Continuity & change from Bhaktisiddhanta ST to Prabhupada The Monk s Podcast 161 with Bhakti Vikas Maharaj

Podcast: Summary Podcast: Video:

Thus my Sri Guru Vena Maha Nama Sreshtam Manum Api Sacchi Putramatva Swaroopam Roopam Tasyagajam Urupoen Maatoen Goshtavateen Radha Kundam Girivaramaho Radhika Mata Vasham Prapto Yasya Pratita Kripaya Sri Gurum Tamvatos Vande Ham Sri Guru Sri Yatah Parikamalam Sri Gurun Vaishnavamsa Sri Roopam Sahagajatam Sahagrana Raghunatham Vittam Tam Sajivam Sadhvaitam Sabadhutam Parijana Saitam Krishna Tritanya Devam Sri Radha Krishna Padam Sahagrana Lalita Sivashakam Hare Krishna Hare Krishna Krishna Krishna Hare Hare Hare Rama Hare Rama Rama Rama Hare Hare Okay, fire away. I'm at your disposal.

I'm your servant. Not very good servant. Thank you very much first of all for joining today Maharaj.

Hare Krishna. It's been my very fond aspiration to have your association. I started the monk's podcast about one and a half years ago.

And since the early days of my Krishna consciousness, I was always very inspired by your thoughtful provoking and of course, sometimes provoking classes. One of the reasons I started the monk's podcast was that we often on the Vyasasana, certain topics are spoken. But there are many other topics that are important for devotees discussion, for understanding and those topics could be discussed over here.

So, you know, I especially have appreciated many of your books. But here one of my inspirations to actually start writing up as a senior service. You really have done, you've done a lot of writing.

Yeah, I tried to do some things by Krishna's mercy. And your Bhaktisiddhanta Vaibhava was an immense inspiration for me. To three things actually among many that first of all, just the sheer amount of effort you had put in comprehensively documenting Bhaktisiddhanta Thakur's life.

Also the level of vocabulary and scholarship and analysis that had gone into that book and the broadening of the understanding of the Gaudiya Sampradaya that not just in terms of Chaitanya Mahaprabhu and Chaitanya Nila, but in terms of recent history. So, I found that book very, very illuminating personally. And I also had the fortune to be of some service to you in some of your books, especially the Balram book.

Which is still in the womb. Balram is still in the womb. It's a long pregnancy.

It's beautiful. There was a miscarriage and it ended the womb of Kishore Prabhu. He's attached to Balram.

I won't let him go. You don't understand. It's cryptic language.

No, but the quick, I mean the very sharp and pertinent metaphor of long pregnancy and miscarriage. It's brilliant correlation. Because Balram, he went from the womb of Devaki to Rohini by apparent miscarriage.

That's right. About this point of broadening the perspective about the Sampradaya, there's still a huge amount of work to do on that. Some devotee scholars are doing that, as you know.

No doubt you're connected with the academic side of ISKCON. Yes, ma'am. And they're mostly looking at the history.

I just saw there's one of your Godbrothers at Oxford brought out a thesis on the political undercurrents at the time of Baladeva Vidyabhushan and how that affected, how it appeared, I haven't read it, but how it appeared to have affected their philosophy or their presentation of Krishna consciousness, which is quite amazing if you think about it. The social ramifications. Well, that's what we're going to talk about.

But another thing, really, just like Srila Prabhupada said, if you want to know me, read my books. So really to understand the previous Acharyas, you really have to go deeply into their teachings. Yes, Maharaj.

For that you need to know Sanskrit very well and Nyaya and Mimamsa and so many things. And of course, for 99.99% of us, everything we need to know is in Srila Prabhupada's books. Yes, Maharaj.

Anyway, please go on because we didn't even get started yet. But we could say so many things even before we get started. Yeah, please.

Yes, Maharaj. Thank you. So I thought that today we could discuss on this topic of continuity and change within the tradition because you have studied Prabhupada very deeply.

You have written several books on Jai Prabhupada and other books about and appreciating Prabhupada, speaking strongly in Prabhupada's service. And then you have written also on Bhakti Sanskrit Thakur. I'm also working, just to interrupt you, which I shouldn't do, but I'm doing it.

I'm also working on a big book. It'll be about a thousand pages, just an overview of everything Srila Prabhupada did and how he did it. So that's quite a big thing.

That's going to be bigger than all the works I've done on Srila Prabhupada so far, all of them put together. Is this the book on the mood and mission of Srila Prabhupada? Yeah, yeah, yeah. Maybe I'll discuss it with you some more after we've finished this talk.

Yes, Maharaj. Because it's going along but slowly. Anyway, we can discuss that after.

But that's going to be a very important book. Yes, Maharaj. So, yeah.

So, in one sense, because these two are the most prominent recent Acharyas we have, Srila Prabhupada and Bhakti Sanskrit Thakur. So the dynamism of how the tradition works, I thought we could discuss that based on looking at their teachings and their presentation of Krishna Consciousness. At one level, Prabhupada did say that I'm simply like a postman.

I didn't change anything. I just spoke my spiritual master's message. At the same time, Prabhupada encountered a very different socio-cultural reality, especially in the West.

So he did have to adapt to present the thing. So I have thought of four or five points where there are seeming differences in Prabhupada's approach or emphasis. So we could take them one by one and discuss the dynamism of continuity and change in the Gaudiya tradition with a focus on Prabhupada and Bhakti Sanskrit Thakur.

Okay. Yeah, definitely. It's okay.

Before we get into discussing that, I'd just like to talk a little bit about the importance of this topic. It can be taken simply as an intellectual exercise. And there are scholars who do that, not only in the religious field.

They study, for instance, in Marxism, the different strands of Marxism. And it is possible to be a scholar of religion and not actually believe or be committed. But you just study it, just like some people study butterflies and some people study atomic reactions and some people study religionists.

And they just study it, but they're not committed to it. But for us, it's important to see about this preservation and continuity because we are in the process. When we say we are in the parampara, I just read something that Jayadvaita Maharaj quoted from Kripalu Moiprabhu, saying that about Prabhupada disciples, it's very important.

He said, we don't realise that others are looking at us and what we do will set for future generations how they understand Prabhupada. What we do, how we interpret it. So it is important.

We're engaged in something which is of such tremendous importance. It's difficult for us to gauge how important what we're doing. The supreme personality of Godhead comes down as Chaitanya Mahaprabhu and showers his mercy on the world.

And here we all are. And we are the ones, for better or for worse, who are carrying that forward. And we have our massive acharyas.

We're talking here particularly about Srila Bhaktivinoda Saraswati Thakur and our own Srila Prabhupada. Just massive figures who literally altered the course of religious history and made religious history. And we are the ones who are in charge with carrying that message forward.

And just like you're saying that Srila Prabhupada faced a different socio-cultural milieu than that of Siddhanta Saraswati Thakur. Well, so do we, because the world is changing so much all the time. Of course, there's always birth, death, old age and disease.

But in the Western world, the influence of feminism has tremendously changed people's outlook. And even men, I would say nowadays, are much more, just by cultural pressure, they have to be very sensitive and all this kind of thing. Touchy feeling, that's one way of putting it, or microaggressions.

