Analyzing Bhagavatams Retelling Of Ramayana Subjectivity and Objectivity In Scripture part 2

Podcast:

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

And today, we continue the discussion of Lord Rama's pastimes and his purport, Srila Prabhupada describes how those who fight on behalf of the Lord have a power far greater than any material power. So, Daiva, that's an adjective referring to Deva, Deva ultimately refers to God. So God's power, Daiva is far greater than Purushakaara, Purushakaara is the power that comes from human endeavour, human intelligence, human organisation.

And although Lord Rama's forces were very poorly equipped in terms of weaponry and Ravana's forces were formidably equipped, still it was Lord Rama's forces who won. And that indicates, Prabhupada says, we should fight enthusiastically for the service of the Lord in whatever situation we are put in. So, this principle that understanding that what is required to fight sometimes in emergency situations like in the Ramayana, the Mahabharata, physical wars have to be fought.

But sometimes or far more often, there are psychological and intellectual wars that have to be fought inside us and outside us. There are non-devotional emotions, there are anti-devotional conceptions that come upon us from inside and from outside. We have to challenge them, we have to counter them and one way those conceptions may come is even in our study of scripture that we may be studying a devotional book but if non-devotional or anti-devotional attitudes creep into our study of scripture, then we may get deviated.

We may forget the essence, Saara and we may get caught in the Bhaara, in the burden. So, we need the Lord's mercy as it comes in the disciplic succession through Guru Sadhu Shastra to understand, not just to understand scripture, but also to understand how to understand scripture because in scripture there are many different statements at different times and some of them may seem differing or even opposing. So what do we do? We need proper attitude based on the Daiva, Prabhupada says in the 6.8 Purport that Gyaana Vigyana Tuptatma that if one doesn't have realization then mere intellectual study will confuse a person and then they will have doubts and they will lose faith and they may even give up their spiritual practices.

So that's why we need Daiva, we need the mercy and that mercy comes when we say here the Bhagavatam classes, we serve the devotees and that's how we learn. So we were discussing yesterday this theme of one way we might get confused in studying scripture is to see how scripture is approached in different contexts. So the topic I discussed yesterday was objectivity and subjectivity in scripture and I discussed two main points.

First is what is objectivity that is considered to be knowledge that is focused on the object. Subjectivity is it is knowledge as perceived by the subject, by the observer and both knowledges have their value. Even science tries to be objective but it's not possible to be entirely objective and subjective knowledge sometimes gives us greater insight into events than mere reporting of facts.

Then I talked about how there is subjectivity even the study of scripture and the sharing in scripture. So scripture is spoken at a particular as universal principles spoken at a particular time. So the Gita's instruction fight that is subjective that become devoted to Krishna that is the central instruction.

So even the absolute truth may not speak the absolute truth at times. It's like when Krishna spoke Karma Vimamsa to the Brajwasi just to infuriate Indra so that the Govardhanila could take place. So we stopped at that point while discussing objectivity and subjectivity.

So now I'll be talking about how to understand subjectivity and objectivity in scripture. So how when we study scripture we need to be able to, sorry not this one, we need to focus on that which helps us clearly understand and move forward in our life. So there is subjectivity and objectivity and I'm not able to share the screen here.

We could see your screen Prabhupadaji, you can share it. So now when you talk about understanding objectivity and subjectivity. So I discussed about how scripture transmits spiritual knowledge and we need to focus on what makes scripture relevant.

So we need to look at the context to understand. So let's see how Prabhupada himself manifested at times. Prabhupada spoke about time, place, circumstance.

Now Prabhupada says in one purport the months of April, May are known for their warmth. Okay, he says that that's true in India, but is that true in Australia? No, not necessarily. They are the coldest months over there.

So May, June especially. Now Prabhupada, so we have to look at the context. The principle is something different.

The statement may be something different. So there's a disciple who wrote to Prabhupada, Prabhupada, I want to assist you in your mission to save the whole world. It's a paraphrase.

