, atheism can explain how things work but fails to answer why they exist at all.

The Meaning of the Universe

Rationalism tries to explain how the world works—for instance, why an apple falls or how electricity flows. But when we ask, Why does the universe exist?, rationalism doesn’t provide a meaningful answer. It leads to the conclusion that life is pointless. A famous atheist physicist, Steven Weinberg, said that “the more the universe becomes comprehensible, the more it seems pointless.” Even when we break down the universe into logical, understandable components, it doesn’t seem to have any greater meaning. It’s like deciphering an ancient script—while individual words and symbols may make sense, the overall message seems meaningless.

Struggling with Meaninglessness

This is the result of an atheistic worldview. We may try to find small islands of meaning, but we’re often overwhelmed by an ocean of meaninglessness. We may be able to explain individual phenomena rationally, but the larger existential questions remain unanswered. This is where the trans-rational comes into play—an understanding that goes beyond mere reason.

Miracles and Trans-Rationality

Miracles are often seen as an example of the trans-rational. They are not against science; they are above science. For example, consider the famous miracle of Krishna lifting the Govardhan Hill. A rational person might question how someone could lift such a massive object. The explanation, however, is that Krishna didn’t need to find the center of gravity—he is the source of gravity itself.

Miracles temporarily suspend the normal laws of nature, which are governed by God. This does not mean that science is invalid—it simply means that rationality is not the ultimate reality. There are times when divinity intervenes in ways that go beyond rational explanation.

Rationality in Human Experience

This concept of the trans-rational also extends to human experiences. For instance, there are stories of parents displaying superhuman strength in emergencies—such as when a car crushes a child, and a parent somehow gains the strength to lift it. Normally, such an act would be impossible, but it points to a reality beyond pure rationality. These experiences suggest that there is more to existence than what can be explained through reason alone.

Spirituality does not reject rationality, but it acknowledges that rationality has limits. There is a divinity beyond what rationality can comprehend, and at certain points in history, and in human nature, this divinity may intervene. Rationality helps us understand the world, but it does not encompass all of reality. Spiritual experiences, like miracles, go beyond the realm of rational explanation, pointing to a higher power that operates outside the bounds of time, space, and reason.

Heroic Actions Beyond Rationality

Consider the example of the firefighters during the collapse of the Twin Towers. They knew the risks—the towers were burning, and they might collapse at any moment. Rationally, from a survival standpoint, they should not have gone in. But they did. Why? Because they weren’t just acting as biological machines driven by survival instincts. Their actions were driven by something higher—courage, compassion, and duty. This kind of behavior goes beyond pure rationality. It’s not foolishness; it’s heroism. While we shouldn’t seek death when it’s certain, risking one’s life for others is considered noble. Some of the most inspiring human actions are not driven by rationality alone but by higher values and ideals. This is where the trans-rational aspect of reality comes in—actions motivated by selflessness, love, and moral principles.

The Relationship Between Science and Spirituality

Now, let’s look at how science and spirituality can work together. Broadly speaking, science studies matter, while spirituality studies what matters.

• Science: It is the study of material objects and their interactions. Science enhances our ability to control the outer world. For example, understanding gravity or thermodynamics helps us develop technology and shape the world around us.
• Spirituality: It is concerned with understanding the deeper values and meanings in life—what is important versus what is not. Science cannot answer questions like “What should we prioritize?” or “What gives our lives meaning?” Spirituality provides the framework for us to make better choices and imbue our lives with purpose.

The Limits of Science in Determining Morality

One important distinction to make is that science alone cannot define moral values. This becomes clear when we consider the dangers of extremism, both religious and scientific.

While religious extremism is often associated with violence, extremism is ultimately a mental attitude that can be applied to any ideology, whether religious or scientific. For instance, Nazi Germany was one of the most scientifically advanced nations of its time. Adolf Hitler attempted to justify his vision of the world using science, particularly ideas rooted in Social Darwinism—a misapplication of Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution.

The Role of Darwinism in Nazi Ideology

Hitler’s autobiography, Mein Kampf, was heavily influenced by the concept of the struggle for existence, a central idea in Darwinian evolution. Social Darwinism misapplied the idea of survival of the fittest to human societies, which led to the belief that certain races were more “fit” than others. This idea was used to justify horrific policies, including:

• Sterilization of people with disabilities to prevent them from reproducing.
• Persecution of Gypsies (Roma) and Jews, who were seen as “unfit” races.
• The Holocaust, in which millions of Jews and others were exterminated in the name of racial purity.

The Ethical Dangers of Misusing Science

The key point here is that science alone cannot provide a moral framework. In Nazi Germany, scientific ideas were twisted to serve an ideology that led to immense suffering. From a scientific perspective, human life has no intrinsic worth—people are just biological organisms. This is why science, in itself, cannot provide the moral foundation to say that it is wrong to kill someone because they are deemed “unfit.”

The sanctity of human life is not something that can be rationally inferred from any scientific theory. The idea that human life has intrinsic value comes from moral, spiritual, or ethical beliefs, not science. Ethics and morality cannot be fully explained by scientific laws; they require a framework that goes beyond the material world.

The Study of What Matters

This brings us back to the study of what matters. Spirituality and ethics help us understand what is truly important—things like compassion, justice, and respect for human dignity. Science can help us understand how the world works, but it does not dictate how we should behave within it. As Einstein himself said, science cannot provide the ethical foundation for itself. It is up to humans, guided by a sense of what matters, to determine how to use scientific knowledge responsibly.

In summary, while science provides invaluable tools for understanding and controlling the material world, it cannot answer deeper questions about meaning, values, or morality. These are the domain of spirituality and ethics, which help us understand what truly matters in life. Humanity is driven not just by rational thought, but by higher ideals, which inspire some of our most noble and heroic actions.

The Role of Science and Spirituality in Ethics

The central question here is: Can science itself develop an ethical sense in people? The answer is no. Science is about understanding the natural world, but it doesn’t inherently provide the ethical framework for how we should live or make decisions.

This is not to say that scientists cannot be ethical. Many are, and they uphold strong moral principles. However, there is nothing within the purely naturalistic study of science to instill that sense of ethics. This is where spirituality comes in.

Spirituality helps us understand why life is sacred and what truly matters. It offers a broader view of reality, which can help us refine our values. For example, spirituality teaches that life has sanctity because every living being is a manifestation of God’s grace, and that nature, too, has its sanctity because it is part of the divine.

Through a proper understanding of what matters, spirituality helps us make better choices, see our lives as valuable, and become better human beings. Science can give us better control over the material world—better gadgets, better technology—but it doesn’t guide us on how to live meaningfully or ethically.

The Importance of Spirituality in Defining Values

Everyone has some understanding of what matters. For instance, for Hitler, what mattered was creating a new world order by eliminating those he deemed obstacles. His hierarchy of values was distorted. Spirituality helps us define and refine our values. It clarifies what truly matters and helps us align our actions with higher ideals.

Spirituality not only helps us grow in virtue but also shapes our decisions and helps us become better human beings.

When science and spirituality come together, we can improve both the world and ourselves—science improves things, spirituality improves people.

Rationality, God, and the Limits of Science

Now, moving on to a deeper question: Can a rational person be spiritual? The first point to understand is that rationality points to a reality beyond itself. Rationality—logic, reason, and mathematics—is central to science. But if we equate rationality with atheism or being anti-spiritual, then we must ask: Why should the universe have any rational order? Why should our minds have the capacity for rational thought if we’re just biologically programmed for survival?

Rationality has no explanation for why it exists or works. It doesn’t explain why our brains think rationally or why nature follows mathematical laws. These are questions that point beyond pure science.

God: The Foundation of Rationality

God is not an explanation for the unexplainable, nor is He simply an alternative to science. God is the foundation for science itself. Why is science able to discover the laws of nature? Because there is an underlying intelligence that has infused nature with rationality, which we uncover through scientific inquiry.

God is not just another being among many; He is the basis of all being. To ask who created God is like asking who made a circle circular—it’s a misunderstanding of the nature of God, who exists outside time and creates time. God is not a discovered object like an undiscovered satellite. He exists beyond nature, beyond the fabric of space and time.

Trans-Rationality and Miracles

There is also a trans-rational realm, which exists above the rational. Trans-rationality is beyond the limitations of human logic. We discussed how miracles, such as Krishna lifting the Govardhan Hill, are not against science but above it. Miracles involve the intervention of divine will into the natural order, temporarily suspending the laws of nature.

Trans-rational experiences, like acts of heroism or self-sacrifice, are often the most inspirational. If humans were purely rational, we might never risk our lives for others. But when we do, it’s an expression of something higher. These moments of selflessness show that humanity isn’t restricted to rationality alone.

Science and Spirituality Together

Science and spirituality can complement each other. Science is the study of matter—the physical world. Spirituality is the study of what matters—our values, our sense of purpose, what gives life meaning.

In history, science was misused for horrific purposes, such as by Nazi Germany in their eugenics experiments. The goal was to create a “better” human race by eliminating those deemed “unfit.” But such a horrifying ideology was not driven by science alone. From a scientific perspective, there is no inherent sanctity to human life—humans are just biological beings. It is spirituality that provides the sanctity of life and teaches us to value every human being as a spark of the divine.

The Need for Spiritual Values

The sanctity of life and nature come from spiritual understanding, which helps refine and define our values. Without spirituality, science could lead to dehumanizing practices like eugenics or environmental destruction, as it would lack the ethical framework to respect life. Spiritual growth helps us develop a deeper understanding of what truly matters, guiding us to become better people.

In summary, science can make things better, and spirituality can make people better. Together, they can create a better world.

Developing Faith Amid Doubts

A common question is: How can I develop faith in God when my mind is full of doubts and dilemmas? The key is engaging in discussions like these, where specific doubts are raised and addressed. Over time, through thoughtful dialogue and reasoning, our doubts can be resolved.

Spirituality is not about blind faith; it’s about using our reasoning to understand how we can move forward in life and deepen our connection with the divine.

Evolution and Its Implications

A common concern arises when schools teach the theory of evolution, even in religious schools. So, what can we do about this? It’s important to understand that the issue of evolution can be viewed from three different perspectives:

1. Evolution as an observed phenomenon: This refers to the fact that living beings adapt to their environments. This can be observed, and even artificially manipulated, as we see with selective breeding of plants and animals (e.g., small and large apples). This form of evolution, microevolution, involves variation within a species and is universally accepted. For example, Krishna in the Srimad Bhagavatam learned plant breeding, which is essentially microevolution.
2. Evolution as an inferred mechanism: This is the idea that species evolve into different species over time. While there is some evidence for this, the evidence is not conclusive, and many scientists still debate it. This is where some disagreement exists, but it’s not the main issue from a spiritual perspective.
3. Evolution as an all-encompassing ideology: This is where evolution is presented as a complete explanation for the origins of life, consciousness, and the diversity of life forms on Earth. This is not science but ideology. The theoretical possibility of how consciousness evolved, for example, is highly speculative and lacks coherent scientific support. Evolution as an ideology attempts to explain everything, including life’s origins, but falls short when addressing deeper questions like the origin of life and consciousness.

