Does spiritual growth lead to an external transformation along with internal transformation

See, sir, is there a external transformation also along with the, say, the transformation of the level of the intel of the intelligence and the mind and the heart? This is a delicate question, and we let’s focus first on the principle, and then we’ll go to the specifics. The principle is somehow or the other, remember Krishna. That is the key principle. Now having said that as the key principle, now how do we go about remembering Krishna?

So each one of us is an individual in our own right, and we all have to because we all come from particular backgrounds, we all have particular, inspirations, particular, particular inclinations. So there is certain level of individuality in how we can best remember Krishna. So so we Niyumagraha is one of the dangers in the on the path of bhakti where what happens is either we reject the rules because we consider them external, or we insist on the rules so much that we forget the principle. So we reject the rules because we consider them unimportant or we cons we just neglect them completely. Sorry.

We either neglect them completely or we insist on the letter while forgetting the spirit. So let me explain this with the with the slide. So this is when we follow when we are trying to practice Krishna bhakti or share Krishna bhakti with others. The tradition is what comes from the past. And then that tradition is coming from the past, and the central circle is the living tradition.

It is the expression of tradition as it exists now. It exists slightly above the contemporary world, but it has to be linked to the contemporary world. It cannot be so above the contemporary world. So the bottom circle is the contemporary world. It’s the so now you’ll the tradition needs to be linked with the the living tradition needs to be linked with the past.

That is that is done through fidelity, through faithfulness. And the living tradition needs to be linked with the present, with the current world, and that has to be done through flexibility. So flexibility means, for example, when Prabhupada came to America, he always said that I have not changed one thing. I just like a postman delivering the message. Prabhupada insisted on his fidelity and not as insisted.

He he she was faithful. No doubt. But at the same time, Prabhupada was flexible. The very first center which he build that or which he started with the with the 26 Second Avenue. And that 26 Second Avenue, what was it about?

It was about, it was the simplest orphan converted into a temple. He wanted some people from India to sponsor the Sahib, and they were ready to sponsor, but they said we want to build a traditional temple. Prabhupad said, you know, Indian government do not allow that for exchange to come. Says, no. If you’re not building a traditional temple, we’re not interested.

So they lost the opportunity. Prabhupad Prabhupad converted us to our friend into temple, and that did not follow the traditional architectural rules. But that center actually fulfilled the purpose of a temple far more than what, traditionally conforming architectural temples might have performed because they glorified Krishna, attract people to Krishna, attracted people to Krishna. So Prabhupada was flexible also. So the point here is fidelity connects us with the tradition, flexibility connects us with the contemporary world, and a living tradition has to have both.

So what happens is that in every tradition, there are conservatives and there are liberals. The conservatives are primarily concerned about fidelity. This is how it was done in the past, and this is how we should continue doing it. And the liberals are concerned about their flexibility. You know?

This is this is where people are at, and we need to reach out to them. If we don’t reach out to them, what is the use of doing things? So if we if we are only having fidelity without flexibility, then what happens is we the tradition becomes too disconnected from the world. Then it just becomes like a museum museum exhibit. That means, oh, this is how people were living in the past.

This is how they are practicing Krishna bhakti but nobody is practicing it. There’s one devotee recently here. He is writing a paper he said. He said probably by 2050, the way our movement is going, we will write by 2050, we’ll write the obituary of the last western devotee in our movement. ISKCON will become a completely Indian movement because the way we are going, we are not able to attract any western people.

So do we want that? So in the western world, we’ll just become once it was a multicultural movement, now it has become an Indian movement. So fidelity without flexibility will make us a museum exhibit. So that is the danger of being too conservative. On the other hand, if you’re too liberal, if there is flexibility without fidelity, then we’ll just become another part of the material world.

We’ll just become consume consumed by the contemporary culture, will become a fashion trend. So we need to have both fidelity and flexibility. That’s what keeps it keeps it living and keeps it a tradition. So now coming to your specific question about externals, say whether it is wearing a particular dress, wearing particular tilak, wearing a particular, say, kanti mala. Now how important are each one of these?

First thing is definitely they’re not unimportant. They’re not unimportant. The externals can help us to con to, to also develop the internals. At the same time, just because the externals help us to develop the internals, does that mean necessarily the ex those same externals will help everyone to develop the internals? That is something which is a different question.