And Prabhupada said that's good. But first one should learn to save oneself. Another disciple wrote to Prabhupada, Prabhupada, I am such a fallen soul.

What can I do to assist you in your mission? And Prabhupada said that I need many fallen souls like you to spread Lord Chaitanya's mission all over the world. So what is Prabhupada doing over here? Why? Almost opposite points. So when somebody is a little presumptuous or a little proud, some people are flying in the air, they need to be brought on the ground.

And some people are being so, in the name of humility, get so caught in inferiority that they are burying themselves under the ground, then they need to be picked up and lifted up, raised up basically. So Prabhupada is, according to person, Prabhupada is giving different instructions. So the same principle that everybody has to move toward Krishna, but some people need to be encouraged so that they can move toward Krishna and some people need to be humbled in order to move toward Krishna or to be made more cautious to move toward Krishna.

Now in Prabhupada's Bhagavad Gita purports itself, we see these different statements. In one place Prabhupada says, when Krishna is talking about remembering him, he says, one can fix the mind on any form, Krishna, Vishnu, Ram, Narasimha. Another place, toward the end of the Bhagavad Gita, Prabhupada is speaking, one should not let one's mind get deviated to any form other than Krishna and Vrindavan, not even Vishnu, Ram or others, because Krishna is our ultimate Anandadhi, again I am paraphrasing.

But what is the mood, Prabhupada in one place is talking about Tattva, he is talking about yes, by remembering the Lord, we become purified, but another level, Prabhupada is speaking in the mood of the Gopis, when the Gopis during the Raas Leela, when Krishna had disappeared, the Gopis were chasing and searching and then they saw Vishnu and the yogis are delighted when they see Vishnu, but the Gopis were disappointed and they offered their obeisances to Vishnu and asked him, where is Krishna, can you tell us? So they were not interested in interacting with Vishnu or fixing their mind on Vishnu at all. So Prabhupada is sometimes speaking in that mood. So much of the, many of the contradictions and much of the resulting controversy that sometimes occurs in the movement is because we do not appreciate the principle of subjectivity, that Prabhupada was a living, loving teacher and that means he saw who was there right in front of him and he spoke according to that context.

Now, there is one fear that if it is subjective, then won't it make it relative? You say this and they say that and it all becomes relative. Well, not exactly. Subjective and relative are not the same thing.

Subjective means that there is a reality, but you all may perceive it differently and Krishna talks about this in Bhagavad Gita 4.11 where he says, ये थामां प्रपध्यन्ते ताम सथाईवः भजाम्यहम् So as all people surrender unto me, I reward them accordingly. Krishna says, that means he reveals himself accordingly to people. So if somebody wants to approach him in a non-personal way, Krishna will reveal himself as Brahman.

If somebody wants to approach him simply as the giver of worldly goods, Krishna may approach himself in that way. Somebody wants to love him, Krishna will reveal himself as the all-loving supreme divinity. So subjectivity means that there is a reality, but we all may perceive it differently.

Whereas relativity or relativism, as we might say, relativism is there is no ultimate reality. Whatever each one perceives, that is the reality. There is no ultimate reality.

Whatever one perceives is their reality. Now this is, Krishna categorically condemns and he says, असत्यम् अपर्तिष्ठम् ते जगदाहूरणेश्वरं अपरस्परसंभूतं कि मन्यत् काम है तु कम्सु असत्यम् अपर्तिष्ठम् ते There is no ultimate reality. There is no foundation to the world.

There is no God in control. That is Krishna's demoniac view. Krishna says this is condemned.

So relativism in terms of saying that there is no absolute truth, that is very different from subjectivism. Subjectivity is, yes, this is the reality. This is a particular painting and you are seeing this painting in this way and I am seeing this painting this way.

So to give a simpler example for this, suppose we hear a class. We all may hear a class and after that we ask five people, what did you find most striking in the class? And all five people will say different things. That's because we are all subjects and based on what is going on in our minds, what is going on in our lives, we all may perceive different things as important.