So the way Srila Prabhupada preached was so strong. And it was quite amazing that he largely got away with it, even at that time. I mean, we didn't find people, just like he went on TV and this and that, and he was very forthright.

But we do find a very different way. So that's a big question. I mean, that's a major question facing our moment, isn't it? Gender issues.

I'm getting questions from America. How do we deal with people who are serious about Krishna Consciousness, but they're transgender? Yes. It's something outside of my experience.

Anyway, there are significant changes in the world. And people want to know about this, right? What's your attitude towards transgender people? In fact, for many, especially liberal minded people, the attitude toward these kind of issues is like a litmus test for them. How they decide what kind of organisation you are.

So that becomes very problematic. So in one sense, our discussion is not just about the past. From the past, we want to get some guidelines to deal with the present and the future.

Yeah. Yeah. That's what I'm saying.

That's why this discussion, it's not just some kind of academic discussion between us. But we have to carry that forward into the present and into the future. But another thing is that we, without any insult to yourself, but we, you and I, and so many others.

It's absolutely safe to say we're just not on the level of Srila Prabhupada, Bhaktists and sorcerers. Of course. And even Prabhupada himself said, in America, I was experimenting.

He was trying things out. And one example we can see of that, he got couples married. And just said, okay, you marry overnight.

He said, tomorrow you're going to marry this one. Tomorrow you're going to marry this one. And he expected it to work out on the base of Krishna conscious, but it didn't.

Yeah. So, if even Srila Prabhupada was experimenting, what's our position? On the one hand, we're talking about preserving the principles, preserving the essence. And like you said, people, the litmus test, they won't even give us the time of day.

We're just a closed book to them. If they think that we don't accept their ideas of gender equality or transgenderism and all this kind of thing. But our philosophical teachings, look at the books of Srila Prabhupada, which we're distributing.

They disagree with that very strongly. So, these are real issues. And they're not easy ones.

But at the same time, we have great acharyas, and we have ourselves, and we have the mandate to carry it on. So, we can simply pray. We can look at their example and try to understand.

That's another way. It's very difficult to understand, actually, everything that they did and why they did it. Vaishnava era, Kriya Mudra, Vigehana, Bhujoya.

So, that's another thing. I must say, now I'm making, for the last few years, what could be called a deep study of Srila Prabhupada and what he did and everything. Some things I find, that I would have just accepted, it's, you could say, intellectually, some things I don't understand.

When I start to go deeper. So, there we go. So, you're saying, as you study more, some things which were acceptable earlier, they raise questions now? When I think about it, I'll just give you one example.

He's not very well known in our movement nowadays. Siddhaswaroopananda. Yes.

For years and years, Srila Prabhupada, you could say, tolerated him and encouraged him. While the rest of Srila Prabhupada's disciples were very strongly against Siddhaswaroopananda. He was causing a lot of trouble to what you might call the regular Iskcon.

But Prabhupada went on encouraging him. But then, sometimes Siddhaswaroopananda's face, and definitely to Bhurijan Prabhu, he was very strong in condemning him. But he went on encouraging him.

On the other hand, there were Kanupriya and Jamadagni in Los Angeles, who asked Srila Prabhupada some very pointed questions. But very pertinent questions. Just like, you must have seen this conversation.

They were asking questions like, how do we explain that Maharaja Ugrasena had 7 billion bodyguards, which is more than the population of the world at that time. And it seems to me like a very pertinent question. But Prabhupada didn't want to deal with them.

It seems to me because he perceived that they were somewhat defiant of him. In that conversation, Prabhupada also seems to consider that issue not very consequential. He says that among the thousands of verses of the Bhagavatam, why focus on that particular thing, especially when dealing with scholars.

But they said that, well, we're giving these books to intelligent people. They're going to ask us these questions. What do we say? And it seems to me to be a very pertinent question that Srila Prabhupada… And then they also said that so-and-so approached me homosexually.

And Prabhupada also just seemed a bit disturbed by that. He just also just brushed that aside, so to speak. He just didn't want to deal with them.

And of course, Srila Prabhupada has the full prerogative to do that. And it seems he didn't like their attitude in asking. But at the same time, the questions are very pertinent.

The questions themselves are very pertinent. So like that. Yes, Maharaj, that is true.

So, you know, before we wade into territory that is like very controversial in today's terms, if you just look back at Prabhupada and Bhakti Sankhya Thakur. So broadly, people have asked some devotees and devotee academics, and even some academic scholars have asked me these questions about how do we reconcile some differences in Prabhupada's focused strategy or style as compared to Bhakti Sankhya Thakur's. So one explanation, of course, is the different circumstance.

Now, one thing which seems very striking is Prabhupada's vocabulary was much more accessible than Bhakti Sankhya Thakur's vocabulary. And it also, to some extent, at least it seems that in the early BTG articles, Prabhupada used a little more vocabulary that was similar to Bhakti Sankhya Thakur's. But later on he started using a little, or at least in his purports and many of his other books, the vocabulary seems to be more accessible.

So do you have any idea with, did you notice this or how do you see this difference in vocabulary basically? Okay, okay, okay. Before, we're getting into the meat, you could say, of the discussion now. But if you agree, I'll read out, I have three pages from my Muda Mission book.

Okay, please go ahead. Okay, I'm going to read a chapter called Different and Non-Different from His Guru. It'll take about ten minutes, I guess, to read.

Okay. And you can interrupt me at any time. In 1958, Abhay Charanaravan Dadast described his spiritual master in words that later became undeniably applicable to himself also.

So please listen to this, understanding that it's Srila Prabhupada describing his own guru, but the same words can be used to describe Srila Prabhupada also. Hmm. So Srila Prabhupada wrote, You preach the pure philosophy of Lord Gauranga in such a way that intelligent persons could understand.

And you showed such great concern, O Master, in convincing all your adversaries. Lord Gauranga used many tricks just to engage the conditioned souls in devotional service. That's very relevant to our whole discussion today, isn't it? Yes, that's true.

Lord Gauranga used many tricks just to engage the conditioned souls in devotional service. And you have also understood how to use all those tricks perfectly well. You understood time, place, and circumstance and utilised everything as a strategy for preaching.

End of the quote. In 1976, Srila Prabhupada had the logo of the Gauri Amrit, originally designed by Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati Thakur, painted on both pillars of the main entrance gate at ISKCON's World Headquarters in Mayapur, which is, of course, the place where there are so many Gauri Amrits. Actually, at that time, there was only the Sri Chaitanya Amrit, Advaita Bhavan, Yoga Peeth, Madhav Maharaj's Amrit, and Goswami Maharaj's Amrit.

But later, so many others came. Anyway, Prabhupada had the logo, have you seen it? At the gate of Mayapur, they have on both sides the logo of the Gauri Amrit. Thus, asserting his allegiance to the vision and core concepts of Saraswati Thakur, notwithstanding the several differences in externals that he necessarily instituted in order to make possible the fulfilment of Saraswati Thakur's mission, the establishment of Krishna consciousness worldwide.

