Does a culture of free mixing among genders make bhakti impossible to practice?
So the question, if there is so much free mixing in the West, even when we do college outreach and even when we are preaching, if we cannot avoid that free mixing, then isn't Brahmacharya at least to some extent inherent to the practice of Krishna Consciousness itself? So if people cannot practice that Brahmacharya, then isn't their Krishna Consciousness going to remain very superficial? And sir, actually if you see, all the kings that the Bhagavatam talks about, the Ramayana talks about, the Mahabharata talks about, none of them are Brahmacharis. And the kings are also considered, on many occasions, great devotees.
The renunciate sages are considered great devotees and they are definitely considered more respectable than the kings. But the kings are also considered to be exalted devotees. During some specific periods, Arjuna may also practice Brahmacharya, but we see Arjuna had four queens, four wives he had.
So there is, in the materialistic culture, there is tremendous glamorization of sex. And when we come to devotional culture, spiritual culture, it's almost like the pendulum swings to the opposite side and then there is a demonization of sex. So, when there is demonization of sex, quite often there is still obsession with sex, like there is when there is infatuation with it, but this obsession is in terms of not doing it, not doing it, not doing it, not doing it.
And then evaluating everyone and judging everyone based on how much they are doing it or how much they are not doing it. So yes, definitely at one level sex is a cause of bondage. But we have to also remember that sex is a function of the body.
And aahar, nidra, bhai, maithu, namche, they are all put together, they are all put together in one category. These are all bodily functions. So, when we consider aahar, we can have various levels of regulation of aahar.
The highest would be food cooked by devotees or food cultivated by devotees, cooked by devotees, offered by devotees, served by devotees, honored by devotees. That is ideal. But from that level onwards down to, sometimes if grahasthas are going for some place where there is no prasad available, then they might just purchase some biscuits or something, or they might just go to some hotel and take some vegetarian food.
So now, from taking pure prasadam to food which is just cooked and offered to Krishna, even mentally offered to Krishna, all that is a continuum which is acceptable. Now, beyond that, meat-eating, that is an absolute no. No matter what happens.
So now, within this, from the level of any food offered to Krishna till pure prasad, all of them, it is an ascending continuum. The higher we go, the better it is. It is more conducive for the elevation of consciousness.
So similarly, from the level of, for grahasthas, sex only for procreation, and for brahmacharis, renunciate no sex, to the level of sex within marriage, all of that is in one continuum. Sex outside marriage is absolutely no, no, no. That is like eating meat.
But from there onwards, it is all a continuum. And every sadhaka, every devotee, every devotee couple, they all have to come to their own level of practice which is sustainable for them throughout their life. And it is no one else's business to get involved in this.
So it's a biological function. And it's done and people pursue their bhakti onwards. So we don't have to make renunciation of sex as the parameter of the seriousness of one's bhakti.
It is one parameter, but it is definitely not the only parameter. And sometimes it can even become a misleading parameter. Because sometimes somebody is sense-controlled, but they may become very proud of their sense-control.
And then they may look down at others. And their pride may be more damaging for their bhakti than their sense-control is elevating for their bhakti. So, in say, Western culture where there is a certain level of free mixing among the genders, which is there right from the very beginning of their lives.
So, there the ways in which they can practice bhakti may be different. The way they practice bhakti, even during Prabhupada's times. Prabhupada writes in Chaitanya Chaitanya Parbhod also that sometimes some conservatives in India criticize him that he is engaging both men and women in all kinds of services.
Even women go for book distribution, even women do duty worship. Even women do classes, lead kirtans. So, when I was in Australia, I met Devamrith Maharaj.
Devamrith Maharaj told me that in the Western world, if you have any club, which is men's only club, people will by default assume that you are a homosexual club. So, if you don't want to be thought of as a gay club, you have to have women. No women means you are homosexual.
It's a default assumption. Why else will you not have women? So, he says that they basically follow the principles at a basic level but it's a different cultural paradigm and trying to impose the kind of rigid separation of genders that is there in traditional Indian culture that is itself not only difficult but it is alienating. For example, when a boy and a girl are dating each other, non-devotees, and then the boy becomes interested in spiritual life and then he wants to get his girlfriend to the temple.
This is a real incident a devotee told me that he brought his girlfriend to the temple but in the temple program he said that they told us you sit here, she will sit there. They said I couldn't explain anything to her what is happening and she felt so offended just by that. If we look in America, even in the churches, the husband and wife sit together or even couples who are dating, they sit together.
So, even in religious institutions, they don't have that concept of separation. Now, of course, the church is also quite strict about no premarital sex, no extramarital sex but that standard is followed without any rigid separation of the genders. So, to try to impose that kind of separation is difficult and alienating.
So, that's why it's important to recognize that bhakti is transcendental. So, bhakti may be more easily facilitated by certain cultures, cultural practices and as much as possible those cultural practices should be preserved and shared but bhakti is not dependent on any specific cultural practices. Otherwise, if we say bhakti is dependent on specific cultural practices then basically we are saying bhakti is not transcendental because cultural practices ultimately are things which are regulating the body so that the consciousness can be channeled towards Krishna and that regulation of consciousness can be done in different ways.
So, just as Indians, Indian devotees may offer Indian food to Krishna and eat it now, see, we have very deeply ingrained notions that bhakti to be pure has to be Indian. So, that's why if we make paratha and offer to Krishna we feel that is fine. If we make dosa and offer to Krishna, we feel that is fine.
If we make thepla and offer to Krishna, that is fine. But, if somebody wants to offer pizza to Krishna and says, no, this is not right. Then what's wrong? If we are rigidly going to follow only what Chaitanya Charita Amrita has given then all of us in all parts of India should eat only Bengali food.
So, if we are ready to accommodate the cultural variety that is there within India itself and we don't consider it objectionable why should we consider the cultural variety in food that comes from outside India as objectionable? What can be objectionable, what can be sense gratificatory is if Indians habitually start eating pizza only. That's not the natural food. But for Americans, now many Americans or non-Indians when they come to India they actually find the Indian diet very difficult to digest because their body is not habituated to that diet.
So, ultimately food is meant to nourish the body so that we can serve Krishna. So, certainly nowhere will we accommodate meat in the name of cultural variety. But just as we can accommodate the cultural variety that is there in diet within India we don't really raise any questions about that.
So, if there is cultural variety that is there outside India in terms of diet there is no reason to object that. And just as food is one function of the body similarly sex is one function of the body. Sex is much more entangling and that's why there is a substantial amount of regulation required for sex in terms of the commitment of marriage.
But overall we don't have to demonize sex. Materialistic society glamorizes sex and the spiritual society demonizes sex. Both can often go towards the extreme.
There was one devotee who was a brahmachari for 10 years and then I just felt that I cannot continue as a brahmachari and he changed the ashram. And what happened was he told me that just by changing the ashram one day from saffron to white he felt as if the way the devotee community it was not in our temples which we know, another temple he said the whole devotee community treated him as if from a brahmana he has become an achhuta. From a brahmana just by changing the dress he has become an untouchable.
Do we need to treat devotees like this? See when we demonize sex too much then just a person is changing from the brahmachari ashram to the rahastha ashram or that person has not even engaged in sex till then he has just decided to change the ashram. But people end up considering it like an abominable fall. It's not like that.
So we have to be very very careful that we don't succumb to either the extreme of glamorization of sex or the demonization of sex. That there has to be regulation and in different situations, in different ashrams in different places what will be the practical measures for regulation they may vary. And if we don't recognize this we can often come off as very very judgmental and fanatical not recognizing that there are different devotees who are practicing bhakti also very sincerely but in their own situations and their own ways.