So that's subjective. But relative means actually, there was no real class at all. It's just whatever goes on in our mind, whatever we perceive, and you thought of this, you thought of that, you thought of that.

There was an actual class. So now this may not be the way people understand relativism commonly, but that is what philosophically relativism boils down to. So I am using relativism in that sense.

So subjectivity and relativism in that sense are different. Now, conversely, is objective equal to absolute? Not necessarily, because when you say objective, it means that it is not distorted by individual opinion or emotion. I don't like this person.

So even if that person does something good, I interpret it negatively and I accept it negatively. That is not being objective. To be objective means to report the facts as they are.

But even when we are completely objective, still we are finite beings. And because we are finite beings, none of us can perceive everything completely. So absolute means that which is invariable across time and space.

And so at that time I thought the situation was like this, but now I got this information and now I understood the situation is like this. So what we want is absolute knowledge. But absolute knowledge is not something which any of us human beings can ever have.

So there is a difference between relativism being just because you are objective doesn't mean our knowledge is absolute. So now through divine self-revelation, sometimes for some period, somebody might get a partial kind of omniscience. When Arjuna saw the Vishwaroop, he saw the whole universe at one time.

So that is some way, but generally we humans cannot gain absolute vision. So now we can know what is the absolute reality. That is a different thing.

We can know absolute reality, but we don't know absolute reality absolutely. That means we don't know everything, we can never know everything about the absolute reality. And that's why Krishna says in the 10th chapter of the Bhagavata, 9th verse, that even those who are enlightened, even those who are devoted to me, they keep talking about me with each other and thus they keep enlightening each other.

So in that sense for humans, none of us can claim to have absolute knowledge absolutely. We can have some that Krishna is the absolute reality that I understand. But can I understand Krishna absolutely? Can I understand Krishna completely in a way that there is no future understanding of Krishna that will come in later? No, that's not possible.

So why are we discussing this? That when we are studying scripture and when we are discussing what does this mean, when sometimes there are debates about what does particular scripture rule mean, then we need to understand that there is a room for difference of opinion. So now this is with respect to tattva, with respect to philosophical truth. In general, in the bhakti approach to scriptures, there is tattva and there is rasa.

There is philosophical truth and there is devotional experience. And so even in tattva, there is room for subjectivity. And when we come to rasa, the essence of rasa is subjectivity.

Rasa means the devotional or divine emotion that is experienced in relationship with Krishna. And so Yashodamayi sees Krishna differently and she experiences Krishna differently. And Radharani experiences Krishna differently.

Shudama, Sudama, Madhumangal, all these other gopas, they experience Krishna differently. So in the transcendental domain, especially in terms of rasa, subjectivity is not just like a, what we can say, an unavoidable but undesirable fact of life. Because we are all different people, we see things differently and we have different opinions.

That's just subjective limitations. But in the spiritual domain, subjectivity is not a limitation. Subjectivity is enriching.

It is the subjective perception of each devotee that enables them to go deeper into Krishna, that enables them to relish Krishna. That's transcendental subjectivity. Now, we see in scripture, there are many places where this transcendental subjectivity is talked about.

So, for example, Krishna is in Mathura and he enters the wrestling arena. There is a celebrated verse. I won't go into the verse specifically because of shortage of time.

But what it says is that how Krishna was seen differently by different people in that assembly. So the young girls, they saw, oh, he is stupid, he is so attractive. And the cowherd boys, oh, he is our friend, he is going to fight now, he is a great hero, he will beat all these wrestlers.

And the Maharaja and the gopas of his age, they saw this is our son. The Mathura Vasis who had been tormented by Kamsa, they thought, long lost, after long, long time, our savior has come now. The other wrestler, they initially had thought this is a child.

But then they saw the agility and the grace and the expertise. Krishna was making his moves. They realized, oh, this is a formidable wrestler.

And Kamsa, when he heard that Krishna had killed Koliapida, that Krishna had done this, Krishna had done that, he realized, oh, this is death personified. So this is subjectivity and this subjectivity is beauty. It is beautiful.