Understanding the Spiritual Perspective on Evolution

• From a spiritual perspective, evolution as an observed phenomenon and even as a mechanism for adaptation (microevolution) doesn’t necessarily conflict with the belief in God. In fact, the intelligence behind nature’s adaptability could point to a higher intelligence. Just like self-learning AI programs, which adapt and improve based on new data, the adaptability of nature could be seen as evidence of a brilliant designer.
• The real issue is when evolution is presented as the only explanation for life’s origin and the existence of consciousness. This attempt to explain everything through evolution is speculative and cannot explain the existence of life or consciousness, which require more than just a mechanistic explanation.
• Srila Prabhupada’s view: Prabhupada emphasized that life comes from life. Evolution, in its natural form, is a process of adaptation, but it doesn’t address the origin of life or consciousness. Evolution as an ideology—used to justify atheism or materialism—is where the issue arises for spiritual seekers.

Choosing the Right Focus

Our concern with evolution is not about rejecting scientific facts, but about how evolution is used to promote materialism or atheism and deny the existence of God. It’s crucial to address the issue at the level where evolution is misused as an ideology rather than as a scientific explanation for species adaptation.

Conclusion

In summary, the spiritual perspective is not against the observed phenomenon of evolution or even the idea that species can adapt to their environment. The concern arises when evolution is used as an ideological tool to reject the existence of God and the deeper purpose of life. We must carefully distinguish between science and ideology, and focus our efforts on addressing the misuse of evolution in the context of materialism.

For further clarification, we’ll provide answers to additional questions on our website and share them via the WhatsApp group in the next session.

Thank you. Hare Krishna.

Disclaimer: This transcript was generated using AI and may contain occasional errors or inaccuracies.

So, thank you very much for joining once again, Maharaj. Hare Krishna, Chaitanya Charan Prabhu. Nice to be with you again.

Maharaj, today I was thinking we could discuss on the topic of spiritual but not religious. And I broadly thought about three sections in which we could discuss it. What is right about that idea? What is deficient about that idea? And how the Bhakti tradition, the Vedic tradition's wisdom can complement that deficiency.

So, especially in the Western world, I'll start with the first part. What is right about that idea in my understanding? So, the spiritual but not religious, there are books written on this topic. And it's primarily an idea about de-institutionalized spirituality.

So, basically in religion, there are two aspects. There is, we have the word orthodoxy. So, doxy refers to doctrine.

And there's another word praxy. There's also orthopraxy. Praxy refers to practice.

So, basically there are doctrines and there are practices which are sometimes negatively referred to as rituals. So, what the spiritual but not religious people associate is that, that by rituals and over doctrines and over rituals, people have differences and people fight and that makes people narrow-minded. Whereas, they feel that if we are spiritual, that means we have experiences and we have virtues.

A spiritual person is, Dalai Lama is considered to be a classic example of somebody who is spiritual but not religious. And he says that what is the essence of religion? It is compassion and kindness. Now, these are virtues.

And then people talk, many people are open to some kind of mystical experiences. The idea is, I want to experience something higher. And I would like to follow something which will make me more calm, more kind, more gentle, more at peace, at harmony with myself.

So, that people are open to. But what they are, so that three defining differences would be, one is, spiritual but not religious are people who are opposed to institutions, institutionalization of religion. Second is, they are opposed to the sectarianism that comes because of particular dogmas and particular rituals, which are often different in different religions.

And third is, such people, they feel that they want to follow their own path. I want to go spiritually, but I want to follow my own path to spirituality. Rather than, the idea is, there is a huge trust deficiency among people and they feel that if I commit myself to any particular path, then that will lead to, I might be misled, I might be manipulated.

So, I will chart my own path. So, I don't want dogmas, I don't want rituals. I want experiences and I want to develop my virtues thereby.

So, people are quite interested in spiritual leaders, spiritual teachers, spiritual gurus, but they are not so much interested in religious institutions. These are the broad three differences between spiritual characteristics of people, who identify themselves as spiritual but not religious. Yeah, I think, essentially, if one looks at it, the whole movement of spiritual but not religious has originated in the West.

Yes. In the form that we see it today. Yes.

And, I think it coincides with the rise of a neoliberal philosophy that places excessive emphasis on individualism vis-a-vis the collective. And, so, in the pursuit of the goal of maximizing individual freedom, the restrictions that are placed by anybody else are unwelcome. Okay.

So, it is not only in the realm of religion. It is in any realm, whether it's a social realm, a religious realm, or even the official realm. People don't like restrictions.

They want to express their individual freedom in whichever way they choose to. And, any such restriction is not looked upon very well by a fair number of people who follow this kind of philosophy or an ideology. So, I think one of the reasons why the spiritual but not religious, the SPNR movement, if one can call it a movement, is that they do not like the restrictions or the, shall we say, the do's and don'ts that are imposed by organized religion.

Because organized religions will always have a set of do's and don'ts. There will be restrictions. Something is called a sin.

Something is okay. Something is acceptable. Something is not acceptable.

You see, so, I think that is one major reason. And, also, there is the, as you said, and I agree with that utterly, is that it is a kind of a protest against organized religion, institutionalized religion. And, to a fair degree, such a protest has its valid grounds.

It's not completely baseless. Because organized religion or institutionalized religion does tend to become a little, shall we say, oppressive, suppressive, stifling. And, then there are certain authority figures who emerge who may always not be, you know, ideal.

And, also, then, the moment you have a gathering of figures in an institution, even if for a spiritual purpose, but, eventually, the tendency of human beings in this material world is that the way human dynamics works is that there will be struggle for control, struggle for power, for position. And, these things happen. You know, and, so, therefore, that introduces, it is some kind of an unspiritual element into the whole organization, into the whole religious practice, so to speak.

And, many, many other things creep in like this. So, to some degree, I would agree with the SPNR in terms of their hesitation or reluctance or apprehension with respect to institutionalized or organized religion. So, also, there is perhaps a kind of despair or disappointment with religious leaders maybe quarreling or not setting a good example or whatever it is.

So, they tend to lose faith. And, because organized religion, many times, not always, but many times, seems to give increased preference to the group vis-a-vis the individual, those who wish to express their individuality also want to do so on the spiritual ground. So, increasingly, you will find this voice being expressed or this opinion that, well, I do believe in God, but I don't believe in religion as it is practiced and understood today.

But, it's just between me and God. So, they don't like any intermediaries. They don't like anybody telling them anything.

So, this is, I guess, the whole psychology behind why this has come up and the reasons why people have lost faith or trust in religious organizations. So, as far as your first point of what is right about it, I would say the basis in it is that religious organizations and institutionalized religion often tends to lose that individual spiritual, shall we say, flavor. That's true.

Yeah, that's true. And, at one level, losing flavor is disappointing. But, what is often alarming is that institutions can also become perverted.

And, the examples are given that in each of the three major religions, how institutionalization has caused problems. So, with respect to Christianity, the Catholic Church and there is the child abuse scandal. With respect to Islam, they said there is the extremism which is fomented by organizations.

There is extremism and violence. With respect to Hinduism, there is a caste system. And, the caste system is also an institution.

So, now, of course, we could go into the specifics and that would be a different subject. But, the point over here is, they say that wherever religion has contributed to having a harmful effect on society, that has usually been associated with institutionalization of religion. And, in that sense, the institutionalization is what they want to avoid.

And, your point about the culture being individualistic, that's very true. I was at an interfaith conference in Washington DC. And, there was one Christian pastor who said that he was on a radio show and people were asking questions.

So, there was this one man came and he asked a question. He said that, I'm a Christian, but I don't go to any church. So, people have to be, even the preachers have to be very sensitive.

Can I know why don't you go to any church? He says, I haven't yet found any church that agrees with my philosophy. So, the idea that rather than I going to find a way, I want something which will sanction my way. So, what you said about not wanting to follow rules and regulations, that is very true.

Now, one reason also is that often these rules and regulations may be presented without any proper rationale. And, so this is what you should believe and this is what you should do. This is what you should believe and this is how you should behave.

And, if that is, it seems very didactic, very domineering kind of thing. But now, in many ways, Eastern spirituality is contrasted with organized religion. Although Hinduism is a solid caste system, but that is primarily in India.

As Indian spirituality or Eastern spirituality, both the Vedic as well as Buddhism are seen, they are to much as extent seen to be free from these problems. Because at one level, so where it is all our belief, believing and behaving, that's how Christianity is portrayed. As you said, this is primarily in the West.

So, there the mainstream religion was Christianity. Islam is there, but not the mainstream. So, Eastern spirituality is appealing because this is more about, more about, say, analyzing, realizing.

So, it's not that you have to believe this, but you analyze. Maybe it's like this. It's like that.

So, in our sense, it is not a commandment, do this or don't do this. It's inquire, explore. And then there is also the concept of realization.

So, in many ways, the people in the West who come to our movement, or who at least are open to exploring Krishna consciousness, are people who are of this spiritual but not religious orientation. If they were already religious, then probably they would join the organization, the organized religions of their particular, their birth or their local ones. So, to some extent, this trend also makes people receptive to Eastern spirituality as contrasted with, say, Western religion or its Middle Eastern religion, which is now in the West.

So, that could, that's also one from our perspective, that receptivity is there. Most of the people who came to, came to Ishwara Prabhupada, at that time, the name spiritual but not religious was not there. But they were of that, they were spiritually inclined, but they were not following anything at all.

So, in that, that is also one sense in which the openness is something which we can, we can, it opens an opportunity for us. Yes, I think it's a combination of disappointment. Disappointment with their own religious traditions, on one hand, for various reasons, including that probably their traditions were not able to answer their deep philosophical questions or existential questions properly.

There could be other reasons as well. So, there's disappointment with their own religious traditions, coupled with a certain mystique or a charm with which they see their religious traditions. There is almost that kind of stereotyped, you know, idea about Eastern religion.

You see the yogi was levitating or sitting on a carpet and, you know, flying somewhere, you know. So, you still have people perhaps who have some kind of notion like that, or at least that Himalayas, you know, the place of spirituality, India is a land of karma. And in the modern days, this is the level, you know, the land of where the concepts of karma came about, Ayurveda, yoga, you know, things like that.

The land of Buddha. The land of Buddha as well, yes. So, the land of meditation.

There's so many different types of meditation. So, it's a combination of these two, I think, that makes Westerners come towards the Eastern religious traditions. Also, perhaps, it is excessive materialism has caused reactions.

And therefore, they are tired of materialism. Their traditions don't seem to give them satisfaction. And these religions appear very intriguing and very mystical.

So, they are attracted towards them. Also, as far as Hinduism is concerned, it's such a broad term. You know, I don't even think that Hinduism is probably considered as an organized religion.