Like his own guru, Srila Prabhupada was, being impelled by intense compassion for the conditioned souls, an aggressive and uncompromising preacher of the absolute truth. So that idea of compassion and aggression, normally they don't consider to go together. And like his guru, Srila Prabhupada was self-reliant, strong-minded, and with huge plans, yet also fully dependent upon and a surrendered follower of his guru.

Like his guru, Shrila Prabhupada started his mission alone, going against the current of the time, with no help, and facing opposition even from other Vaishnavas. Only by unshakeable conviction, tenacity, and power of devotion were both gradually able to gather followers and do something unexpected, unimagined, and magnificent for establishing Krishna's glories in the world. In unprecedentedly bringing Krishna consciousness to non-Hindus, Srila Prabhupada kept his teachings well grounded in the principles and doctrines of his predecessors in the Gauriya Vaishnava tradition.

Srila Prabhupada charted the course that all seminal religious teachers must negotiate, that between fidelity to a tradition and relevance to a time and place, with consideration of the mentality and aptitude of those he ministered to. That paragraph is taken from something that my godbrother Pradyumna Prabhu wrote. Very important observation.

Okay, continuing what I wrote. There is no reason that Acharyas cannot have different outlooks, approaches, and personalities. Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati Thakur was known to be very strict and great, yet Srila Prabhupada, while not lacking these qualities, was more accommodating and fun-loving, quote-unquote.

And then there's a whole section I have about how Srila Prabhupada made Krishna consciousness fun for the newcomers. That's another chapter. But at the same time, the fun was bringing people into the actual bliss of the spiritual world, spiritual fun.

So now when Prabhupada said, you have mentioned this point that there is no reason why one Acharya cannot be different from another Acharya in some things. Different outlooks, approaches, and personalities. Yes, so the personality of course we understand is intrinsic to every individual.

Now when Prabhupada said, I didn't change anything. So how do we understand that? What did he mean? Was he implicitly referring to essentials I haven't changed? Yeah, the message is unchanged. Okay.

The spiritual message, certain outlooks on social issues may be different. We see that Bhaktivinoda Thakur, he, like most of the, or from what I understand, most of the Bhadralok of Calcutta at that time, was against child marriage, although he himself had child, he was married as a child as he describes, and certain other social issues which came to pass, widow remarriage. But child marriage, Srila Prabhupada was in favour of it, at least marriage at a very young age.

So different outlook on social issues. Okay. Unchanging, what it means is that the essential message is not changed.

And in one sense, by looking at what are the differences, say between what Prabhupada has done and Bhaktivinoda Thakur has done, or what you can say Prabhupada and Bhaktivinoda Thakur did, we can also, that can help us get a sense of what is the core that is meant to be kept unchanged, what are the principles, and then what has been changed, that itself we can see is a indication of something which is a contextual social issue, that that is changeable. Say for example, let's say position on issue like widow remarriage or child marriage, the fact that two acharyas have had different positions on that issue, indicates that this itself is not a central issue to our philosophy. And then that can be, the position can be adjusted accordingly.

I don't want to go into the issue specifically. Okay. I'm trying to understand the principle here.

Like there are spiritual teachings and there are social application of the spiritual teachings. So the social applications may vary. So would that be a domain for relevance and fidelity roughly speaking? Well, here I want to bring up a point that Shrila Bhaktivinoda Thakur was the pioneer of the programme for bringing Krishna consciousness to the Western world.

That's written in the 1972 edition of the Bhagavad Gita as it is, the first Macmillan edition. There's a picture of Bhaktivinoda Thakur, the pioneer of the programme to bring Krishna consciousness to the West. Bhakti Satsvartha Thakur came next, and our own Bhaktivedanta Swami Shrila Prabhupada, he actually did bring it to the West.

Shrila Prabhupada is the founder acharya of ISKCON. And therefore, I feel, sorry, I shouldn't say I feel because Prabhupada, he wanted everything very definite. But we have a society in which there are different opinions about what it means to follow Shrila Prabhupada.

So I have to say that, I have to put it in a relativistic way, that Shrila Prabhupada had a very specific vision for how he wanted Krishna consciousness to unfold in the future. And that's a lot about what the book I'm writing is about. I'm trying to write it just showing what Prabhupada wanted and not insert myself there.

But he did foresee a world civilisation based on Varnashram Dharma. So when we're talking about social adjustments that we have to see to adjust to the present situation. But at the same time, keeping Prabhupada's vision of, it's not just that we want to get people to chant Hare Krishna, but we also want to establish on Shrila Prabhupada's order, a revival of Varnashram Dharma to make it easier for people to live in Krishna consciousness.

That's a very big topic, which I have discussed to some extent in the book that I'm writing. So we could say that, well, we just get people to chant Hare Krishna and follow four regulated principles. But Shrila Prabhupada had also, and the social issues we can adjust here and there, but Shrila Prabhupada had a very definite social programme.

How we get from here to there, that we can discuss. But first of all, we should see where we're going. It's not just that we're reacting to society.

Okay, so, okay, there's gender issues. Okay, how are we going to react to that? And then there's some other issues come up. How are we going to react to that? But we should have our own clear direction of where we're going socially, which is establishing Varnashram Dharma.

Okay, so if I understand right, what you're saying Maharaj is that because Prabhupada is our founder Acharya, even his statements about social issues have a certain significant importance for us. And even when he wanted to spread Krishna Consciousness, it was not just a transcendental programme, but also a particular social programme that he wanted by which to spread Krishna Consciousness. Well, he did want to establish Varnashram Dharma.

That was his social vision. And we should see that as his social vision. And that's not divorced from transcendental Krishna Consciousness.

It's the social system which helps people to be Krishna Conscious. And Srila Prabhupada had this idea, as you know, even before he came to the West. It was very straight, the early Bhakti-gods said that he was talking about this.

And it seems there was considerable discussion about this in intellectual circles, shaping the new India. Because from 1947, just suddenly, for decades, they'd be saying they want free India. It happened quite quickly.

They didn't have much time to prepare for it. It happened suddenly that India was independent. The British said, okay, you're going to be independent.

After the war, a new government was voted in. The Labour government in Britain. They said, okay, India, be independent.

And they speeded it up. And it just, boom, it happened very quickly. There was a lot of discussion about various, you know very well that Ambedkar, especially talking about caste issues and all this.

That's true, yeah. But it seems from what little I've studied, and I haven't gone into this deeply, that even Ambedkar himself and Mahatma Gandhi, they weren't against the concept of what we would call the Vanashram Dharma. And at that time in India, of course, in many ways it worked.

In India at that time, even in the villages, well, even in the town, and it's still there. There's the expert artisan community who they know how each one, the potter knows how to make pots. The carpenter knows how to make wooden utensils and so many things.

And the khyastas, that's what they're called in Bengal, and karans in North India, they're expert administrators. And to a certain extent it worked, but there was this unnecessary discrimination, which Ambedkar was obviously, as is well known, he was very disturbed by that. He didn't become a Buddhist overnight.

He was trying to work within the framework of Hinduism. For a long time he tried that. Yeah.

So he wasn't against the idea, but he thought, well, Buddha, he kicked it out. I'll join the Buddhists. So Srila Prabhupada was talking about Vanashram, but he was making the point, and he wasn't the first to do so, either from the spiritual side, what should I say, either from the religious, which is difficult because in India the religious and the secular have always been so mixed.