So we don't have to get caught or consumed by differences of opinion. Because subjectivity is the nature of, is natural to individuality. And each one of us is irreducibly individual.

Even in the spiritual domain, there is subjectivity. And you may say this, we may say this is subjectivity. There is one Krishna and he is perceived differently.

So this is understandable. We are all perceiving one Krishna only. But then there is even a deeper level of subjectivity also, another level.

In the Brihad Bhagavata Amrita, when Sanatana Goswami describes how the Gopakumar goes from the material world to the spiritual world. So it's described, he goes to Vaikuntha, then he goes to Ayodhya, then he goes to Dwarka and then finally he comes to Vrindavan. So now when he is in Vaikuntha, initially he is a little happy.

He feels happy. Oh, I am in the spiritual world. But after that he starts feeling discontented.

He thinks there must be something more. And thus his onward journey goes. And he is not satisfied till he reaches Krishna in Vrindavan.

But the significant point for our discussion here is that when he is talking about, when he is in Vaikuntha, the Vaikunthavasis, what do they think? They actually think that Vishnu is the source of all divinities. Here the word used is supreme, supreme. There is only one supreme.

But supreme, supreme means the supreme who is the source of all supreme manifestations. Now in the Gaudiya Vishnu tradition, it is emphatically revealed that Krishna is the source of all avatars. But in that same Gaudiya tradition, there is an Acharya, Sanatana Goswami, he is describing that the Vaikunthavasis think that Vishnu is the source of all divinities.

And the Ayodhyavasis think that Ram is the source of all divinities. And the Dwarkavasis think that Krishna in Dwarka is the source of all divinities. And the Vrajavasis think that Krishna in Vrindavan is the source of all divinities.

And while describing their consciousness, Sanatana Goswami doesn't put a caveat in a bracket. You know, they think like this but they are in Maya, they are in illusion, they are wrong. No, they are liberated souls, they are pure devotees, they are in the spiritual world.

How can we have the audacity to say that their understanding is wrong? So this is a matter of Rasa. And in terms of Rasa, whoever worships a particular lord, for them that lord is the ultimate. And in conceiving of that lord as the ultimate, they get the ultimate fulfillment.

That is what their heart longs for. And Krishna, in whichever manifestation he is reciprocating with them, he gives them that Rasa, he gives them that fulfillment. That is the glory of Krishna.

So this is respecting transcendental subjectivity that is shown by our Gaudiya Acharyas. And we need to respect that also. So talking in terms of Tattva, that subjectivity can be there.

In terms of Rasa also subjectivity can be there. Now subjectivity at our level. Now what does it mean? We read scripture and we hear classes and different devotees may take the same pastime and draw different lessons from those pastimes.

Now are all lessons valid? Sometimes on the same pastime, this actually happened with me in one of my early years in Krishna Consciousness. I was just 2, 3, 4 years old in Krishna Consciousness at that time, maybe 5, 6, whatever. But at that time I had two classes.

One devotee gave Bhagavatam class. This devotee was a visiting preacher. They came and gave a class.

The next day another visiting preacher came and gave a class. And they took the same pastime and they analysed in completely different ways. So now what happened was, so this is the pastime was that in the first canto was going on and Indrapati comes to know that Ashwathama has killed her son.

She is devastated. She is distraught and Arjuna pacifies her. And he pacifies her by promising her that your tears will not go in vain.

Ashwathama's head will be brought before you soon. And now, so one devotee, he gave a class and his class was that he said Arjuna is the perfect counselor. Indrapati is so distraught.

She is so distraught and what happened was that Arjuna knew exactly what words to speak to her to pacify her. And the next day the other devotee gave a class and this devotee said that Arjuna is acting like a typical Kshatriya over here. Kshatriyas think that if somebody has attacked them, they have to counter attack.

And then getting even, getting it even tit for tat, that is the solution. And this kind of violence is never going to solve problems. It will learn to be forgiving.

Now initially when I heard the two classes, I was quite confused. And then I inquired a little bit about the background of both the devotees. And then what happened was the first devotee was a prominent counselor.