Yes, that is true. Like the Abrahamic faiths are considered, you know. That's true, yes.

Christianity, Islam, Judaism, they're definitely considered to be organized, institutionalized religion. Because there is a certain clear, defined set of rules. Of course, there are denominations within all of these.

But within each denomination, there is a clear set of rules about what is what. And you have to abide by them. There are certain standards that have to be followed.

Yes, that are universally applicable for all the followers. The other Indian religions, let's say, or religions that have originated in India, are Sikhism and Buddhism also perhaps to some degree are considered organized religion. Yeah, generally, our Hindus, just one point.

In comparative religions, they say that Hinduism is very difficult to classify as a religion because it has no founding date, it has no founder, and it has no founding scripture. So these three, at least one or two or three of these are there. With Christianity, we have, with Islam, we have.

Judaism, even if we don't say, we can call Moses as the founder, there are many prophets. But there are one books. So yes, Hinduism is in many ways quite decentralized or diffused.

But Buddhism, I think. Multiple strands of belief and practice of some variety that are not found in any of the other organized religions. Even though the other religions have denominations and sects, but they lack the kind of extreme variety and diversity that is found in so-called Hinduism.

So I guess this is also kind of thing that charms people. If you see the kind of response that organized Eastern religions have got in the Western countries, it has been relatively lower than the appeal that individual yogis and such mystics and so on have had. Who are not part of any organized thing.

They have their own philosophy. They have their own set of practices. You know, each one has carved out his own niche, so to speak.

His own understanding of what spirituality is. He has his own set of followers. And he probably doesn't have a particular scripture he looks at.

We look at many of the books today. They may be spiritual. They may believe in God.

They may not believe in God. But they're seen as very mystical, spiritual creatures. I'm sorry, as personalities.

So it's because they don't say this is the book. It's because they have their own brand, their own charisma. It's mostly charisma oriented.

Also, in some cases, it may be because there is some kind of a mystic power or something that person has. You know, so the popularity of Eastern religion of, let's say, different sects within Hinduism, or by and large Hinduism in the West, has been these individuals. Mainstream, quote unquote, Hindu religion has not become so popular.

Like that. Yes, that is true. If anyone has done it, it is Srila Prabhupada who did it in the sense that he had established temples where the people followed a certain standard routine, certain standard philosophy.

There were standard fixed books. There were scriptures. There were certain mantras to be chanted.

So although we don't consider ourselves an organized religion in the sense that other religions are considered, Srila Prabhupada and Srila Bhakti Siddhanta Saraswati Thakur also distinguished between the two. So we do not consider ourselves organized religions in the sense that the others perhaps are. But still, if you look at it, we have temples, which an organized religion does.

We have a set of scriptures which we believe in, which an organized religion does. We have our main scripture, one or two or three of them, which are foundational, and others are essentially based on that. Then we have certain personalities.

We have certain modes of worship. So we have all the typical characteristics of what would be considered perhaps an organized religion. But Krishna Consciousness is unique because what is taught, the philosophy that is practiced, is something quite transcendental, truly transcendental.

It is based on this completely spiritual understanding that these other religious rituals and practices go on. So if anything, the only tradition, the religious tradition or spiritual tradition from India that has become really popular in the last 50 years or maybe 100 years or so is Krishna Consciousness. Yes.

If you see, they are all individual-based, and they may not even proclaim their connection to a particular lineage, a spiritual lineage. Yes, that is true. Krishna Consciousness is very, very particular to point out that there must be a spiritual lineage going all the way up.

That's a beautiful point that in one sense we could say that what we have within the Krishna Consciousness movement is in some ways spiritual and religious. We have the rituals. We don't use the word dogmas.

We have the word philosophy. We have the philosophy, clearly defined canon of books. Through that, the stress is on developing virtues.

Our regulative principles are meant to develop virtues of kindness, cleanliness, purity, compassion, austerity. And then beyond that, the whole path of bhakti is in many ways the path of experiential spirituality. It is meant to give us experience of transcendence, experience of Krishna.

So it is spiritual and religious both. It is spiritual and religious. Yes, yes.

Sometimes, you know, this discussion happens amongst our own devotees. And I was asked this question also sometimes, that is Krishna Consciousness a religion or not? Right? And the reason for this is because Srila Prabhupada distinguished often between Krishna Consciousness on one hand and religious faiths on the other hand. Yes.

So therefore, this has led many devotees to even question whether Krishna Consciousness is a religion. So it is really about how you define the word religion and how you define the word spiritual. So in my discussion with this devotee that happened maybe a year or two ago, I asked the following questions.

How would you say, what would you say a religion is characterized by? The same points you said, right? First of all, there is a belief in a certain supernatural power, God or gods, okay, generally. Second, there is some established, commonly accepted set of norms and practices and rules and regulations that they all must follow. They must subscribe to a certain philosophical point of view.

Third, there are certain personalities whom they revere, who are the proponents or propagators of that particular faith. So there are certain books, there are certain people, there are certain beliefs, there are certain practices, right? And you can make a long list of them. So I said, let's look at Krishna Consciousness.

Do we have belief in a God? Yes. Do we believe in a particular book, a holy book or books? Yes. Do we believe in certain very exalted personalities as those who are propagators and carriers, transmitters of this whole process? Yes.

Do we all follow a certain set of codes of conduct? Do we have certain modes of worship? Yes. So yes, yes, yes, yes, everywhere there is yes. So how can we say we are not a religion? At the same time, we are not like a religion where we just blindly follow something, where we are merely ritualistic, where we are not aware of the ultimate purpose of the religious or the ritualistic activities that are done.

So we are very conscious all the time of the ultimate purpose of all these different beliefs and practices. I guess the difference between ordinary religion and Krishna Consciousness, which we could call a spiritual religion, is that in ordinary religion, which also has a spiritual essence, but it is largely eclipsed. It doesn't come so much in the forefront.

It is mostly eclipsed by the materialistic identification with that particular community or that body, or having taken birth in that kind of community, or with certain external modes of dress or appearance and forms of worship and so on. So it is more an external and to some degree a materialistic connection and orientation. And that is how Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati Thakur defined organized religion.

He said, I think organized religion is that which, actually he used very strong words, he said something evil manifests through such organized religion. Yeah, he used the example of Putana. Putana pretends to nourish Krishna, but she's actually coming to kill Krishna.

So like that organized religion, it is meant to nourish the devotion of people's heart, but actually it poisons their devotion. Yes, and he said organized religions are basically those that are carriers of gross worldliness. Carriers of gross worldliness.

Because I think they tend to emphasize the materialistic aspect. There is material identification. Whereas in Krishna consciousness we tend to, because of our philosophical understanding, not so much get into the materialistic identification, but with an identification with something that is beyond material designations and divisions.

So I think therein lies the difference of an ordinary religion, by ordinary I don't mean it in a demeaning way, but in the sense that people understand it often. And for us we focus on the spiritual aspect of the religion. And many times we may kind of compromise with the externals and the rituals, and we may adjust with them, because the higher purpose is the essential spiritual purpose.

Whereas when there is more preoccupation with the externals, rather than the spiritual core of that religion, then that religion becomes more of a, shall we say, an organized religion or a materialistic religion. Yes. So, now, sometimes it may happen that, we could say at one level every great tradition that started was a spiritual tradition.

It was meant to spiritualize people's consciousness. But over a period of time, accretions, various things get mixed up with it. And then to that extent it becomes externalized.

There is a joke which is said religion was a wonderful thing, but it did a terrible thing. And the terrible thing that it did was it got mixed with people. It got mixed with people and then it got spoiled.

It's not just people, it is institutionalization especially. So, now on one side, institutionalization leads to, as you said, worldly preponderance or worldly possessions. But then in some ways, institutionalization is also important.

And if we consider broadly the Indian tradition, if you look at history, now yoga itself is quite old. Even according to modern historians, it has been there at least for 2.500 years or more. Because Buddha himself practiced something similar to yoga.

So, when you mentioned earlier about many of the Indian teachers in the West trying to deny their connection with the broader, with the specific religion. So, there is now a big debate going on whether yoga is Hindu or not. And there are Deepak Chopra and other teachers, they are trying to say that actually yoga predates the whole system of worship of various gods, which comprises Hinduism.

And that's how they are trying to make yoga appear non-sectarian. Because for many people now yoga is big business. And if yoga is associated with certain religions, then they feel that those people cannot practice yoga.

Now there are some people, some Christians who have adopted something called as Christian yoga. And there are others who say that, there are other Christian groups who say that yoga is actually a pagan practice and Christians should never adopt it. So, to try to avoid that challenge, there are some group of people who are saying that yoga predates what we call as Hinduism.

But there are a group of activist Hindus who say that you are taking things from India, from the Hindu tradition, and you are not giving credit to that. So, and that's in a sense, it's like poaching. So, they say that while the West is benefiting from yoga, which comes from India, from the Hindu tradition, the portrayal of Hinduism is often just negative.

Oh, these are the people who worship gods. So many, many, many gods. They are polytheists.

They have the caste system. So, in that sense, there is that concern that if there is no institutionalization, then there is no structure and then it is open for interpretation or manipulation in many different ways. Yes.

So, I think you had made the point about even though institutionalizing of religion or spirituality has its problems, but there are also benefits and there is a need to do that. And that is also a fact. We see that Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati Thakur who wrote so strongly against organized religion and compared it to the likes of Putana and Kamsa, but he himself founded the Gaudiya Math.

And following in his footsteps, Srila Prabhupada founded the International Society for Krishna Consciousness. So, if we understand that the objection to institutionalization is to the, shall we say, the transformation of that group into something that doesn't resemble what the pure teachings are, that the organization does not truly represent that inner spiritual core. It doesn't project that as its main, shall we say, aspect.

And that worldliness takes over. So, Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati Thakur did set up the Gaudiya Math, Prabhupada did set up ISKCON, but then they all always cautioned against making it a materialistic place. They cautioned against the materialistic mentality, against the usual ills, the human frailties that plague any human endeavor.

And if you look at it, it is not that Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati Thakur was the first to start institutions. His father, Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakur, spoke about the Vishwa Vaishnava Rajya Sabha, and he took that idea from Srila Jiva Goswami, much before him, you see. And so, even before that, we see, even in the other Sampradayas, like Ramanujacharya started his Matha.

In fact, Shankaracharya is considered to be the founder of some kind of institutionalization within what we call as Hinduism. Because the Akhadas which he had, the groups, the Mathas which he started. So, prior to that, we didn't have so much, or at least we don't have a historical record of that.

But yes, Shankaracharya was in the 7th century, so it's almost 14 centuries. And Ramanuja was, Shankaracharya was, no, not 7th. 7th, 8th century.

And Ramacharya was 10th, 11th century. Yeah, about a thousand years ago, right. So, Ramanuja came just after Shankaracharya.