And we don't know that now because we're living in 21st century secular India, where it seems as if the secular and the religious are different, although it wasn't until recently. But there were people whose main interest was social. And again, I can give the example of Ambedkar and Gandhi and many others also, who were talking about Vanashram and the caste system and were saying that it's got to be quality-based and not birth-based.

So it wasn't only Srila Prabhupada who was saying this. And of course Bhaktivinoda Thakur was saying that India has to revive its real Vanashram system and then India can become very strong and lead the world spiritually. So it was a big topic of discussion even before Srila Prabhupada came to the West.

But the amazing thing was that he wanted to implement that even in the West. That's really revolutionary, especially considering in the West there's so much egalitarian minded. Yes Maharaj, Vanashram itself is a huge subject.

Why don't we have another talk some other time about that? Yes Maharaj, we could discuss that definitely. So now, how do we get there? We are talking about trying to understand whether we could understand what are the principles and what are the details based on say Prabhupada's social positions. So you said that we have to be little cautious about that.

Because Prabhupada also did focus on social issues quite strongly. I think in one of our discussions earlier, several years earlier mentioned that Prabhupada was among the first Acharyas to integrate social commentary in his scriptural commentaries. His scriptural commentary, not just scriptural explication, but he addresses social issues elaborately.

So if we look at Prabhupada and we look at Bhaktivinoda Thakur. So you were reading the extract from your book and I was making this point that relevance and fidelity, those two things have to be balanced. Are there certain things which we can see as significant differences between Prabhupada and Bhaktivinoda Thakur which can give us some guidelines for principles or some guidelines for how to or what is adjustable and what is not adjustable.

Because if we say that Prabhupada's social policy is instantiated or is made in stone, then that almost becomes like a diversion from the tradition. Because most of the adaptation will come in social issues only. So that means the dynamism of fidelity and relevance.

In one sense, after that Prabhupada becomes frozen to zero relevance and absolute fidelity. Because we are not going to change the scripture. We are not going to ever say that Krishna is not God and Shiva is God.

So most of the relevance will be with respect to social issues. And if we say that Prabhupada's social policy is what is going to be forever for ISKCON, then that means basically there is no room for adaptation at all. And isn't that itself a difference from the way the tradition has operated for centuries? Yeah, but I didn't say that though.

I said that we have to keep Srila Prabhupada's social vision. But at the same time see where we are and how to get there. We might have to go like this.

Can you see me on the screen? We might have to go like this rather than like this. In the introduction to this book, I wrote that we have to keep Srila Prabhupada's instructions as our guidelines. And at the same time not freeze the movement in time.

Okay. So it is a big discussion, yeah. Another thing is that we can sit here discussing like we're doing.

And it is of relevance that we discuss such things, of course. But at the same time, there are so many devotees who are out there doing things, not saying that you're not doing anything, which in their own way they are representing Prabhupada as they see, and they are setting the tone of the Krishna conscious movement. They're influencing it.

I'll give one example. It's controversial. Sorry.

Mahavishnu Maharaj, my godbrother, he goes, he's over 70 years old. He goes out chanting Harinam in public, which is great, regularly. But he has a hat which is considered zany by some, although it has all kinds of, it has the changing bodies exhibit on it.

Yeah, and he wears fluorescent green clogs. It's a bit zany. And you might say, well, you shouldn't do that.

Sanyasi shouldn't do that. I'm not going to comment on that here, no. But I'm just saying that you can say this should be done, this shouldn't be done.

But in the meantime, people are going out into the world and doing things, and they are representing Prabhupada to others, and it's happening. It's just like there was Christ, and we think we have his teachings, and then a church was formed, and then another church was formed, and then another church was formed. And people just, we can say it should be like this, but then at some point in time, someone says to hell with you, I'm going to start my own church, and they represent Christ to others.

So it's not just a matter of intellectually trying to understand it, but what people do also very much influences our approach to Christian consciousness. And I mentioned that also, the tremendous influence of feminism. I would say that's a big difference.

Can we take one point at a time, if you don't mind? Okay. Well, this is to illustrate that point. I'm not going to talk about feminism per se, but I'm just going to say that we, you and I, maybe you came a little later to Christian consciousness, the way we deal with others in Christian consciousness is also influenced, I would say, by the whole world.

The Western world is very much influenced by being very sensitive to others. Maybe that's a good thing. Probably it is to some extent, but I'm just saying that in the early days, we were probably far too rough, but we were very direct in our dealings.

It could be tough, but nowadays we're very careful how we deal with others. And I would say that that's a reaction, or we're just influenced by the way the whole social milieu is. We are, whether we know it or not, influenced by it.

Okay, that's a lot of stuff. Over to you. Thank you.

So I appreciate this point that ultimately any tradition is shaped by people who are actually living it. So there are different people who will live it in different ways and people will associate that with the tradition. I don't think ever in the tradition there was a possibility to like police or control things like that.

Because after Chaitanya Mahaprabhu departed, the Goswamis were in Vrindavan and then there were some followers in Bengal, some followers in Orissa. So even this… Sorry. Disagree.

I disagree. Anyway, go on. So the Kirtan styles that evolved were slightly different and there was a broad understanding.

My point is that is it, did it ever happen in the Gaudiya tradition or even the broad Vedic tradition? India itself is so big that somebody could actually monitor and police exactly who is doing what, where. So Prabhupada talked about Phalena Parichayate. In fact, as you said, Prabhupada was opposed by many of his God brothers when he tried to preach.

And Bhakti Sanskrit Thakur was opposed by some of the followers of Bhakti Vinod Thakur. Bhakti Vinod Thakur was opposed by many of those who were considered Gaudiya Vaishnavas at their time. The Gaudiya Vaishnava orthodoxy at that time.

So it is to some extent different, like Prabhupada talked about experimenting, that different devotees will try different things and some things will work in terms of attracting people to core Krishna consciousness. Some may not work. So is it possible in advance to actually mandate that this should not be done? Are there any precedents to that in the tradition itself? Well, we can go back to Roop Kaviraj was rejected.

That was very, very early in the Sampradaya. I mean, even you're saying in the Vedic tradition, there's no policing, but Buddhism was rejected. Jainism was rejected as being non-Vedic.

In the Mahabharata, we have, who was that? There were two instances. There was one where one Rishi, he preached atheism to Yudhishthira. Who was that? I can't remember his name.

Jabali in the Ramayana, in the Mahabharata. And then afterwards, Krishna rebuked him. And afterwards he said, no, no, I was just doing it for a purpose.

And there was another one, whose name I don't remember, who was just speaking outright atheism. And he was rejected by everyone. Atheism in the sense of being against the teachings, accepting the Vedas.

There was one saying, there's no karma. When you die, it's all over. Yeah.

I don't remember exactly. So, there's always been a sense of orthodoxy, of what is right and what is wrong. Like I said, the example of Rupa Kaviraj was rejected.

I think these are, sorry to interrupt you. These are like Buddhism and Jainism. They are, to some extent, they themselves define themselves in contradiction to the Vedic tradition.