So, if we see within the history of our tradition also, Chaitanya Mahapur’s followers went to Manipur, and Manipur was probably one of the few, states in India, which was actually almost entirely Vaishnav state. There was Vaishnavakti all over the world all over the country in India, but prominent so prominent was only in that state. So now what happened is so for generations, there are Manipuri devotees who have who have followed the lord Chaitanya. They were worshiping they were doing audio. They’re practicing audio.

And then our movement went there, and we started the center. And our movement’s devotees, they started telling these people who had been born multiple generations, their that, you know, if you don’t wear Dhoti Kurta like this, if you don’t put tilak like this, if you don’t wear Kintimala like this, if you don’t do like this, then you are not actually a devotee. Well, well, you might have been a devotee for ten, fifteen years, and they have been devotees for multiple generations. So it didn’t be so presumptuous. So the point is that when Chaitanya Mahaprabhu’s followers went to Manipur and they preached in Manipur, they didn’t expect the Manipuri devotees to give up their dress, their way of living just to practice bhakti.

When you talk about way of living, there are many things within it. Now there are some aspects of the culture which are which are anti devotional, some aspects of culture which are nondevotional, some aspects of culture which will be pro devotional. So those are anti devotional, they need to be given up. So we know the Bhakti Sildan Maharaj was from was from Manipur, and he actually had this Manipuri kirtan Kirtan’s Manipuri performances should happen. And they added to the richness of Bhakti culture, many of the festivals in Mayapur and other places.

He had them go all over the world to perform Manipuri dance. Manipuri devotional dance. If they had given up their Manipuri culture and simply adopted the Bengali way of dancing and doing kirtans, which we normally do in ISKCON, then that aspect of the culture would not be an added attraction. So the point is cultural diversity, is very much included in Bhakti. Now where does diversity lead to discord?

Where does diversity lead to disconnection? That has to be carefully understood. So the so the principle I’ll give in conclusion is that we need to the key thing is the internal transformation, and there has to be the appropriate externals that foster the internal transformation. So now what will be the appropriate externals that may vary according to culture? So every somewhat spiritual tradition, they they will encourage modest dressing, for example.

Now what might be modest dressing in the West might be different from what is modest dressing in India. When the Britishers came to India in that at that time, there was something called the Victorian age. And if you study the history of Britain, Victorian morality is often quite lampooned. Now those people are so puritanical. So when the Victorian people came to India, they wrote books about they wrote books about India, and one of the things that comes so common is that this Indian women have no sense of chastity, purity, morality.

This is what? You may say. He says that they wear dresses which expose their midriff to everyone. They ex they wear they wear dresses in which their feet and their ankles can be seen by everyone. This is obnoxious.

Now we may say, is this the kettle calling the cat black? Well, in in their culture at that time, you you know, for a woman to expose her legs was considered almost that if she’s exposing her legs, that indicates that, it’s a it’s a come to me message. That’s what was done by society goals. So India is a hot country, and nobody wears footwear into the food clothes. So it’s not just women.

It’s not just men. Nobody wears it unless it’s cold. So they were imposing their cultural standards on Indians, and they’re saying, oh, these Indian women are so unchaste. And we Indians may look at western women, and they may be at the particular dress and we say this is so unchaste. This is so impure.

Well, even in the western culture, there is there is modest dressing, and there is a modest dressing. So rather than focusing on the particulars of the dress, we can look at the principle. The external should be such that they foster the internal. So the the traditionalist so if because the concern would be to say that these are the external that have fostered internals and therefore, everybody should follow this. Well, maybe maybe not.

The liberals will say, actually, the external don’t matter. The internals only matter. Therefore, whatever externals are there, that’s okay. Well, maybe maybe not. Now some externals may not foster the internals.

Now if somebody wears very revealing clothes, then then they are they are even if they are not in bodily consciousness, they say, this is just the way I address. It’s not likely they are themselves in body body consciousness, and they are going to put others in body consciousness. So there are limits to how conservative we can be and their limits to how liberal we can be. So the externals need to be chosen in such a way that the internals are fostered. And for some people, continuing with the external as they were in the tradition is the best way to foster the internals.

For some people, doing some adapt adjustments so that, people, they can they can focus their attention to the internals. That may be appropriate. Does that answer the question? Thank you.