Yes. But even before Shankaracharya, if you look at the tradition of Buddhism, let's say, Buddha also made a kind of an institution. It was not a very structured institution.

It was more amorphous. For example, you'll find the Buddhists saying, you know, Sangham, Sangham Sharanam Gacchami. Yes, that is true.

Sangham Sharanam Gacchami, Dhammam Sharanam Gacchami. So, I go to take shelter of Dhamma, of that Dharma, the Buddha's Dharma. Or I go to take shelter of Buddha.

Yes. And then Sangham Sharanam Gacchami. Yes.

So, Sangha refers to an institution. Yes, Maharaj. So, it was a loosely knit institution, not in the organized way that we find it today.

But it was an organization nevertheless. Yes, definitely. Similarly, so that's called a Sangha, which is an important point, I think.

Because Sanghas have existed for a long time. And the purpose of the Sangha is to give Sangha. Oh, so there are two separate terms, if not just Sangha.

Okay, Sangha and Sangha. Yes, S-A-N-G-H-A is the institution, Sangha in Sanskrit. And Sangha, S-A-N-G-H-A, that speaks about the association of, you know, generally, of course, of saintly people.

So, the purpose of the Sangha is to enable people to get Sangha. So, Srila Prabhupada said one time that the real reason he set up ISKCON was to give the association of devotees to the people of the world. Yes, that is true.

But he set up this Sangha for the sake of giving Sangha. Yeah. So, forming an institution is not bad, provided we are careful about the different problems that are associated with an institution.

We steer clear of them. We take our precautions. And whenever we notice those issues rearing their heads, then we can take care of them, you know.

So, in that sense, I don't think there is a problem with an institution. On the contrary, it is essential. Yes, that's true.

So long as we don't become overly bureaucratic, we don't become overly, you know, shall we say, impositional. Yes. Although to some degree, it must be there.

Otherwise, what does it mean to follow? That's true. It's interesting you mentioned about Buddhism. When I said our tradition within Hinduism or what we call as Hinduism, Shankaracharya might have been the first.

But within the broad Indian tradition, Buddhism definitely has that. In fact, it is said that Shankaracharya adopted this Sangha or adopted this Akhadas, Mathas, primarily to, in some ways, counter the influence of Buddhism. And Buddhism had it because in one sense, Buddhism began as largely a monastic religion.

And monasticism means they would have a particular place, a monastery, and that monastery became the institution. So, and from that point, it's going on. But it's interesting that Buddhism, although in one sense, it is also an organized religion, it is not perceived with the same negativity as the other organized religions are.

And that is possibly because it is perceived as more open for getting experiences and getting experiences. And one metaphor I try to use for explaining this is the need for institutionalization as well as the danger of institutionalization is like a river and a river bed. The river is basically the current of human consciousness, which is meant to go toward the divine.

The divine is like the ocean. And each of us is like one small trickle at the top of a mountain. So for one of us, for one trickle from the top of the mountain to go to the ocean, the chances are very less.

But if many trickles come together, then those trickles form a stream, the stream forms a river. And then the river can flow forcefully toward the ocean. So basically, and spiritually minded people, people with spiritual inclination, spiritual longings, some wanting to know God, to love God, they come together.

Then that is what is the river that is the Sangha. Now for the river to flow smoothly, the river creates a river bed. And the river bed is the institution.

So the river is the flow of consciousness toward the divine and the river bed is the institution. But the problem is as soon as the river bed is created, when so much water is flowing, then there are self-interested people who come and maybe build a dam over there and divert the water elsewhere. So there may be many people who come to spiritual, come to a spiritual path or spiritual organization for genuinely knowing God, but there are others who come for their ulterior motives.

And once somehow they gain power, then they can block or divert the spiritual energy of people. And that's how some kind of deviations or some kind of unwanted things can happen. So that vigilance is kept so that the damming doesn't happen or the dams are broken.

And whenever they happen, then, then without the bed, the rivers reaching the ocean is much more difficult than with the bed. So without an institution for an average individual, even if that person has some spiritual inclination to actually practice spirituality seriously and to make genuine advancement or to have authentic transformation alone is quite difficult. Right.

You know, I'll just make one point relating to the earlier discussion about institutions in the Vedic tradition. It didn't only start with Shankaracharya actually. Okay.

That is only in recent times. But if you look at a Ramayana, for example, there were Mathas there also. You know, the last section, the Uttarakhand, you will see the dog who comes to see Lord Ram in his Darbar.

You know, the whole story that he was previously a Mathagipati or the head of a Matha. Oh, okay, Mathagipati, yes. So the idea of a monastery and therefore some degree of institutionalization was there, has always been there.

But my understanding is that these things were rather loose set up. Apart from the monastery structure proper, institutionalization was rather amorphous. It was more open, you know, well ventilated.

Let's look at Vyasadev, you know, passing down or handing down the knowledge of the four Puranas and the various scriptures to his various disciples who then started their own schools. So there were sort of institutions, not in the sense that we understand them today. They were very loosely knit, perhaps small, but they were institutions of sorts.

So this has been there. And the point coming to the point that you just made now, you know, today in Kali Yuga, it is not possible for us to practice spiritual life on one's own. Therefore, all the more there is need for institutions.

In the earlier ages, even though institutions existed, perhaps they were not as well structured and formally organized as they are today. Because in those days, it was quite possible for people to individually go to the Himalayas and then practice their spiritual life. And also, you may have stages who went into the forest and a few disciples followed him.

And he lived in a kind of a small monastery there, leading a very reclusive life in the middle of the forest. So all of that was possible in those days. There was a whole culture of ashrams.

There were forests that were called Tapovana. You know, forests that were exclusively meant for such sages to go and reside in and perform their austerities and penances. So there was a whole such culture and ecosystem and infrastructure, so to speak, an eco-infrastructure and even a social infrastructure, because this was very much respected and part of the accepted culture.

Today, in this day and age, it is very difficult to do that in Kali Yuga. So we need Sangha, association. And, you know, when Sangha comes, as you rightly put it, then when more and more people come together, then you find the need.

Automatically, you will find the need for a Sangha. Yes. You will find the need for some sort of organization to start over there.

Let me give a simple example. Let's say there's one devotee. Okay, he goes in the middle of some country where there's absolutely no Krishna consciousness.

And in all the countries around also, there is nothing. And let's say for argument's sake also that he's not connected with mainstream, he's gone, he doesn't know, somehow he just heard about it, he started preaching. Now, he goes there, he starts and people come around him.

And some people are attracted and they start following his teachings. Now the number of people grows. And then they find that they need a place to congregate.

Because where do they have a place? He can't fit all in his home, so he has to have some place. But that place then costs money. And then the more the people that come, then if you follow a philosophy, you have to have forms of worship, you have to have literature, you have to have prasadam or sacred food.

All of this costs money. It also means there is a lot of intelligence that goes behind, you know, printing that literature, behind distributing that literature, behind even allocation of the different responsibilities and services for doing that. Then all the more need for the more money and more manpower, more organization of the different services and organization of resources.

All of that comes up. And in the modern day especially, the moment you have money coming in and you have resources coming in, the government is in the picture. So because it's public money you're dealing with, so therefore you must now submit your accounts to the government.

You are answerable to the government because you're taking money. So you have to register it as a legal entity, right? So you automatically, the moment your sangha increases, to increase the quality of the sangha in order to fulfill the very purposes for which that sangha exists, you have to do it in a well-organized way. And therefore from sangha, sangha will automatically come.

Some form of organization, however limited or crude it may be in the beginning, eventually as it evolves, it must form a structured organization. It will. Look at any mainstream religion.

At one point it started with one man. Yeah. There's Christianity or whether it is Islam, right, or even Buddhism.

It started with one person and then more and more people gathered around him. And as time passed, there was need felt to have a more organized structure around him. And therefore in Christianity then you had the Vatican and then the Pope and the whole hierarchy.

Then in Islam you had the caliphs. So it has to come. It's an inevitable outcome of the pursuit of spirituality.

Yes. Trying to pursue spirituality on one's own is extremely difficult, almost impossible. So you need sangha, sangha needs sangha.

So you can't avoid institutionalization. Even those people who are averse to institutional religion, if they continue on like this, eventually they start congregating together. They will make their own organization.

They may not live together, but for long there will be splinter groups that come off. Okay, so it has to happen. It's inevitable.

You can't avoid it. And there will be some who will always be there doing their own thing, so to speak, individually just pursuing their own path. People who are, let's say, dabbling, sometimes go to this one, sometimes that one, sometimes with this mystic, sometimes that yogi, sometimes this teacher or that.

There are some who may eventually get to identify with that particular sect or a group and start doing that. So, you know, it's to some degree inevitable. Yes, that's true.

I'm just thinking about this point itself that some kind of having structure or resources or infrastructure or practice of whatever we are practicing, that is required. So one reason why Buddhism is not seen as an organized religion is, although it has a monastery and it has a certain structure, it is not so much the physical structure that people recoil against, because in some ways, even spiritually minded people, they appreciate, say, going to Rome and looking at the beautiful cathedrals or coming to India and looking at the magnificent temples, and they consider that beholding these are spiritual experiences. It's not so much the physical structures as the structuring of beliefs and structuring of rituals.

This is what you should believe and this is how you should behave. That is where the institutionalization is perceived in a way that seems restrictive for people. And we have, for example, in the Christian tradition now, baptism is considered important, but there are big conflicts among different sects about how baptism is to be done, whether the head is to be dunked or water is to be sprinkled.

And there have been big conflicts now with respect to Protestants and Catholics. The conflicts were primarily on doctrines. Now, do we accept the Trinity? Do we accept Virgin Mary or not? So the aversion to institutionalization is not so much the infrastructure for practicing, but it's more to the ordering of beliefs and rituals, which eventually leads to sectarianism.

And that was just one point I had. And then I have one more point, but would you like to speak something about this? Then I'll move on. Even about Buddhism, what you're referring to is only the Tibetan Buddhism made popular by the Dalai Lama.

Okay. Now, generally in Buddhism, what do you have? You have things like the Eightfold Noble Path, which essentially tells you to be virtuous. And there are those steps, what you have to do, and that's kind of attractive.

It's nice, you know, especially the emphasis on nonviolence. It appeals. It appeals to people with some degree of refined intelligence because it's indicative of some progressive, you know, kind of thinking or culture.

And also in Tibetan Buddhism, there is a lot of mystique attached to that. You know, in the Himalayas and there's something very mystical and those mystical chants. And, you know, plus it's not something where you impose many types of restrictions on your life.

That is true. There are not too many types of rituals to be done in your home. It's just a kind of meditation.

And the meditation is also many times not very structured. It's a kind of a, you know, vague kind of meditation. And so because of that, the vagueness of it and the looseness of it and the charm of it, the mystique of it all combines to make it attractive.

If you look at other countries where Buddhism is the predominant religion, whether it is Sri Lanka or Myanmar and such places, they tend to also act or respond to situations just like any other religious group would do. And that has been in the news over the last few years. So, you know, because the majority and there are issues in every country of some sort.

