Can doing PhD help devotees in their outreach?
Is it helpful for devotees to do a PhD, especially in something like Gita and leadership, so that they can increase the outreach of the Gita? Yes. There can be multiple ways of outreach.
And academic outreach is also one of the ways of outreach. So, when Srila Prabhupada formed the Bhakti Vyasa Institute, at that time, after meeting him, the devotees made a vision statement about what are the objectives of Bhakti Vyasa Institute. And Bhakti Vyasa Institute was originally meant not just for scientific preaching, but it was meant for, in general, scholarly preaching of all kinds, including science.
So, they said that Bhakti Vyasa Institute should target four kinds of audiences. Scholars, college students, general readers, the educated general readers, and devotees. That means devotees who are intellectually inclined can be trained to do that kind of preaching further.
For academic scholars, books can be written, papers can be written. And students are going to become the future scholars. So, they can be reached.
And for general people also, even among scientists, there are some people who are called as science popularizers. Or they are called popular scientists. They are called popular science writers.
So, like that, there are some people who can write for the general audiences also. So, like that, we as devotees, right now, within ISKCON, the primary outreach is through those who come to ISKCON. Whether it be to our temples, or they read our books, or they come to our festivals.
So, but there are many other forums through which people are being influenced. And as far as reaching out to students, yes, there are some youth initiatives that are happening. But reaching out to scholars, that's not happening much.
And reaching out to general people through the mass media, such as television, newspaper, that's also not happening much. Now, for reaching out through this mass media, a PhD may be helpful as a starting point. If somebody has a PhD in Bhagavad Gita, then newspapers may come as a resource.
But later on, one's credibility depends on one's contribution. It just doesn't depend on one's qualification. Because even PhD is not such a rare thing.
There are thousands of PhDs out there. So, if you want to do a PhD, you have to be clear, which forum do we want to influence? See, broadly, with respect to communication, we can say it can be of four modalities. Insider to insider, insider to outsider, outsider to outsider, and outsider to insider.
That means somebody comes to our temples for a program. And then they hear from us. Or the temple Bhagavatam class that we have daily.
That is like insider to insider. Say, we go to colleges, and we conduct some one-time programs or some courses. That is insider to outsider.
Now, say some new person wants to hear, what is this Bhagavad Gita? Then they go and search on Wikipedia, or they read some book on Hinduism. Then that is, what is happening is outsider to outsider. And if we go and do PhD, then basically we are submitting ourselves to the outsider to insider form of learning.
Because if we want to get academic qualifications, we have to initially at least learn their way of thinking, their way of analyzing. And sometimes that can disturb us, because their way of looking at scripture is quite critical. In the insider to insider mode of communication, faith is considered a virtue.
And doubt is considered a weakness. But in the academic study of religion, doubt is considered a virtue. That means, you are not just a gullible believer.
You can doubt this. You have adequate criticality. And criticality is considered a virtue.
So, the more you can doubt, the more you are considered to be intellectual. So, the method of studying itself is different. Not just different, we could say to some extent it is opposite.
They study the same book, but the method of studying is significantly different. And that outsider to insider mode of studies, it is quite demanding. Unless we are very intellectually as well as spiritually strong, it may be damaging to our faith.
And confusing to our understanding. Now, suppose we go through that whole grill, and then we get a PhD. Then we have to be clear, what is the purpose.
Is it just to increase our appeal in our insider to outsider or insider to insider communication? That means, you know, when a devotee is being introduced, a college program is going on. People may be impressed. And people may come for the program more.
But eventually we see that people's commitment doesn't depend on the qualification. How much inspiration they get from the speaker. So, for enhancing our immediate outreach, a PhD may help as an increaser of initial attraction.
But it doesn't really help in terms of sustaining the spiritual attraction or growth of people. That is a different ballgame. Then, if one wants to do some specialized kind of outreach, say, one wants to go to a mass audience, then also it may again help in the initial.
But if one wants to really change the mainstream way of thinking, then that requires almost dedicated changing of one's profile. So, if you have to, for example, change some academic way of understanding of things, then it is not just enough to get a PhD. After that, we have to write papers, we have to contribute to academic conferences, and then maybe write books, and then actually to get books published through the peer review process in the academic world is also not easy.
Just like, suppose, somebody wants to write an article in BTG. Then, back to Godhead, if, say, some student, some boy or some young man who is from Mayavadi background, he comes and he wants to give Mayavadi expression of the Gita. Now, the editors will not allow it.
That's because they want to be faithful to the parampara. But something similar in the academic world, they have peer review. And if somebody gives a radically opposite understanding of what is the mainstream academic understanding, they will not suppress it, but they will not immediately accept it.
So, one has to really rigorously study and explain things and slowly establish one's credibility. So, last year, I was in Los Angeles and I met Dutta Karmaprabhu. Dutta Karmaprabhu has dedicated his last, from 1984 onwards roughly, so it's almost 30 years of his life now, to scientifically critiquing the theory of evolution.
And I asked him that, you know, has the mainstream perception of evolution changed today? So, he said, as far as I can see, there's no change. The atheists have become more hardline. The religious have also become more hardline.