And the devotee was equipped, one of their services was to train others in counseling. And so that devotee was seeing everything from the perspective of counseling. And then the other devotee, the next devotee gave a class, that devotee was a mediator.

And that devotee was seeing in our movement, there are so many conflicts, so many arguments, so many debates. And a conflict resolution through mediation. Why are you so vengeful? Things have happened, just forgive them.

So the two came from two different perspectives. And so what were they doing over here? They were not exactly reading scripture, they were reading into scripture. That means they were bringing their perspectives, their worldviews, their focuses of service into scripture.

So that's how they came up with completely opposite perspectives. Now we could say over here that, okay, the principle that a counselor should be expert enough to pacify a counselee, that is a valid principle, that when somebody offends us, if we keep hitting them back, it will just escalate endlessly. That's also a valid principle.

Now the question is, are these valid lessons to be drawn from this past? So when we bring subjectivity, how far do we go in that subjectivity? So is scripture elastic? So is scripture elastic? That means that can, when we talk about something elastic, that means it can be very easily pulled and pulled. Now we may have a rubber band which can be pulled. But how far can we pull scripture? So can we pull scripture to say that any and every lesson can be drawn from scripture? No, we can't do that.

Scripture is elastic in the sense that many different devotees can go draw different lessons. But the lesson should be according to tattva and rasa. Subjectivity can be there with respect to philosophical understanding of the one reality and with respect to different rasas.

But it is bounded. It is not unbounded. In Christianity, now feminism is quite aggressive and in feminism there are generations.

First, second generations of feminism mainly sought equality. But the third and fourth generations of feminism, they think that men are the curse on the world and they focus not on equal rights for women, but often more on pulling down men. So I don't want to go into feminism.

I'm just giving the example of how. So there are some third, fourth generation feminists in Christianity, male bodily parts. Now, yes, now if a particular demographic has been discriminated against, then definitely discrimination can be corrected, should be corrected.

And we can draw from scripture wisdom and resources for correcting that demographic, correcting that injustice. But we can't change scripture itself. So we have to be careful when we may be serving, we may be intending to serve a good purpose.

We may be intending to draw a good lesson also. But while drawing a good lesson, we cannot make scripture the servant of our purpose. We cannot make scripture an agent for fulfilling our agenda.

We have to focus on fulfilling the scripture's agenda. And then, of course, we can say scripture is multi-form and scripture has many instructions. And we may choose one particular instruction from scripture and we choose to focus on that and develop that and implement that.

That's perfectly fine. But when we are doing that, so don't make scripture a servant of our agenda. If you do that, then it becomes a problem.

So we are meant to be servants or agents, servants of scripture's agenda. Now within scripture, there can be different things. For example, some devotees may decide to focus on cow protection.

Some devotees may focus on western outreach. Some devotees may focus on temple building. Some devotees may focus on book distribution.

There are different instructions given in scripture. There are different instructions given by Prabhupada. But what we can't do is, we can't, if Prabhupada is giving instructions for building temples and we take that and interpret it in some way, therefore we should distribute books.

Well, no, there are instructions for that purpose and use those instructions. We can't make scripture a servant of our agenda. So it's not unlimitedly elastic.

So the point is that, why are we discussing all this today? The point we're making is that when a particular lesson is being drawn from scripture, there is a certain level of subjectivity. But subjectivity means this is what I learn from that. This is what it is and this is what I'm learning from it.

Subjectivity doesn't mean that I impose. Sorry, can somebody else admit the devotees who are coming in? Whenever I try to admit someone, the screen stops getting shared. I've been admitted.

Okay, sure. So we are meant to be servants of scripture's agenda. So I'll conclude with two last points now.

So when we are trying to do moral lessons from devotional pastimes, so what should be our attitude? If I draw only devotional lessons, therefore we should chant Hare Krishna, therefore we should wake up in the morning, therefore we should visit holy places. That is good. But that may not reach a larger audience.