So there are people who are critical of that aspect also, because now it has become an organized religion there. Perhaps the way that the Dalai Lama presents it, it's not that much of an oppressive or something to be identified with in a material sense. You know, so I guess that's some points about Buddhism.

It appears non-sectarian because there's no particular God. We don't ascribe to, you know, say Krishna or Ram or Allah. It's a kind of a voidist kind of philosophy.

Ultimately, everything is zero. So it's kind of appealing to people of a certain intellectual type. Because they don't like worship in the traditional sense, worship of a God, going to a church, going to a temple or a mosque or something like that.

So here is something where you don't believe in a God even, actually. It's something where the philosophy is ultimately nothing exists. So it's a kind of, you know, thing that intellectually may appeal to many people.

Whereas, say if you go and tell people Krishna is a Supreme Personality of God, they tend to feel that you are sectarian because you're talking about a Hindu God, or you're talking about a particular form of God, or you say God has a particular name, or even that God exists. So these other kind of things are more easier to digest for certain kinds of people who have been brought up in the modern era. That's right, definitely.

And it's valid that Buddhism has many different variants. In fact, if you consider India, Buddhism was more adopted as a political move by Ambedkar. And this Buddhism actually has very little to do with Buddha.

In a sense, it is, yeah, so there are very different variations. And there is one version that has become popular. Another point about the institutions, when you're mentioning that institutionalization is required and even the hermitages in the Ramayana, there are also some kind of institution that in sociology of religion, they talk about three degrees of institution or organization, they call it soft core, medium core and hardcore.

So, and basically it is said that Gaudiya Vaishnavism itself began as soft core. So soft core means that there is a general understanding, general agreement about the object of worship. But beyond that, there is variety.

So, for example, after Chaitanya Mahaprabhu departed, then there are three broad places, Utkal, Orissa, and then Mayapur, Bengal and Vrindavan, where his followers were prominently there. And his followers evolved in their own way. There are the different kinds of Kirtan, Narottam Das Chakraharitam Kirtan style, other had the Kirtan style.

So there was, they all worship Lord Chaitanya and worship Krishna as Lord Chaitanya taught. But beyond that, there was a broad scope for individuality or localization, we could say. That's soft core.

Then medium core is where there is some central authority, which mandates certain broad theological and liturgical, liturgical is practical practices of religion, theological, liturgical boundaries, parameters. And then the hardcore religion is, or hardcore institution or organization is where practically everything is determined by a central authority. So, Bhaktivinoda Thakur in our tradition, Jiva Goswami conceptualized the Vishwavishnava Rajasamha.

Bhaktivinoda Thakur developed the concept further, but he also had his, he was working and he did not really have the time, have the resources, the bandwidth to implement it. So Bhaktivinoda Thakur was the person who implemented it and Prabhupada carried it forward. So what they implemented is more of a medium core, not so much a hardcore.

Because if we consider Prabhupada instituted ISKCON in such a way that each temple is almost independent in its own way. There are broad agreements which had to be followed. So to some extent soft core or medium core is what is will be required.

But when it becomes a little hardcore where everything is mandated and there is not much room for adaptation to local needs or requirements, then that is where the problem comes up. So just one point with this. One of the reasons they say Christianity has spread so far.

Now Christians also, there are many Christians who try to prove who we are actually spiritual, but not religious and that we are universal. So they say that Jesus recommended the singing the praises of God. But he did not mandate any language.

He did not mandate any particular. He did not tie Christianity to a particular specifics. And that is why it could spread across the world and it could reach many many people.

And now this is of course the Christians contrast this with Muslims. They say Islam is very much tied to the Arabic culture. And in some ways wherever people follow Islam, to some extent they are expected to follow some things about Arabic culture.

And now in our tradition when Chaitanya Mahaprabhu's followers went to Manipur and they made Manipur into Vaishnav state. Still the Manipuri Vaishnavas, they had their own culture. They had their diet, they had their Kirtan style, they had their dance way, they had their dress.

So this is some indication that Chaitanya Mahaprabhu did not mandate a hardcore kind of religion. It was more of a soft core or his followers made it to a medium core. Just a few thoughts.

I think that is a point of discussion. See Chaitanya Mahaprabhu was very very particular about the proper understanding and dissemination of the correct Siddhanta. Yes, that is true.

The topical conclusion. So he took great pains to explain it to his chief followers like Sarvabhauma Bhattacharya, Sarup Damodar, Rupan Sanathan Goswamis and so on. And it was they who faithfully then transmitted it ahead.

Rupan Sanathan wrote books, Sarup Damodar didn't write books except for his notes. But otherwise these followers basically spoke or wrote and propounded the clear Siddhanta of Sri Chaitanya Mahaprabhu. Now there are episodes that we can see from Chaitanya Charita Amrita where Mahaprabhu himself and his followers like Sarup Damodar were not at all pleased when somebody spoke something that was opposite Siddhanta.

That is in which there was a wrong conclusion. And there are several instances like this that we can see in Chaitanya Charita Amrita. So there were people like Sarup Damodar who were designated to filter out these things.

So there were devotees who were senior who were kind of watchdogs to see that the wrong kind of philosophical conclusions would not infiltrate into the community of devotees. So they were guardians. Watchdog is perhaps not the right word.

I think it may be misunderstood. I would say guardians. The guardians of the faith of the philosophical conclusions to ensure that people don't come and pollute the pure teachings of Chaitanya Mahaprabhu with their own ideas because that is the human tendency.

To start speculating and to try something new and to introduce something else into the philosophy. And despite all the alertness of the Acharyas there still we find that there were certain dark periods in the history of Gaudiya Vaishnavism at times. And fortunately sooner or later some of the other great Acharyas came along.

Right after Chaitanya Mahaprabhu all the Sikh Goswamis were there. They were holding a loft, the banner of Sri Chaitanya Mahaprabhu. And Jnanava Mata was considered the leader of all the Vaishnavas.

And then gradually then there came Narottam Das Thakur before that Krishnadas Kaviraj Goswami. And then as it went on to Baladevidya Bhushan before him Vishwanath Chakravarti Thakur. Then again there was a gap.

Then Bhaktivinoda Thakur came along. So at each time in between these phases there were dark phases where many people entered and presented their own ideas. Therefore the upper Sampradayas, the unauthorized Sampradayas they kind of came in.

So Aula, Bhaula, Karta, Bhaja and Prakrita Sahajiyas and so on and so forth. So at the time of Srila Bhaktisiddhanta he identified 13 such upper Sampradayas. So there could be others that formed in the course of time.

So there was a monitoring. There was a system to identify. There were benchmarks.

And there were devotees whose function it was or whose sacred responsibility it was to safeguard the community of devotees of the Sangha and indeed the informal Sangha from corruption with the wrong philosophical conclusions. But at the same time it was a loose-knit kind of thing. Yes, that's true.

The Gaudiya Mata or ISKCON is much more structured, much more formal. For example today in ISKCON if somebody were to go around ISKCON temple speaking philosophy that was completely wrong sooner or later he would be stopped. Somebody could get noticed and then he would be prohibited from giving classes.

So the institution serves this useful purpose that it also protects the integrity and the purity of the teachings. The original teachings of Sri Chaitanya Mahaprabhu or whoever is the Acharya. For the Sri Sampradaya it is Ramanujacharya's teachings and so on.

So the institution serves that valuable purpose. And this valuable purpose is not available to those who follow the SPNR system because they will just do whatever they like. Yes, that's true.

Preservation is such an important point and even if the church says that Christianity is not tied to a particular culture but they have their authorities who try to protect. In fact, in the Catholic Church when books are published they have something called imprimatur that this book does not contain any harmful doctrines and they want to give such authorization and say author seek that authorization. In fact, institutionalization is needed.

Earlier you talked for an individual to practice given the world's current is so different and opposite. It is required for an individual to practice. It's also required for the individual to have something pure to practice.

Otherwise the tradition may not be available at all. And if we use the word institutionalization in the sense of some kind of regulation being created then without that it won't be, it will be like a free for all. There will be nothing left for people to practice and become purified.

Yes, so this brings us into a territory that is perhaps relevant to your second point the question which you started our discussion with. The first point was where SPNR is right. Yes.

The second point you raised was where it is deficient. Yes, that is true. We are more or less talking about that.

So I think the important question to the topic to discuss now is this that it is possible to be religious without being spiritual. There are many people who are ritualistically religious. Yes.

They may follow the rituals of their religious faith very assiduously but they do not understand the inner spiritual core teachings and because of that it has not resulted in much transformation in their heart and in their character, in their attitudes, in the ways of looking at life, in their world view and so on. There has not been much purification, let us say. So because they look at the externals, they look at the rituals, they look at their bodily identification with a particular faith as being the primary thing.

So it is indeed possible to be religious without being spiritual and perhaps that is one reason why the SPNR category has… Yes. But also I think the question that needs to be asked is is it possible to be spiritual without being religious? Hmm. The first question is very clear, yes.

Is it possible to be religious without being spiritual? Yes, and we would see many, many examples all over in various religious communities and faiths. But what is really relevant to our discussion on SPNR is can you really be spiritual without being religious? So what does it mean to be spiritual? Let's talk about that. How would we define being spiritual? What is spirituality? We did speak briefly about what it means to be religious or what a religion is.

A religion is one that believes in a particular divinity, in a particular God. There are certain set customs and traditions to follow. There are processes of worship to follow.

There are codes of conduct. There are sets of books that must be accepted. There are personalities who must be followed, who come in some kind of a hierarchy or a lineage of some sort.

Okay. So there are also institutions that are formed as a result of that. So that is religion as we understand it.

But what is spirituality? How would we really define spirituality? Okay. That is the question that we have to address. Yes.

Generally, it's a very important point. Now, I often talk about like a four quadrant structure where on the x-axis is religious, y-axis is spiritual. So we can have people who are not spiritual, not religious.

So they are materialistic. So people who are religious but not spiritual, people are religious but not, they'll be ritualistic. Then we have people who are, if they are spiritual but not religious.

So basically it is usually they are sentimental or quite relativistic. I'll come to that. And then the fourth quadrant is spiritual and religious, which is actually transformational.

So the word spiritual from what I've seen, it has three different senses. One is many people use spiritual as referring to some state of mind. Anything that makes me feel good.

Anything that makes me feel calm. So they feel, oh, I went to that hill station and I saw that sunset. I felt so spiritual about it.

So spiritual is at one level thought of as associated with calming emotions. It's a state of mind. Now from the Bhagavad Gita's perspective, spiritual refers to a level of reality.

There is material reality and there is spiritual reality. There is matter and spirit. So it's not just a state of mind, but it's a level of reality different from our normal level of reality.

Now the word spiritual is also used sometimes in the first sense itself. But I just repeat that it's in terms of motivation, energy. This is the spirit of the country.