So, whether the Vedic tradition rejected them or not, they themselves define themselves differently. Rupa Kaviraj, again, I think the issue goes to, I'm not saying that there can be no moral policing or no sort of jurisdiction or regulation. But my point is that, if as a movement, we start, you earlier talked about the word micro-aggression.

But the other opposite would be micro-control. Because we cannot micro-control our members. Maybe it was possible when everybody was living in the temples.

But now we are largely a congregation-based movement. So, to some extent, if through discussions like these, some broad principles are understood, then future generations of devotees, they can adopt those principles. Because in general, in our movement, I don't know, as we are spreading, how much control we can ever have on anyone.

Especially when people are having their own lives and their own careers and they're not really living in temples. So, rather than sort of defining a path, this is the path to go. If we can help people develop their inner compass, then they will know the direction to go in.

I'm not saying we don't have a path. But the fact that we are ourselves in uncharted territory now and in many ways, the world has changed as compared to few decades ago, what to speak a few centuries ago. So, how much is it possible to clearly define, this is what Prabhupada wanted and anything different from this is going to be, is wrong.

Because over that itself, we will end up having debates. So, if you could give broad principles rather than specifics, wouldn't that… Well, what it'll come down to is, as it has throughout the generations in all Vedic and even Buddhist sampradayas, is Guru Vachan. Guru says this, this is how we understand Prabhupada.

And those who want, they follow, and those who don't, they prefer someone else's interpretation. That's how I see it's going to come down practically. I think it's going to be very, very, as time goes on, it's going to be more and more difficult to try to impose some orthopraxis on the whole of ISKCON, as you say.

But Guru Vachan should be enough. So, by here, Guru Vachan, you are referring to Shri Prabhupada's words or the Vachan of Guru Vachan? No, no, I'm saying individual gurus will say this is how we're following Shri Prabhupada. Okay.

And it may be different to others. Yeah. I've said that orthopraxis, I'm just reviewing a book that Jaya Veda Maharaj asked me to go through on kirtan standards, and that Prabhupada clearly gave.

But it seems impossible to me that we can ever get back to that. Yes. Unless we have a sea change within the whole movement about what the kirtan standards should be.

Because it might be possible, but it's difficult to go back. So one challenge would be that? He does quote me in that book as saying, well he specifically mentions ISKCON in Salem in South India, where they sing the mongolati in the tune that Shri Prabhupada wanted, which is rare in the whole movement. Oh, okay.

So what I'm saying is that because I happen to be the guru overseeing the devotees there, and I say it should be done like this, they do it like that. But if you go somewhere else, they might not say, well, you know, whatever. So there's an example of differences of approach, largely according to… Most followers are not going to think about things even as deeply as you and I are discussing now.

And we're really only touching the surface, as you know. That's right. But most followers want to follow.

They don't… Like you're saying, most nowadays are… What are they called? Congregation followers. They have their jobs, they have their families. They don't have time and maybe not the information to get into all kinds of abstruse issues.

They want to come to the temple and chant Hare Krishna and hear about Krishna. And someone appeals to them. It's not totally non-philosophical, but it appeals to their heart.

And they say, yeah, I want to be part of this. They don't think about all the different issues and this and that. And actually, that's one of the things that the guru does.

He's supposed to learn from his guru, learn from shastra, learn from tradition. And he represents that to his disciples. Because you can't individually study all the teachings of the… Even to study everything Srila Prabhupada gave.

It's so vast and so deep. So practically, the disciples, they rely on the gurus to represent Prabhupada for them. And there are going to be differences in outlook.

And how to negotiate that. The Catholic Church does a pretty good job, I guess, by having different orders. And what do they call that? Different rights.

But they've had splits also, haven't they? Yes, Maharaj. But they're not doing too bad in the sense of keeping all different outlooks together. Yes, Maharaj.

I've heard it said that Srila Prabhupada said we should study the Catholic Church for their organisation and everything. That's very much a top-down movement, isn't it? As opposed to the Protestant churches, which are supposed to be me and God. Me and Jesus.

Yes. Right? The original rhythmicism. Okay.

That is true. So what I'm saying is that I think the gurus, by their examples… Even if the gurus don't… I gave the example of Mahavishu Maharaj. I hope Mahavishu Maharaj doesn't mind me giving this example.

I think he won't, because he knows that I have great love and respect for him. I don't think he's made a very deep philosophical analysis about why he dresses the way he does. And his, you could say, zany style.

But he does it, and it has its effects. You could say it's not grave enough, but many people seem to appreciate it. So, do you need to make a big philosophical analysis of what should be done and what not should be done? Yeah.

The house is on fire. So should we… Yeah, that is one major consideration. Let's sit down and discuss it.

That is something which is also quite a big issue, especially in the West. Because our movement is almost dying out with respect to Westerners. Recently, one devotee wrote, he said by 2040-2050, we might be writing the obituary of the last Western devotee in ISKCON.

Because we are attracting Indians, but now it may not happen. I don't think. No, but I think that is… You can make projections like that, but I prefer to listen to Lord Chaitanya.

It's time for another Hare Krishna revolution. Anyway, go on, say what you're saying. I don't agree with that.

Okay, thank you. Satyamevacayate. Yes, Maharaj.

Two things, you later mentioned the point, earlier mentioned the point of sensitivity. So I have been spending, as an instruction of my spiritual master, a lot of time in the West, especially in America over the last 4-5 years. And I try to understand where people are coming from.

So I noticed two different things. Yes, there is always the possibility that we become so sensitive that we don't speak the truth. But there is also the other thing that sometimes there are some aspects about our presentation or about prioritisation of our philosophical presentations that alienates people.

And then it doesn't let them come to our core teachings. So in that sense, my understanding is sensitisation and at least we need an awareness of what is going to affect people to what degree. Then after that we can decide, is this an important enough teaching for me to speak right now at this place to this person? And if it is, then we can speak it.

But if it is not, if you are not just aware of it and something which prevents people from even understanding the core principles of Krishna Consciousness, because of certain incidental statements like Prabhupada, that particular conversation which you quoted, why are you focussing on that? He had so many bodyguards. There is so much other wisdom in the Bhagavatam. Why not focus on that? So my concern is more that if you are not aware of how people perceive us, then we may alienate them by peripheral points and actually be committing violence to them by not giving them even the opportunity to hear the core points.

So I would say both dangers are there. One is we become so sensitive that we never speak the core points. But the other is that we become so, you could say insensitive or unmindful of how our audience is perceiving us that the peripheral points of our presentation alienate them from the core points and they never get to hear those.

While you were saying that, I was thinking of Srila Prabhupada in America in 1966, giving his classes about how Arjuna should… Krishna was telling Arjuna, you are a fool because you don't want to fight. And this is at the height of the anti-Vietnam War protests. And Srila Prabhupada was talking against illicit sex and against taking drugs.

Phew! He got away with it. Yeah, that is, you know, one thing is social media has made things much worse now, where any part can be extracted from anywhere and put together. So that is the challenge.

So what you said earlier also, it's amazing how Prabhupada didn't get too much of a vehement opposition despite his strong statements on many issues. Well, no, but not only did he not get opposition, but the people who are coming to him were hippies who believed in free sex and drugs and no war. And Srila Prabhupada was strongly against these things.