Because yes, we may want everyone to practice bhakti and we want to equip devotees also practicing bhakti better. But devotees are also living in the world. When they are living in the world, we need knowledge for ethical knowledge, practical knowledge also.

So somebody can draw only devotional lessons and that's wonderful. That will reach devotional audiences. Now when we start drawing moral lessons, that is another extreme of the pendulum.

Now I'm not saying only devotional lessons is wrong. But then that may not be usable for preaching or for reaching out to new people. That may be useful only for devotees.

It's also good. That's what our purpose is. Now if somebody draws moral lessons from scripture, then what kind of moral lessons can we draw? We can, as I said, people can stretch it elastically unlimitedly and there are limits.

But even when we are drawing moral lessons within limits, we don't want to reduce the Lord's pastimes to morality tales or morality lessons. These are divine pastimes. So it's not a morality tale.

It's actually a divine pastime and that has to be clear. So if we don't do that, then what happens? It just becomes entertainment. So we don't want scripture to be reduced only to entertainment.

So scripture can be taught in an entertaining way. But the purpose is teaching scripture. The purpose is not entertaining.

So what is the balanced way? We may draw some moral lessons. But along with the moral lessons, there is a pathway provided for spiritual elevation. Of course, moral lessons also have to be within the boundaries of tattva and rasa.

And when we do it in this way, with the pathway for spiritual elevation when we provide, then people can get some wisdom that they feel they need and they also get the wisdom that they ultimately need. I feel I need practical guidance and I get that also. But what we ultimately need is transcendental guidance.

So we can provide both in a way that people's immediate and ultimate needs both are addressed. And this is where I'll conclude with the last point. Now subjectivity, I talked about how there is subjectivity in scripture.

Now I'm going to talk about how subjectivity in reaching out to our audience when we speak. So what does this mean? Now again, relevance. We want to be relevant in our teaching of scripture.

But relevance is again not relativism. Relevance means how does this matter to me? So we try to show that to people. But relativism means, again, as I said, everything is, there is no ultimate reality.

You can believe this, somebody else can believe this. So we can't be relativistic in the name of being relevant. There is an ultimate reality.

And the bhakti understanding is that everything is related, not relative. Related means we are all parts of Krishna, all of existence is sustained under Krishna, is sustained by Krishna, who is under it, who is above it, who is within it. He is everything in oneself, Vasudeva, Sarvamiti.

So everything is related, not that everything is relative. So now if you want to talk about relevance, the relevance has to be explained in a very careful and cautious way. So let me take one example to illustrate this.

So generally for determining relevance, how do we go about determining relevance? There can be broadly three questions we can ask. Say, what did this, if you're looking at a particular point, what did this point mean in its original context? That means the subjectivity, in terms of the subjective audience over there, what did this point mean? Then the next is, what is the universal principle underlying this point? And the third is, how does that principle apply in today's context? So this way we don't lose sight of the original point. We don't lose sight of the universal principle.

We understand both of them and then we arrive at an application in today's context. Let's look at how Srila Prabhupada does that expertly. So now in the Gita, 15.6, Krishna says, So here Krishna says that spiritual world is not illuminated by sun, moon or fire.

Now when he says that it's not illuminated, what does it mean practically? There is a specific point Krishna is saying. Universal principle there is that the spiritual world is self-luminous. It does not require any external source of illumination as does the material world.

That the material world requires external source of illumination. Krishna mentions this a few verses later, six verses later when he says, that the same three elements he mentions, यदादित्तिकतं तेजो जगत्भासेते अखिलं जिचंद्रभसियच्छागनो तत्तेजो विद्धिमामकम् So he says all these sources of illumination are sustained by me. But he mentions the same thing, sun, moon and fire.

Now Prabhupada in his translation itself adds electricity over there. Somebody who is a very literalist in scripture, they may say that no, there is no electricity in the verse over there. Yes, agreed, there is no electricity in the verse over there.

But what Prabhupada is doing is, Prabhupada is making it relevant. If the point is that, say there is no external source of luminosity needed for people in the spiritual world. Now what is the source of luminosity? What is the source of, this is the primary source of lighting for people today.