So for example, independence was not for many people, it's not just a political struggle. It is also a spiritual struggle. It felt that the spirit of India will be awakened.

So spirit refers to energy or driving vision, something like that. Again, it's associated with emotions. But spiritual also refers to spirituality and also refer to a process.

So it's a state of mind. It's a level of reality. It's a driving energy and it's a process by which one attains a higher level of reality.

So for most people, that means one metaphor I use is that if there's a bottom of the mountain, top of the mountain, so that the bottom of the mountain is material consciousness. The top of the mountain is spiritual consciousness. Then the process which will take us from the bottom of the mountain to the top of the mountain, that also is spirituality.

So it depends on what context somebody is using. Now when people talk about in the general sense, the spiritual, they generally refer to it in the second sense that it's like a state of mind. So I'm open to the experience.

I get some experiences which make me feel connected, which make me feel calm, which may make me feel blissful. And then also some virtues are developed through that. So can we be spiritual without being religious? I can go into that.

But do you have any other points about what the word spiritual or spirituality means? Yes, actually the word spirituality today has many vague connotations. Yeah. And just as, you know, it is confused with piety in some cases.

People think to give, to perform philanthropic or altruistic activities is being spiritual. That's one school of thought. Some people think like that, that this is a spiritual activity.

Some people think of spirituality as some kind of a supernormal or an extraordinary kind of an experience. Yeah. Kind of difficult to define, difficult to describe, but some kind of an emotion, you know.

And there are various other such conceptions of spirituality. And the problem with such definitions or understandings of spirituality is that they are vague, number one. There is no clarity there.

And number two, they confuse the material with the spiritual. For example, altered states of consciousness can easily be achieved and are achieved by various types of intoxicants. So when Srila Prabhupada went to America, he did encounter the hippies who were, and many of them and some of their thought leaders, so to speak, were also on the forefront propagating various types of hallucination-inducing drugs, which they perceived as being spiritual.

Yeah. So, you know, they confuse an intoxicated state of mind as being a spiritual experience. So this kind of problem arises.

Or even ideas of seeing, let's say, good music or seeing a beautiful sunrise or a sunset, and that's such a spiritual experience. So they're confusing the mind and confusing the mode of goodness with spirituality. So essentially the problem with these understandings or definitions of spirituality is that they confuse the material with the spiritual, and they are characterized by a lack of clarity of understanding of what really the word spiritual is.

They're just vague understandings. If I were to define spirituality in a simple way, it's still very hard to make it very simple, but I'll try to make it as simple as possible. I think I agree with you that it is a process.

I would say it is a process by which one understands one's true nature as an eternal spirit soul, which is beyond the body, mind, and intelligence. And it is also the process by which one acts in accordance with such an identity, an understanding of the identity. And it is also the experience that follows such actions.

So essentially I am including in this definition without stating it overtly, the sambandha, abhidheya, and prayojana, by which all Vedic knowledge has to be understood. Yes, so sambandha means understanding who we are and who is Krishna, what is the material world, and what are the interrelationships between this. Abhidheya is the process, the actions that take place in accordance with that.

And prayojana is the experience, is the result of acting in that particular way. So I would say spirituality first of all means there must be clarity and correctness in the understanding of one's true identity as an eternal spirit soul who is beyond matter, who is beyond body, beyond mind, beyond intelligence. So that's the first part of the definition.

The second part is you just don't stop there, you don't restrict yourself to an intellectual understanding of your true identity. Then at the next level you want to also act on that platform of that identity. And the third part is what happens when you act in a certain way, there is a certain result or there are certain results.

There are experiences that come as a result of such actions. So then the spirituality includes the relishing of such experiences as well. But I distinguish such experiences from the experiences that are vague and that may be induced by drugs or by some vague form of meditation or something like that.

So therefore this I would say is a threefold definition of spirituality. And therefore if anybody says that he or she wants to be spiritual without being religious, my humble opinion would be it is not possible. Because religion implies some degree of authority.

That knowledge must come from an authorized source. It's not something that I can speculate about or I can just concoct. So I cannot concoct my ways of meditation.

Because spirituality in the modern world is understood as being some type of meditation. It's synonymous with meditation but what constitutes meditation exactly is not clear. And everybody has different understandings of what the word meditation implies.

For us Srila Prabhupada was very clear about what meditation meant. So therefore without having some concrete and very clear and authentic source of information on what constitutes spirituality and how one can become spiritual and what one can expect if one actually becomes spiritual, everything else will be just speculation and concoction. There may be some areas of overlap between their concocted version of spirituality and the authentic spirituality.

But that may be only coincidental. So what is the basis, what is the foundational platform on which they base their spirituality? It can't be something whimsical, it has to be something authentic. If there is a method for doing anything in life, for being a doctor there is a method, for cooking a meal there is a method.

You can experiment with different methods but still there are certain types of protocols to be followed. You may vary your dishes, you may vary the ingredients but there are certain logical steps to be followed in cooking any dish. So similarly in spirituality, why should spirituality be, even if it's an individual experience which it is, there is a subjective element there, a very strong subjective element there, but it has to be based on some objective criteria which are imparted by some superior source.

It cannot be something that is just devised by our own fertile brains. Therefore, to conclude, I would say that it is not possible to be genuinely spiritual without being religious. And I clarify the meaning of the word religious being as something that is coming from the Supreme Lord, who is the original spiritual being, something that is transmitted in a bona fide succession of great teachers, something that is based on the foundations of a philosophy that is given in certain authentic books that come from that supreme being and which is commented upon and explained by the teachers in the succession.

And then they describe various other methods or processes to follow. That constitutes religion. And religion has, as I said before at the beginning, at its core a spiritual essence, which is the purpose.

Yes. So to conclude, therefore I feel it is definitely possible to be religious without being spiritual, and that is the case with many people. But truly speaking, it is not possible to be spiritual without being religious.

Yes. You know, another way of looking at it could be, you mentioned cooking. If you consider medicine or health, you also mentioned that.

To say that I want to be spiritual without being religious is like saying I want to be healthy without taking any treatment. If somebody is sick right now, then you have to follow some treatment. And of course the treatment has to be authorized.

So if people associate the word religion with narrow-mindedness and intolerance and fanaticism, then yes, we don't have to be religious in that way. But if you use the word religious in the sense of being committed to a process, just like somebody may say that, you know, I have been exercising religiously every day. Then the word religious is associated with certain commitment.

So in that sense, religious is required. Because even if one wants to equate spirituality with some virtues, some experiences of a higher reality, how are we going to develop them? How are we going to attain those experiences? Sometimes I might be very calm and composed and sometimes I might just get very angry. Because the anartha of anger, the human fallibility or human feeling of anger, is still there within my heart and I have not purified myself of it.

So if I want to be consistently forgiving, I need to follow some process by which my heart gets cleansed. And that process which we follow for purifying and elevating our consciousness, that is in a sense religion. So if somebody refuses to follow that, then it's going to be very difficult for them to move from a diseased state to a healthy state.

So somebody might have occasional spiritual experiences, even if they're not religious. Somebody might go to a place like Vrindavan. Somebody might come to a beautiful, sacred architecture they might see.

They might come to a kirtan and they might experience something spiritual. So a sporadic spiritual experience might be possible without being religious. But if one wants to have a steady spiritual experience or a steady spiritual state of consciousness, then one has to follow a process, an authorized process that transforms the heart.

So in that sense, we need to be spiritual and religious. So often the difference is sometimes what I find is if we say directly that you cannot be spiritual without being religious, people have a very strong negative connotation of religion. I want to be spiritual.

I don't want to be religious. So now that negative connotation was not there even a few decades ago. Now Einstein and other scientists, Einstein has quoted that sciences, the arts and the religions are all roots of the same tree, are all fruits of the same tree of human knowledge.

So the word religion didn't have that negative connotation, but now it has got a significant negative connotation. So maybe a qualifier of what we mean by religion, that some process has to be followed, some authorized process for transforming the heart. So if one says without following any process, I will become spiritual, that is not possible.

But can we while following a process be open-minded? Yeah, that's possible. We can follow a process and we can acknowledge that there are other processes which also may be valid. This is where another point we could say that Krishna consciousness has a strength over other paths.

The Christianity, at least mainstream Christianity says Jesus is the only way. And that strikes people as narrow-minded. But we can say that we are committed to following this path.

Just like there can be Ayurveda, there can be allopathy, there can be naturopathy, there can be homeopathy, there can be different methods of treatment. So these all can work. But if one has to grow, one has to become healthy, one has to follow one process diligently.

So we as, within our Bhakti Yoga tradition, we can be religious and still be broad-minded. We can be committed to our process, while also respecting that there are other processes which can also elevate people's consciousness. So we can be open-minded and still be committed.

Any thoughts on this? Sure, definitely. It is very important that we explain what real or true religion is. Yes.

Because of the way the word religion is understood by people today, and the way it has been represented today and even for centuries before this, people are often averse to the very mention of the word religion. And therefore they would rather not have anything to do with it. But I think it is our duty to explain what true religion is based on the Bhagavad Gita and Srimad Bhagavatam.

Then I think that issue would be resolved. Earlier, the two words spiritual and religious were used more or less synonymously. One thing I would say here also is that, in the process of being spiritual, there is a transformation, there is a kind of progression, shall we say, from being religious to spiritual.

If at all you make a distinction between religious and spiritual, what makes religious transform into spiritual? Now, if you consider religion as being the performance of certain activities, the acceptance of certain beliefs, and certain personalities and books, etc., etc., then it requires a certain commitment to that. We use the word commitment. So that is indeed correct.

So the first part of being religious is that, and that holds also for one who wants to be spiritual, because you must have some degree of commitment. But I would take things two steps forward, and I would say that commitment is necessary but not sufficient. Because commitment or consistency, consistency means you keep doing it, right? If you are committed, you will do something consistently.

So commitment and consistency is a step, first step, but even though it is important, if you remain at that level, without the other two levels that I am just about to mention, then it will just remain religious and not spiritual. But what is needed to make that religion transform into its pure essence of spirituality is when you add two things. One is the proper understanding or the conception of those practices, and why are you committed to this? You are committed to doing a particular thing.

What is the purpose behind it? What exactly is it that I am doing? For example, I was hearing Srila Prabhupada's conversation in 1973 in London with some gentlemen, and somehow the topic of a certain politician, a very well-regarded political leader in India came up, who was part of the political freedom struggle of India. And he was known as a very devout person, and he regarded the Bhagavad Gita very highly. Prabhupada appreciated many things about him, his philosophy for economics and village self-sufficiency, etc.

He very much appreciated that. Although when it came to his spiritual understanding of the Bhagavad Gita, Prabhupada said that he didn't have the proper understanding of Bhagavad Gita. So because somebody asked him the question that, did he go to Goloka Vrindavan, or rather did he go to the spiritual world, not Goloka Vrindavan.