And he still managed to take people out and make devotees. That's really amazing. Are there some examples which you would like to discuss about how Prabhupada adapted according to his time, place, circumstance, what he learned from Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakur? I think you read that in your passage, you read that while Prabhupada did some essential changes, some significant changes, not essential changes, but changes that were essential for spreading Krishna Consciousness.

So can we discuss some examples of that from which we can learn about some principles of change and continuity in the tradition? Well, that comes, there's a long section on that in the book about Srila Prabhupada's, what one scholar called his religious gradualism. Okay, gradualism. Gradualism, yeah, how Srila Prabhupada and different scholars, Hari Shari Prabhu quotes one in his Transcendental Diary that he read to Srila Prabhupada, how one scholar had seen different phases in Srila Prabhupada's activities, and Prabhupada appreciated that.

And Satsvarupa Maharaj in his Prabhupada Leelamita, he traces out three major phases of Srila Prabhupada's preaching in the West. The initial phase, when it was very small, he was much more accessible. And then it changed as he became a dynamic, well, he was always dynamic, but a worldwide leader, and he couldn't keep in touch with all his disciples.

And then the third one, he was revealing, I can't remember exactly, I should have the whole thing here, but he had very big plans for changing the world. That was there even at the beginning. So there were phases in his activities, and definitely at the beginning, he gave initiation.

That's one example, he gave initiation very easily. I cite one anecdote of someone who, in San Francisco in 1969, especially Prabhupada was very liberal in giving initiation. But then later, within quite a short time, actually, he became more strict about that.

With marriage, in the beginning, he was encouraging that. But after some time, without discouraging marriage, he actually used the word disgusted, because he became so fed up of so many marriages breaking up, and he didn't want to be involved in it at all. And then he started emphasising varnashrama more and more.

It's not just for the whole world, but it's for our own devotees also, because so many of them, in the West especially, fail to maintain their vows. How was Bhakti Sahasrat Thakur's role with respect to arranging marriages or giving initiation? Nothing to do with it. Nothing to do with marriage.

In that sense, he was very strict as a sanyasi. He would even, when he was giving initiation to women, Harinam, he would chant on the beads in the room, the woman would wait outside and have someone else go and give the beads to her. Oh, okay.

That I came across recently. And we know from O. B. L. Kapoor that when Bhakti Sahasrat Thakur gave Harinam to O. B. L. Kapoor's wife, he did so from behind a screen, which was quite common in those days, that there would be, in an assembly, just like a religious assembly, there'd be a screen between the men and the women. Okay.

That was a common thing. Was there a programme at classes also, or specifically at the time of initiation? Not that I know of. Not that I know of.

But at the same time, we don't find that. I never thought of that, actually. We don't hear so much of even women coming to listen to the classes.

And there were educated women at that time, but the percentage was much fewer than at the present time. Okay. So, in one sense, we could also say that during Bhakti Sahasrat Thakur's time, the social structure was still quite existing and it was quite conducive for spiritual growth.

So, he didn't have to intervene in that. Well, he was more what nowadays they would call like a male chauvinist than was the current of… Of course, when we say the current of the times, the zeitgeist, it was very confused in India with movements like the Arya Samaj, wanting to get back to what they think is the original Vedic cause. But Bhakti Sahasrat Thakur was very much against what we would nowadays call feminism.

I'll give an example that Bhakti Sahasrat Thakur was the secretary for the Navadvipa Dham Pracharini Sabha at the time of Bhaktivinod Thakur and even afterward for some time. Now, in one of the Sajjanath Toshani magazines, there was a report on the minutes from the meeting of the Navadvipa Dham Pracharini Sabha which were written by Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati. There was a greed of Kumbhai everyone.

And the last one was that, I can't remember exactly the words, but it was something like that, ए शब्हाई कौनो स्ट्री गौन तो कौनो पद निता परवेना Something like this. I'm saying in Bengali because no woman can have any पद within this organisation. So पद can mean position.

It can mean in the same way as having a post, or it can mean just membership also. It wasn't clear to me what it means. But anyway, you get the gist.

It was a point that they all made, no women can have any position, which suggests that that was coming, that women were taking positions in society at that time. They were beginning to do so. He did have female disciples.

And he made that Vishnupriya Pali. That was quite an amazing thing for women who couldn't practise bhakti at home. I don't know whether it was older women, widows, or even women of childbearing age who left their families.

There would be a huge uproar if he took out women from their families when they were still in the role of mothers with young children. So I'm not sure about that, which kind of women joined the Vishnupriya Pali. As far as I understand, it was never a very big thing.

Not that there were very many. And that's closed down now, as you probably know. Yes, it's true.

So the point which I was trying to understand is that you said Prabhupada was involved in marriages and then he decided to not be involved. Bhakti Sahasrara Kuru was not much involved in marriages at all. No, not at all.

So I was making the point that maybe that was not so much either male chauvinism, what people might call a male chauvinism or feminism. Maybe it was because it was in India at that time that people, to some extent Indian culture was there and marriages would be arranged. In one sense, when Prabhupada came to the West, his disciples were almost completely taken out of the parent culture.

And even in the parent culture, there were not really sound arrangements for marriage. To some extent, it was more like a social responsibility that Prabhupada had to take, whereas that was not required for Bhakti Sahasrara Kuru. Could it be also like that? Right, okay, I get your point.

But at the same time, I was saying some things about Srila Prabhupada I find very difficult to understand because Srila Prabhupada right from the very beginning, it must have been the first marriage he arranged in Iskcon in the West. That was between Mukunda and Janaki. Yes.

Who were already living together as boyfriend and girlfriend and he got them initiated. Then after that, just after that, he got them married. But Srila Prabhupada said to Janaki that the wife, she's the head of the home and she has her jurisdiction within the home.

And he had her dress in a sari and he tied the sari to Mukunda's dhoti and said, now for seven days, you have to be tied up together. And it seems that Prabhupada, even with his very, very new, maybe they would call themselves followers, but they really didn't know what it meant to be a disciple. And they really didn't know hardly anything about Krishna consciousness.

But he expected them, it seems like that, he expected them to just adopt to this culture, just like that. Which is why I say that, I keep on making the point that later Srila Prabhupada became more and more insisted on Varnashram. And he wrote about that.

That's one of the most quoted quotes of Srila Prabhupada that people cannot change their culture overnight. Therefore, we have a policy of engaging the boys and the girls equally. But it seems that in the beginning, and again, we have to be very careful to try to psychoanalyse the mind of an acharya.

But it seems that Srila Prabhupada had higher expectations of his earlier disciples than was later seen to, that they could live up to that. And that in itself is a very big discussion. At the same time, Srila Prabhupada said that you are all devotees in your last life and Krishna sense.

So, there's so many things to consider. So, just this point about Prabhupada, in one sense, what you said about having particular cultural expectations and at the same time saying that you can't change culture overnight. Well, he wrote that about you can't change the culture overnight.

That must have been around 1974 when he was making his Chaitanya Charitamrita commentary. Yes, Maharaj. He'd been through a lot.