Many people nowadays, especially because of the recent COVID lockdown and other things, many people stay home for most of the time. So then for people, Prabhupada is making the unfamiliar familiar. When Prabhupada says it's not illuminated by electricity, the point is not to be literalist.

The point is to understand the essential principle. There is no external source of luminosity. So primary source of external lighting or external luminosity in today's world.

So Prabhupada is making scripture relevant over here. Similarly, if you say, once Prabhupada was asked by a hippie that, Swamiji, how much is the happiness in the spiritual world? Now we may quote, ānandāṃ buddhi-vardhanam pratipadaṃ pūrṇāṃ amṛta-svādhanam. Chaitanya-śikṣāśrakaṃ, we may say that it's ocean of happiness that keeps expanding.

So now that is the ocean of happiness that keeps expanding. Or there are many descriptions of the beauty of the spiritual world. In the Brahma Samhita, it is there, kathā-gānaṃ nātyam gamanam api vāṃśipya-sakhi.

So many descriptions like that. Prabhupada could have given those. But Prabhupada focused on the universal principle that spiritual happiness is unlimited.

It is beyond even what we can imagine. And then how did he apply the principle? He said that spiritual happiness is like an ocean of LSD. Now you may say, which scripture says that it's an ocean of LSD? Well, no scripture has to say it.

Prabhupada is making the teaching relevant. Because for his audience at that point, what was the point? That their conception of happiness was taking drugs, going high on LSD. An ocean of LSD? Yeah, I would like to experience that.

I would like to experience that. So what is the point in the original context? What is the universal principle? What is the principle applied today? So in this way, when we try to study scripture, we all can find scripture speaking to us in ways that is relevant for us. And then each of us can be enriched by a study of scripture.

And we can respect that others may be enriched in different ways. And this enrichment can be diverse, but it doesn't have to cause dissonance. It doesn't have to cause conflict.

If we acknowledge the specific point, if we acknowledge the universal principle, and then we can draw the specific application for ourselves. So Prabhupada does this expertly in his purports and Prabhupada instituted Bhagavatam classes. So that we could learn from living teachers about how scripture can be made relevant in our lives.

So subjectivity is not a license for relativism. Subjectivity is a resource for helping us to personally connect with scripture and connect with Krishna through scripture. So I'll summarize quickly.

I spoke today on one main point. How can we make scripture? How can we find relevance in scripture for ourselves? Or how can we see the relevance of scripture? We talked about how Prabhupada spoke according to context. How according to people, according to the disciple he was speaking to, according to the place where he was speaking, according to the mood in which he was speaking, Prabhupada spoke differently.

So in terms of tattva, philosophical truth, there can be difference in terms of how that philosophical principle is to be applied by different people. But there is also rasa, there is difference. We talked about Krishna entering the wrestling arena in Mathura and then Gopakumar experiencing the conceptions of the Supreme Supreme among the various residents of different lokas in the spiritual world.

And then concluded by talking about that there is a difference between relevance, that just because something is objective doesn't mean it's absolute. Something subjective doesn't mean it's relative. And subjective is not a license for anything goes.

And then we talked about in terms of we understand our subject and we try to make scripture relevant to them. So relevance doesn't mean relativism. Scripture is elastic but not unlimitedly elastic.

So we can't be imposing our own ideas on scripture. So how do we avoid that? For that we look at three points to understand the relevance of scripture. Clearly understand what did this point mean in its original context.

Then understand what is the universal principle underlying this specific point and then analyze how that principle applies in our context. That way we all can learn from scripture and make it relevant for our lives and for the lives of those with whom we are sharing scripture. And I gave two examples of Prabhupada talking about the external source of luminosity in explaining 15.6 in the Gita and Prabhupada talking about the magnitude of happiness in the spiritual world.

Thank you very much. Hare Krishna. Is there any one quick question? Yes, Athena.

Hare Krishna. This isn't a question, Hare Krishna, but maybe more so a comment. And I'd love to hear your thoughts and reflections.