Did he go to the spiritual world because he is said to have chanted the name of Lord Ram at the time of his death? So Prabhupada made this important point that he was pious, because he was constantly or he was very often chanting the name of Ram for a long time, for many, many years. So definitely unless one is pious, one cannot do that. And by doing that also one becomes pious.

But, Prabhupada said, he did not have clear understanding of Ram. Now, what I'm saying now is not what Prabhupada said further, but I'm just elaborating on what I think Prabhupada meant by saying he didn't understand what Ram meant. So, probably Prabhupada meant to say that he didn't understand that the name of Ram is non-different from Ram, number one.

Probably he didn't understand that Ram is a supreme personality of Godhead who is ultimately a person. He is not just something impersonal, not just some spiritual light. Probably he didn't understand very clearly that when Ram descends into this world, he comes in a self-same spiritual body.

It's not that the impersonal has taken on a material form called Ram. That Ram is not just a superhuman, you know, person who is by the philosophy of anthropomorphism considered God. So there are so many misunderstandings.

So to have the correct understanding of Ram means to be freed from all these misconceptions and misunderstandings and be correctly situated in one's mind on who Ram is or who Krishna is. What is Ram's name? What is Krishna's name? So that understanding or the correct conception is also very necessary to make that transformation from religious into its spiritual essence, right? And even that is not sufficient to my mind. What you also need is a correct consciousness.

For example, someone may know that Krishna is a supreme personality of Godhead. He is spiritual and, you know, all that we believe in, that we understand from the Bhagavatam and Gita as presented by Srila Prabhupada to us. But if, let's say, I start worshipping Krishna for some material purpose or I start chanting the holy name for some position, some name and fame, some prestige or something like that.

So then that is a corruption of the original pure spiritual process. So to the extent that I introduce some selfish desires, some material desires into that process, I have materialized it. I have made it materialistic.

So to that degree, it has now come just to the point of religion and not spirituality. So I would say that to make the process of religion become completely synonymous with spirituality, there must be not only commitment to the process and consistency in following the process, number one, there must also be the proper understanding, proper conception of the philosophy and the application of that philosophy. And number three, it must all be done with the correct pure consciousness, devoid of any selfish interest.

And because Krishna consciousness, the definition of uttama bhakti, you know, anyabhilashitashunyam jnanakarmadyanavrtam anukulyena krishnanushilanam bhaktiruttama And with this, I think we come to the third point you have raised right at the beginning of the talk is to where bhakti comes in to resolve this kind of a contradiction or an apparent divergence between religion and spirituality. And the process of uttama bhakti, the concept of uttama bhakti, as defined by Srila Rupa Goswami, really harmonizes the two. Here is the perfect blend or shall we say confluence of religion and spirituality.

It is religion because you're believing in a Supreme Personality of Godhead. It's religion because it is anushilanam, anu referring to following the acharyas, you do it whimsically. Anu also refers to the fact that you're consistently doing it.

Shilanam refers to certain practices. But it's not a vague commitment, it is to Krishna. It has to be, and consciousness comes in in terms of anukulyena, something very favorably done to please Krishna.

And also then the idea of being free from karma and jnana. This one verse encapsulates the perfect confluence and the harmony of religion and spirituality. So this verse, now there's also one more point which just came to me that in the bhakti understanding, religion is not just a process to get to spirituality, that is religion also in a sense continues at the spiritual level.

We chant the names of Krishna now and we chant them eternally. But it is with greater attraction, greater absorption. So all of us… Yes, religion blends into spirituality and becomes one with it when it reaches its essence.

And at that perfectional stage, certain other aspects of religious practices may be given up because of one who has attained the perfection. But still he or she will continue to do the other practices. Okay.

Then we have to start on the spiritual journey by becoming religious. And then as we keep practicing religiously or keep practicing the religion, the spirituality will start increasing. So the commitment, the proper conception will come, the proper motivation will come.

And then in a sense, this whole verse is about bhakti. So it culminates in devotion or love, which is the ultimate spiritual experience. So the essence of spirituality is that, like earlier we talked about the vagueness, but in our tradition, the essence of spirituality is like a very, not vagueness, but a very vivid and vibrant love for Krishna, which manifests in many tangible transformations.

There can be many different kinds of spiritual experiences, but the experience of Krishna is considered to be the highest experience. And so when the process of religion followed with commitment, followed with proper conceptions and followed with proper motivations. So conception is more of how we view the reality.

Motivation is ultimate reality. Motivation is why do I want to approach that reality? And then when we do that, then we will experience that love for Krishna. And that can, for a devotee, it's a constant and constantly increasing experience.

Anandam buddhi vardhanam, as it's said. The ocean of joy is also increasing. So then at that point, one becomes purely, one doesn't give up religion, but one, in a sense, transcends any of the sectarianism or narrow mindedness or any of those things that are associated with certain attachments to externals.

Bhaktivinoda Thakur talks about the saragrahi and the bharavahi. One who is the essence seeking and one who is the burden carrying. So the more one actually experiences spiritual state, then many of the contradictions, you know, this is right, this is wrong.

Those sort of things get transcended. So if, in a sense, to round off the discussion, just a couple of questions and maybe you can respond. I'll also add a few things.

So in today's world, when people have the apprehension that religion is used for materialist purposes or religion used to manipulate me, religion is used for, or organized religion is used for abusing, and I want to have my space and my individuality. I want to grow spiritually, but I don't want to lose my individuality. So that fear of loss of individuality, how does the bhakti tradition address that? Well, I think the bhakti tradition is just the perfect tradition that balances the need for individual experience and the collective spirit.

Responsibility, you could say. Yeah, I mean the collective spirit in the sense of being in the association of devotees and serving the devotees, hearing from them, right, serving Krishna in their association. So the progress, the individual is tied up with the collective.

All the bhakti is a very, very intense, subjective spiritual experience. It is very much also related to the environment. Environment, I mean, of the devotees around us.

So if you look at the great prayers of many devotees, in the Bhagavatam and elsewhere, they say, we just want to serve the devotees. And there are cases when the Lord has appeared in front of them, and said, what benediction do you want? I just want to serve your devotees, your pure devotees. That's what I want.

So therefore it shows that even though bhakti is a very subjective experience, it is not to be seen in isolation. It is not something to be done in solitude. It is something that very much essentially is connected to a kind of a group activity.

And therefore the process for perfection at this stage is Sankirtana. Samyak Kirtana. Bahubhir milpa kirtayati iti Sankirtanam.

So when many people come together and glorify the Lord, it is Sankirtanam. And the word Samyak indicates perfection. So glorification of Krishna is a spiritual activity if it is done in the proper consciousness, in the proper method and so on, in a bona fide way.

And that becomes even more perfect when it is done collectively. So bhakti blends the individual and the collective in the most perfect way together. Beautiful.

So it is neither completely individualistic, and neither is it completely, you know, neither does it completely disregard the individual and just place emphasis on the collective. And before I forget, I mentioned one verse, right? The Anyabhilashita Shunyam verse, as a verse that really harmonizes religion and spirituality. And there's another verse that comes to my mind which also does the same, which is, Savai pum sam paro dharmo yato bhakti radhoksha je ahai tukya vyavahita yaiyatma suprasiddhati Now the Savai pum sam paro dharmo, the word dharma in this context generally refers to religion, or religious occupation or religious activity of some sort.

So there are, para dharma, supreme dharma indicates that there are varieties of dharmas. And para indicates that this is a supreme religious occupation. So the supreme religion is that by which loving service is obtained to the supreme personality of Godhead.

So here is where we harmonize. You say, yes, bhakti is a kind of service to the Lord, is a kind of religion, but it's a supreme religion. It is devoid of the inebriaties associated with mundane religiosity.

It is not tainted with a selfishness that characterizes mundane religion. And therefore, avyavahita, or apratihata, ahai tukya, it is causeless, meaning it is no material motivation, and it is uninterrupted, which means consistency. You have to keep on doing it.

And finally, when it says, you know, to satisfy the self, it has to be apratihata and ahai tukya, yaiyatma suprasiddhati, atma suprasiddhati, it pleases the atma, the soul, the self. So this perfection of religion blends seamlessly into the spiritual, because now the soul is completely satisfied. So the perfection of spirituality, the perfected stage of spirituality, is when the soul is completely satisfied.

So here is where religion seamlessly blends in with the spiritual, and there is no distinction there. When religion reaches its finest spiritual essence, it is bhakti, pure bhakti. Beautiful.

So I would say these are the two verses, of course there are many more, but two of the more popular and commonly known verses from our bhakti tradition, which would harmonize these two terms, religion and spirituality. Another verse I thought of is, this is beautiful, I just reminded you, from the other perspective, that if somebody has a concern that religion is narrow-minded, and I don't want to be narrow-minded, then sarva-dharman prityajya mam ekam sharanam vraja, so mam ekam sharanam vraja is the essence, and if any conception of religiosity is stopping us from the essence of loving God, then that can be given up. So if we want to say, spiritual is mam ekam sharanam vraja, and religious is anything that stops us from doing mam ekam sharanam vraja, then yes, we have to give up that.

So in that sense, sarva-dharman prityajya mam ekam sharanam vraja could be a verse which talks about being spiritual, and not being religious in the sense of not religion, not letting religion come in the way of being spiritual. Don't let religious narrow-mindedness or sectarianism that come in the way of your spirituality. Yes.

At one level, so it's just approaching it from a different perspective. Yes. I would say sarva-dharman prityajya is spirituality and also the topmost religion.

Yes. And sarva-dharman prityajya, or rather mam ekam sharanam vraja, I beg your pardon, is the topmost religion and spirituality. And sarva-dharman prityajya, the other dharmas that Krishna asks us to give up, they represent the lower degrees of religion.

Yes, that's true. So religion has multifarious aspects and is multileveled. Yes, that's true.

And then there are many verses in the Bhagavatam which are in many ways quite non-sectarian. If you consider, if those who want to be spiritual, they are concerned about virtues, then the virtues of a sadhu that I described, these are universally appreciable qualities. Somebody who is tolerant, who is compassionate, who is forgiving, who is calm.

So at that spiritual level, we will, if somebody is sectarian, narrow-minded, they can't be tolerant, they can't be peaceful. If I consider that you are, I will want to destroy, if somebody will want to destroy the other person, can't tolerate, be peaceful. So these qualities indicate that one has gone beyond the narrow-mindedness associated with religion, that some people associate with religion.

Yes. And the earlier point about individuality, I was just reading Gopal Champu and there, in an explanation of that, it is described that in the Gopi Gita, it is, the plural is used, Gopya Uchuhu, that the Gopis speak. But Jiva Goswami explains that each of the verses in the Gopi Gita is spoken by one-one Gopi.

Different Gopis. Each Gopi is speaking, she is expressing her own heart. By the same time, she is also representing the group.

So there is both individuality and community coming together. Each Gopi expresses her heart's devotion and longing for Krishna to come back into their association once again. By the same time, the Gopi is also expressing the longing of the whole community.