Eight years or so before he wrote that. It does seem that he was quite, you could say, inclusive in engaging women in various services. The very idea that a single woman can go out and approach an unfamiliar man to distribute a book, that itself would have been quite anathema, would have been quite outrageous in traditional Indian culture, maybe a few decades ago also.

So, to some extent, is a person's nature, like I say a woman's nature, is it just determined only by the fact that they have a female body or is it also determined by the kind of upbringing they have had? So, the question I'm making is that did Prabhupada, in one sense, accommodate people according to the way they could be engaged in Krishna's service? Yeah, yeah. One thing we have to understand also, if we're trying to understand Srila Prabhupada's Buddha mission, is that he saw what he was doing in the West as an emergency. He used that word emergency, especially in the matter of making Westerners into Brahmanas.

He used the term emergency. And he also used the example of when the house is on fire, and he used that for communication. Somehow or other you communicate.

But he wanted to preach Krishna Consciousness by any means. And the women can distribute books, great. He was into it.

But he promoted that. He was very happy with that. Now, there is a significant statement that Srila Prabhupada, that, well, Kulandri Prabhu at Nivrindavan said that Srila Prabhupada said to him, and although it's not in the Veda base with a recording of Prabhupada, I think we can take it as authentic.

Srila Prabhupada, he spoke to Kulandri about the future and farms. And we know, of course, Srila Prabhupada said to Rameshwar Swami at the time, that millions will join our farms, that Srila Prabhupada saw a very different second phase of the movement from the monastic, let's get out there, we've got to change the world. And then when the world is changed, you can't live all your whole life and develop a society on the basis of being in a constant state of emergency.

Srila Prabhupada had a vision for Varnashtra. So he definitely engaged the women in various ways at the time. But his basic role model for women was, as you say, according to Indian culture, exactly according to Shastra, which is to follow Shri Dharma.

Ajay, isn't here like we are analysing Prabhupada's statements from a particular hermeneutic, where say these are statements for emergency phase, and these are statements for a later phase, and who is going to decide right now whether our movement is in an emergency phase or a later phase? It should be both. It should be both. The emergency is still there.

The Western world is significantly more crazy than it was when Srila Prabhupada was here. So that's something which I feel in the whole gender issue, which is splitting ISKCON, it seems to be. I don't think that both sides have come together really, and really tried to understand this very deeply.

Anyway, I don't want to get into the politics of it all, but we have an emergency situation. But at the same time, we should make a start. By now, we should have well progressed in establishing the stable situation.

So a major part of our preaching is showing stable Vaishnav communities, which have their social system, which is hierarchical, and men have their roles to play as Brahmin, Kshatriya, Vaishyas, and Shudras, and women have their role to play supporting, and everyone chants Hare Krishna together. But there are different social roles. So that's also one kind of preaching, to show an alternative society that works, compared to the madness of the present world, which it doesn't work.

It doesn't make people happy even materially. Economically, it's a mess. And we're supposed to show it.

So on the one hand, we need men, women, robots. Maybe you can have some programmer robot to go and do book distribution. Hey, how about that? Hey, that's a great idea.

I'm going to take the patent for that one. Maybe the robots can distribute to robots also. What do you need humans for anymore? We got robots, right? Anyway, Prabhupada, and it's still an emergency.

So we need both things going on side by side. It's not one or the other. We need both things going on side by side.

That's what I see. We need to have our farms, showing varna-sandharma, depending on the land, the cows, and Krishna. But we also need to recruit everyone who can, to go out and spread the message.

So the social needs and the way we preach to people are going to be different. Yes, Maharaj. In one sense, socially applying spiritual principles, it is a huge challenge.

Because if you look at the track record of our movement, probably the biggest disasters have been associated with a social application. Whether it is the gurukuls which led to the child abuse, which really had a devastating effect. Fortunately, it was not as devastating as it could have been.

Then we had the farm community in New Vrindavan, which just completely went off the rails. So to some extent, trying to apply… which abuse of women, that's also the social thing. Although I must say that pretty much everyone got maltreated.

It was pretty rough in some ways. Okay, go on. So in that sense… Another thing is not just the social disasters, but the guru fall downs.

That's also been a major factor in the Hare Krishna implosion in the West. Implosion. Yeah, it's very profound.

I would say a very apt word to describe what has happened. Yeah, that's true. So in one sense, addressing social issues through any means, that is a very complex and in one sense, some situation specific thing.

Because although we can say there is a concrete, Prabhupada had a, even if we agree, even if we accept that Prabhupada had a very concrete social vision, even Prabhupada did not give the specifics of that vision. He wanted Varanashram. But how exactly Varanashram is to be implemented? Prabhupada talked, okay, there should be, Brahmanas should have these qualities, these people should have these qualities, like that.

So how to go about implementing that, that is itself a challenge. And in one sense, even for those who are advocating Varanashram, there are quite a few differences of vision about how Varanashram is to be implemented in the movement or in our farm communities associated with the movement also. Well, I'm glad there are different people who have different opinions because I hardly find anyone who is even thinking about it.

So if there are different opinions, that means at least there are different people thinking about it. Okay. It's just like I came across a statement recently about one of our leaders was saying how we have to be careful that people in the West don't think that we're a cult.

And I thought it'd be great if they thought we were a cult. At least they'd be thinking about us. They don't even know we exist.

Okay. At least if they think we're a cult, they start to think we can start to discuss with them, but they don't even know we exist. So interesting way of looking at it.

Yeah. Yeah. To some extent, we have definitely dropped out of the public awareness in the Western world.

Isn't it amazing? We were so much in the public. We were so prominent when there weren't that many of us. Yeah.

We were so dynamic. That's true. One major reason for that was that we used to go on Hari Nama.

That in itself is massive publicity, because people notice us. They really notice us when we go. A whole bunch of people.

All of a sudden, you're just in the shopping mall. All of a sudden, there's a whole bunch of people with all these different coloured dresses and jumping up and down and making these bang, bang, bang. Hey, they're happy.

That's really unusual. People notice it. You know, the people come and everyone's taking photos and nowadays videos and doing selfies and all that kind of thing.

So people definitely noticed us. And the book distribution, people noticed us. So that's good advertisement just to do the basic core activities of preaching.

Public Hari Nama and book distribution. And of course, festivals and Prasad distribution. And there are so many things to do.

TV, preaching, but these two things are really, they really notice us. Yeah. It almost seems as if as our movement went down in the West, it started growing in India.

Because even during Prabhupada's times, there are a lot of people who became life members, but not many became committed followers. Yeah. But I tell you what, just at the time Prabhupada was leaving, was a time when Prabhupada was just getting noticed by prominent people, just like your Nathji, Srinathji, and people like that, really prominent people.

And in the government, people, if Prabhupada had stayed a few more years, he would have been heralded. Big people were coming to him. And they were just getting convinced.

The opening of the Vrindavan temple, that was a major thing. And then the Bombay temple is about to be open, and people are visiting, and they're saying there's this fabulous temple coming up. But they're even more struck.

You know, that was in the story of your Baha Prabhu. He often told that story. He was really fascinated, educated Indians like himself, who were not interested in religion or Hinduism.