I have two comments, but it's interesting that as much as you say you were analyzing from like relativism, relevance, and subjectivity, objectivity, but my notion is really the eye in which you perceive this world dictates your entire experience. If I can use a very more gross example. So I'm not Indian-bodied, but I went to India once and it was the most incredible experience of my life.

To this day it still is. I cannot wait to go back. And it was because I went with, it was actually through yoga teacher training, but it was through bhakti yogi.

So it was through the lens of spirituality. So I saw India as an incredibly spiritual place. And that is the result that I received from it.

It's a lens in which I saw India through and therefore how I perceived it. But if you were to talk to a materialist, and I apologize when I speak about India, some of them are like, oh, you know, there are a lot of Indian weddings and they'll go and they'll say, oh, you know, in comparison to say America, it's like, oh, it's so dirty. There's so many people.

All they eat is like potatoes and rice. Maybe they have something like with health. And they really like always want to make sure they're eating like fresh raw foods.

And so they never want to go back to India. And because that's the perspective that they looked through, which is a very material lens of I'm going on vacation. And this isn't where I would choose to go on vacation.

So I never want to go back. Whereas I'm like, it was the most incredible spiritual place. I can't wait to go back.

And if you apply that, say, to scripture, I remember hearing stories where Prabhupada would caution, say, his disciples or students to, I don't know if it was not to get into Sanskrit, but to be cautious because if you were to say really analyze, you might lose the essence and maybe some disciples had fallen away. And when they question Prabhupada or ask him, it was always that Prabhupada understood the mood of Krishna. So when he translated things, it was always through the lens of bhakti and understanding the essence or the mood of Krishna.

Whereas if you were to read other commentators, like if I told you, I mean, can you come to the can you explain what your comment is? And I appreciate the example you're giving. Yes, I guess the point of subjectivity and maybe it's relativity, that it actually is important because it shapes the perspective that we view everything through our lives, scripture. And if we don't say our entire viewpoint of scripture is through bhakti, and that's because we're reading from commentators who are bhakti yogis.

And if we were pick up another, I mean, is that it? So it is important. Subjectivity is important because that actually does shape the perspective. Our entire lives is based on it.

Let me try to paraphrase what you're saying, that our individual perspective will shape our experience. And so somebody may experience India very differently. Somebody may experience even Krishna consciousness very differently.

So that's true. So what do we do in that case? Is it that we are permanently locked to our perspective? No. What we need to do is we have to see within their perspective, what is it that we can relate with? What is it they can connect with? So that is actually one of the major challenges of outreach, that everybody has their perspective.

Within their perspective, how much can we connect? How much can we appreciate and get them to appreciate? So it's not easy just saying that everybody has their perspective. And it's true. But what do we do in that? That's why it's so important to try to be, try to, what should I say, try to learn from expert devotees how to penetrate into people's perspectives, how to, you know, I remember recently I heard, you may have heard this also before, Radhanath Maharaj met for one of his book launches, a famous chess player from India had come.

So Maharaj was talking with him and he wanted to ask Maharaj. Maharaj didn't have much time. He asked him that, Maharaj, you were from a Jew background.

How is it that you became attracted to Krishna? And Maharaj simply replied, you know, your Krishna checkmated me. Your Krishna checkmated me. And he was so delighted with that answer.

Your Krishna, it's very personal. So and he spoke in his language. So Maharaj could have gone into theology over there and he could have said that, you know, this is what I found attractive in this and that.

So within that time and resources we have somehow, yes, people's perspective determine their reality. But within their perspective, within their reality, is there something by which you can connect them to Krishna? So that's what we have to try as much as we can. Sometimes it's not possible.

What can we do? But just because everybody's perspective determines their reality doesn't mean that there is no chance for us to try to bring a glimpse of ultimate reality within their perspective also. We try as much as possible. So subjectivity I defined as how a particular subject perceives things.

So the focus is on the subject of knowledge and objectivity is the focus is on what is the object being perceived. So thank you very much. Hari Haribol!