So individuality is not lost, but in a sense, individuality is purely manifested in the community of those who are spiritualists. So we could say what we, what people often consider as their individuality is associated often with their conditionings. You can say, I want to be my individual.

That means I want to dress like that. I want to put a cap like that. I want to put a goggles like this.

These are very peripheral to us. The real individuality is not the individuality associated with the body and the mind, but the individuality associated with the soul. And that manifests purely in the path of Bhakti and its perfection.

Yes. The perfection of individuality is expressed at the stage of topmost devotion. And each Gopi has a unique personal relationship with Krishna.

That is where the individualism is protected, nurtured, valued, even by Krishna. And therefore you will find even in a particular group, there are many individuals with different moods. So there is a lot of diversity in the spiritual world, as there is here.

And Prabhupada makes this point many times. Variegatedness and diversity exists completely across the spiritual world. There are different mellows.

And even within each mellow, there are different varieties there. Since you spoke about the Gopis, there are different groups of Gopis. Yes.

Each with a certain mood. And even within that particular group, there are so many with slightly varying individual traits. So there is so much diversity.

There is so much expression of individuality in Bhakti. But ultimately there is a unity. That unity is because of the pure devotion for Krishna.

So the ultimate perfection of unity and diversity resides here, in pure devotion. So there is individuality and there is collectivism. Yes.

There are groups, but there is also individuality. When you try to have one extreme or the other, then you end up with some kind of an imbalance. Yes.

And even, just to give a slightly tangential remark, the same thing was reflected in political and economic philosophies in the world today also. You have the modern capitalist, liberal democracies going to one extreme of individual freedom. And you have the communist, kind of commune-oriented systems that are extremely collectivist in orientation.

They represent the two extremes. But the Vedic tradition essentially represents a harmony between the individual and the collective. A suitable blend of the two.

So that should also be our social philosophy. Because ultimately what is found in this world is also a kind of a reflection of what's there in the spiritual world. That was just an incidental comment but yes.

So just, actually this could be a whole elaborate subject about how in the political world or in today's world, how the two extremes of individuality and community go in different directions. Extremes. But one concern which people have about losing their individuality when they start practicing a religion is that if I just start doing everything that everyone else is doing, if I start thinking and believing what everyone else is doing, then will that make me lose my individuality? So, going back to the earlier metaphor of medicine, it's if say a dozen people are sick, then they all at one level follow a standard treatment if they have a similar sickness.

But once they become healthy, then each of them will have their own life, their own career, their own personality and that will manifest automatically. So the standardization of the treatment is not meant to meant to suppress their individuality. It is actually meant to restore their health and energy and then their individuality can manifest in a natural way.

So, excellent analogy. And Srila Prabhupada also spoke about this many times about the jaundice, the use of the jaundice. So, same kind of analogy.

That's very appropriate. If a sick person decides that why should I listen to a doctor? You know, I'll just do whatever I like myself. That person might well end up harming himself or herself more, even gravely perhaps.

Yeah. So also on the spiritual path, out of some kind of a fear for following some authority or conforming to some group, if an individual tries to just experimentally, speculatively, whimsically, try to find some chart out his or her own path, then it's very risky. Yeah.

And it's not just… Yes, Maharaj. I'm just taking this point further. It's not just what to speak of charting out some other path.

Even if they follow the limbs of a right path, but without proper guidance, that can also backfire. It's like if I take the right medicine, but I don't take it under prescription, I might take it too much. I might take it too little.

But there is that verse that So it's significant. It is saying that we are doing Harer Bhakti only. We are doing some kind of devotion only.

But even devotion can cause disruption individually and socially. It's like even a medical treatment can have contrainductive effects and there can be… So the right process has to be followed with the right guidance. Correct.

Absolutely. Therefore, that one Paribhasa Sutra that defining Sutra of the Bhakti Rasamrita Sindhu is this Anyabhilashita Shunyam thing. Because it covers all these points.

You have to be under guidance. It has to be following the footsteps of the Acharyas. It has to be Krishna.

It has to be done favorably. It has to be without material motives. So everything is encapsulated in that one verse.

Yes. Yes. I never thought of the… I knew about analytical elements of that verse.

But if you put it in the metaphor of a therapy then everything fits in beautifully. Yes. So maybe one last question I have.

While one is practicing Bhakti we know that ultimately the individuality will manifest at a pure level. But while one is practicing Bhakti how much room is there for one to express one's individuality. So is it that some people who come from a more individualistic ethos they will find it excessively difficult to practice Bhakti and those who come from a society or a country or a culture where it is more of community centered and they will find it easier to practice Bhakti.

And can Bhakti also be can Bhakti practice also be customized to accommodate the needs of or the backgrounds of particular people. Let's continue with the analogy of medical treatment. Yes.

The question is with regard to how much they follow. Right. How much they? The individual they follow Yeah.

Description of the doctor. Yes. Yes.

The doctor may prescribe something and the person says well I'll follow only this much. Someone says I'll follow that much. So then obviously the results will be different.

Yes. There may be a reluctance to accept the orders of the doctor but then to that degree once cured will also be impeded and delayed. Okay.

So to the degree that one is following a bona fide authority perfectly and strictly to that degree the cure will be quicker and more effective. So there is a certain frame of reference. There is a certain boundary.

Okay. Which you know we we are supposed to be within. Like you have to chant your 16 rounds there are certain principles that we have to follow minimum.

Chanting the holy name you have to do this you have to do that. So there are certain things that we all have to follow but within that there is room for individuality. Somebody likes deity worship they do a lot of more deity worship than perhaps some other services.

Someone is more inclined to doing a particular another kind of service and that devotee does that type of service. You know so therefore there is a lot of room for individuality in bhakti within the framework of the directions and instructions given by the acharyas. Yes.

That is true. But it cannot be without any restrictions or boundaries. That cannot be.

So in one sense our purpose is fixed that we are going to serve Krishna and devote ourselves to Krishna. The specifics of how exactly we may serve that may vary from person to person. And it could be that some people may decide that if they don't want to follow that strictly in one sense actually Prabhupada also created the program of life membership for those who were not yet ready to be committed enough to do sadhana then he created some connection for them also but that would be more like a very gradual a small dosage and a very gradual treatment and gradual recovery.

But somebody who takes the more intense treatment they recover much faster. Yes. So the purpose is one but the specifics can vary.

Yes. Some extent. So maybe I'll just summarize and then you have any further points to say about any other related points? Not for now.

No. Okay. So we were discussing about the topic of spiritual but not religious and then broadly we had three parts.

The first part was why are people concerned about why do people want to be spiritual but not religious and what's deficient about it and how the bhakti wisdom can address those deficiencies and concerns. So the first part we discussed elaborately. So one point was that people are suspicious about institutionalized religion because often that leads to materialism and they are more concerned with experiences and virtues rather than dogmas and rituals.

Then you mentioned that it is also the individualistic liberal spirit that people want to do their own thing and not follow any authority. That is the root of spiritual but not religious. Then we contrasted the Abrahamic religions primarily Christianity with Eastern traditions and there is to some extent disillusionment with the Western religions and the mystique associated with the Eastern traditions that attracts people to come and also the Eastern traditions offer more of a tradition of philosophical inquiry and personal experiences rather than simply following some rules or believing certain doctrines and we discussed about the history of institutionalization even within our traditions that Shankaracharya and Buddhism and even before that Ramayana we had the hermitages, the monasteries.

So in our particular tradition institutionalization in the form of a of a authority structure author formal structure was from from Bhaktivinoda Thakura and Bhaktivinoda Thakura but Chaitanya Mahaprabhu himself was also concerned about doctrinal purity and so we discussed that two things about why while institutionalization can lead to deviation and Bhaktivinoda Thakura compared it to Putana and Kamsa but he also created an institution. So for two main reasons why we need it one is for individual to practice anything spiritual especially in today's world where there is no atmosphere of spirituality that is alone is very difficult like a drop of water or trickle of water on the top of mountain to alone get to the ocean is almost impossible and secondly for for them to be able to practice and for them to have something to practice the process and its principles to be purely available somebody has to have a somebody has to act like a guardian and we discussed that after Chaitanya Mahaprabhu departed and whenever there were no guardians then there were periods of deviations and then the subsequent Acharyas like Vishwanatha Thakur or Bhaktivinoda Thakur had to come and restore the pure teaching. So for the access for the process of practicing the process and for having a process to practice institutionalization is not only important but even essential and then we went into the discussion of how while practicing while having an institutionalization how can what we came to the second part was that what's deficient is you will not be able to practice and third part was how our tradition complements the deficiencies or removes the deficiencies of SVNR ideas.

So you discussed two verses which talks about how we need to so for we discussed various meanings of the word spiritual often it's quite vague but you said it could refer to clarity about understanding then having a process to practice and then getting some experiences to that process and so it is possible to be religious without being spiritual one can be ritualistic and not experience much transformation now to be spiritual without being religious if it means that one wants to be open-minded and narrow-minded not narrow-minded that is definitely possible in our tradition because we do hold that we are following a particular path to say climb up the mountain to spiritual consciousness but we acknowledge there are other paths also but if spiritual but not religious means that we will not follow anything at all then it's like saying I am sick and I want to become healthy but I won't take any treatment then you won't become healthy so what makes one what makes one's religious practice spiritual is three things one is the commitment and consistent practice second is the proper conception of what is it that we are trying to attain who is it that we are trying to worship and then the proper consciousness or motivation of why we are approaching that person and all these three are encapsulated in anyabhidhya verse and then you also mentioned the which talks about the pure transcendental level of religion where it has merged into spirituality when I talked about where is essentially spiritual and not religious in the sense of not narrow-minded dogmatic sectarian which stops us from being spiritual that is give it up and then we talked about last part we talked about was can individuality and spirituality go together individuality and religious practice go together we discussed that at this pure spiritual level individuality flourishes fully while in a community so the Gopi Gita where each Gopi is offering the prayer and is also represented in the community of Gopis that was an example and then talk about during the practice there is a certain level of commitment required but that doesn't suppress one's individuality just like a sick person following a rigid treatment their individuality is not suppressed rather once their heal their individuality will manifest thereafter and if somebody feels that individuality is being suppressed right now then there are different levels at which people's practice can be accommodated and depending on how much serious one is in the practice and one will progress that faster so overall Krishna consciousness offers us the facility of being spiritual and religious both anything I left out Maharaj and especially the connection between spirituality and religion that the spirituality is the they find a sense of religion and religion in its topmost and purest form is nothing but pure spirituality yes and where these two meet is the path of devotion to Krishna path of pure devotion yes Maharaj thank you very much Maharaj for your time it's a very stimulating discussion yeah look forward to having you again yes in future thank you Chetanachalam thank you very much discussion on a very important topic of relevance in the modern day yes Maharaj thank you okay thank you thank you Jai Krishna Jai Thank you Jai Krishna.