They were just amazed by seeing these Western people living Krishna consciousness, and knowing the philosophy, and it really had an impression. And a good class of people were coming. And they continued to come, actually, even after… But one disaster happened.

Even in Vrindavan, there are so many people like Guptas and merchants. They were coming to Kirtananda for initiation. Vrindavan, this is, again, it's unpleasant history.

But if Kirtananda, if he had stayed what he seemed… People had faith in him. And they were becoming his disciples. And there was… Big people were coming to him.

And the movement would have been different. Again, the guru fall down thing, it did have its effect. In India also, especially… Oh, it's a complex history.

But how do we get to that? Yeah, no, I was saying that it's almost… Sorry. It was as if, as our movement went down in the West, it started growing in India. So you're saying that, in one sense, the momentum had been set up by Gupta's presence.

And then the momentum was building. Indian devotees were beginning to join as Brahmacharis also, which had hardly happened previously. They were joining in numbers.

Yes, Maharaj. It seems… Actually, there were so many in Mayapur. I was in Mayapur when Srila Prabhupada passed away.

And there were so many young Bengali Brahmacharis. And then they were initiated by… First batch was initiated by Bhavananda. And then, you know, like this.

Yes, Maharaj. So, the overall point I was making is that, it seems in India, our movement is growing. Of course, we could grow much, much more.

But it is growing significantly. No? Yeah, yeah, yeah. It's in India, actually.

Okay. Sorry. So, in one sense, we can say that there are some things which we are doing right, because of which we are growing.

If we can say falena parichayate as a criteria. And so, can we also say that the cultural context make a big difference? Oh, of course, yeah. And also, yeah, yeah.

And people are born in India for a reason, right? They have a background piety, inclination toward Krishna consciousness. But then, Bharata Bhumite Hoila Manushya Janma Janma Shantam Kari Parampara Upakar Prabhupada quoted this so many times. So many times, he said he wanted Indians, now you Indians go and save the West.

Yes, Maharaj. Even, I was recently, there was one conversation, Srila Prabhupada in Tehran, and he met some Indians for the first time. And he was preaching to them.

You should be, you're Indian. He quoted this verse. You should become gurus.

People he saw for the first time. Amazing. It's almost like he was doing what Bhakti Sahasranath Thakur did with him in the first meeting.

Right, yeah. So, Maharaj, I was making. I like you say there's the Hare Krishna implosion in the West, but I think it's, it can come up and we have to look to India.

Yes, Maharaj. Let the Indians spread Krishna consciousness around the world again. Yes, Maharaj.

So, the point I was trying to make through this is that, could it be that the way we are presenting Krishna consciousness, it appeals to people who have grown up in a hierarchical society largely. India still is hierarchical, although it's changing. But as society becomes less and less hierarchical, the way we present Krishna consciousness stops resonating with people.

It starts. So, although we can say that Prabhupada approached people and he spoke very strongly and people accepted at that time the four aggregate principles and chanting. But to some extent, even Prabhupada's disciples and those people who came, they also had grown up at least to some extent in the hierarchical society.

The post-World War, they knew about, they just had experience with bad authorities. That's true. But now today, 2010, 2020, leave alone bad authority, there is no authority practically speaking.

Well, I don't think so. People like to think like that, but actually there is. Go on.

No, of course. I mean, if you consider left liberal, the leftists, they are themselves authorities and they do moral policing and cancelling of others. So, in principle, authority can never be rejected.

Some authority will be there, of course. The point I was making is that a hierarchical presentation of Krishna consciousness appeals to people who have grown up in a hierarchical culture and when the culture itself becomes highly egalitarian, then the hierarchy itself jars people with so many negative memories and negative stimuli that it alienates them. Yeah, but it may be that people, they're looking for direction because that could have the effect also.

If people, there's no one to lead them and then we have the only he could lead them is the title of one of the volumes of the Prabhupada's Lamrita. The effect could have the effect of someone. And that happens socially also.

We see that people become less and more and more egalitarian and then they want a big leader. It swings, doesn't it? It's like the swing between materialism and romanticism and then you have egalitarianism and liberalism and then people want a strong leader who can take charge and lead the way and it's like a swing goes on. But Krishna Consciousness has to be hierarchical because you have to have gurus and if there's an organisation, there has to be a hierarchy and gods are at the top.

Of course. So usually toward the end, I try to summarise. If I can do that in a couple of minutes.

Okay, we were all over the place. Thanks to me. It is a difficult subject.

So broadly, we try to discuss the topic of change and continuity in the Gaudiya tradition with the focus on Prabhupada and Bhakti Sanshiv Thakur. And then in trying to, so you read from your article. Which I only got about 35% of the way through.

Yes, Maharaj. So you discussed the point that in that article that there can be, the first point you mentioned that this is not an abstract discussion because it matters in today's world because how are we going to go ahead and we are, we have this immense responsibility of carrying on the mission of these great Acharyas who practically change the course of world history, world religious history at least. So we try to draw some guidelines and you mentioned that there is no, that in personalities, in folk, at outlooks, there can be difference in Acharyas.

And then I mentioned that, so Prabhupada didn't change in the essential message, but there is a difference and then with respect to, so I discussed like social issues, Bhakti Vinod Thakur was against child marriage, but Prabhupada had set a different stance. So then I mentioned, can we say that social stands are a little more contextual according to Acharya? So you said Prabhupada also had a very concrete social vision. Even with Bhakti Vinod, I mean I should qualify that, at least superficially he seemed to be against child marriage.

Okay, go on. Sorry. At least superficially.

So then you mentioned that because Prabhupada is the founder Acharya and he did seem to have a concrete social vision. So we cannot simply separate like that. That doesn't mean we freeze our movement in time, but at the same time that doesn't mean we neglect Prabhupada's guidelines.

We have to have that balance between fidelity and relevance. And then we discussed two, three issues. One issue which kept coming up was feminism and other issue was of course of, so with respect to… I was mostly using feminism to demonstrate various points.

The point which I think we were, you are mentioning using feminism to discuss the point that how the world has radically changed and there is a lot of craziness in the Western world now. So Prabhupada was able to speak strongly and still he was able to relate, reach to a lot of people. But in today's world we have the danger of becoming hypersensitive and not speaking our message also.

But at the same time, so we discussed this point of when we are following Prabhupada, at one level different devotees will do different things and ultimately it may come down to the Guruvachan. So something like the Catholic Church has got orders, but by discussions like this we can try to come to some broad principles. And one principle which we tried to discuss was that, that with respect to Prabhupada wanting, there is a first phase of emergency, second phase of more of return to the tradition of Arunachalam.

So we can say that right now in our movement both phases are still there. So both may need to go in parallel and to some extent in the West, it's more of an emergency mode whereas in India our movement is flourishing. You mentioned that Prabhupada set up the momentum and the next generations have built on that and that's how in one sense it's the responsibility of India and Indians to show the way for the rest of the world to become Krishna conscious.

Of course there are many other points, but as anything concluding you would like to say Maharaj? Many things, but I won't because I want to try and go to Aarati. Thank you very much for your sharing your wisdom and sparing your time Maharaj. I look forward to your association again in future.

Okay, jai. Hari Hari Bhau.