The debate has become more polarized. But he said what has happened is, you know, by his hard work, his writings have been translated into many languages. He's been invited in universities and places all over the world to give talks.
Now, that invitation or his publication doesn't mean his view has become accepted. But at least it has become presented. So, he says that by his efforts, ISKCON has come on the intellectual map of the science-religion dialogue.
Otherwise, we were not even a participant over there. See, it's like somebody is right and somebody is wrong and I want to prove that you are wrong and I am right. But if I am not even allowed a voice over there, then how can I say that I am right? So, for example, there's a panel discussion going on.
Somebody is in the audience. And in the panel discussion, the audience feels that everything in the panel discussion is wrong. All of them are wrong.
But from the audience, you cannot shout at them. You will have no credibility. But in the future, if this person becomes a good scholar or a respectable person, they are invited on the panel.
Once they are invited on the panel, then they explain the panel. Now, there is still one member of the panel. If they give a persuasive presentation, people may accept.
But still, it's a panel. And there will be different opinions over there. So, at the very least, what has happened is we have been invited to the panel.
But still, there are other people who are maybe bigger in the panel in terms of influence, in terms of prestige. They may still be bigger. So, changing the mainstream conceptions will require many generations.
And just as say, if a Mayavadi comes to ISKCON, then that Mayavadi will have to will have to very much conceal one's Mayavadi. Isn't it? So, similarly, if a devotee goes into academia, it's not an accurate example, but to some extent, it is similar that we cannot openly say I am a devotee. If you say, what happened was at one time, some young earth creationists, young earth creationists are a particular group of Christians who claim that the earth is 6000 years old based on literal interpretation of the Bible.
So, now, they are very much ridiculed in the mainstream media. And it's almost utterly indefensible to say that the earth is 6000 years old. But there is a whole group of them, almost like 20 or 20-25 people, they went to different universities and they did PhD in biology, paleontology and various fields related to biology.
And while they were doing their studies, they did not speak one word critiquing evolution. They just accepted it, wrote their thesis, got their degrees. And after that, with their degree, PhD, got from there, they just turned around and they started bashing.
Now, what happened? These are big universities. And these people are saying, we are PhDs from this university and we are saying that the earth is 6000 years old. And these universities themselves, they became furious because it was their name that was being sullied.
So, after that happened, the universities have become very very cautious about not becoming unwitting propaganda tools for some traditionalists with their own dogmas. That's why, even if we get a PhD, it can be useful. It can definitely be helpful.
But without a clear vision of what we are going to do after the PhD, if it's a very strong inspiration, one can definitely do it. But it will require a huge amount of effort. And after that, what exactly one plans to do.
So, that is important. Otherwise, you just get into PhD and say, maybe I can do this, maybe I can do that. Maybe I can do that.
Right now, PhD is good for whom? For those devotee grahasthas who are intellectual and who want to study shastra and are not too much interested in pursuing very lucrative careers. So, for them, if they take up jobs in the industry or the other fields, they will not be able to study scripture at all. So, for them to earn a living in a reasonably respectable way and to be able to study scripture, academic studies is good.
But even then, it is demanding. To become a PhD in any field is not easy. And humanity requires a lot of studies, lot of training in a particular way of thinking.
So, Tamang Krishna Maharaj, he was a sanyasi guru in ISKCON. And through some ISKCON contacts, he could have got an honorary degree from somewhere. But when he wanted to do PhD, he actually went back and he completed his bachelors.
Then he completed his masters. And that also, he did not just go to some university which will just give you a degree nominally. He went to the toughest universities.
He went through their whole program. And then finally he did his PhD. Unfortunately, Krishna had other plans.
So, now his PhD has come out and it's a very good book. His PhD where he has explained Prabhupada's theology. In the mainstream academic world, Prabhupada is often thought of more as a propagandist.
You know, one who is using the Gaudiya Vaishnav philosophy just to propagate his organization. But how Prabhupada had deep thought and deep philosophical rationale for what he was doing. That he has explained very beautifully and faithfully in academic terms.
So, it's not that by reading Tamang Krishna Maharaj's PhD thesis, people are going to start chanting Hare Krishna and becoming devotees. In general, that is not the definition of success in the academic world. The definition of success is simply that our perspective becomes heard and gradually, if our perspective is more reasonable than other perspectives, then over decades, sometimes over generations, the understanding will change.
Max Muller, when he translated the sacred books of the East, at that time he wrote a letter to his wife. He said, I will not live to see the success of my work. So, he knew that academic work requires many many generations.
So, he would probably not have thought when he was translating the books that in future there will be Max Muller Bhavan in India and various places. But that's how it worked out. So, academic outreach requires a lot of sattva guna, lot of patience, lot of hard work, lot of intellectual hard work.
So, if one has some forums where one can reach and where PhD will give additional credibility, then definitely it's good. Otherwise, and that credibility is going to substantially make a difference, then it's good. So, for example, if you want to do a one-time program in colleges, you are not allowed to do it.
But if you have a PhD, you will be allowed to do it. Then we can attract a lot of people to come. So, we need just a PhD is not going to make a major difference.
We need to have some supporting structure or at least a vision for creating a supporting structure by which the PhD can be used as a valuable tool for bringing about a constructive change.