Empower your preaching 2 | Choosing the answer that reaches the audience | Brahmachari class

To see notes, click here

So, thank you very much.

These guides are so that you can learn how to become better instruments of your message Thank you for coming today, seek your blessings so that I can speak comfortably. So we continue our discussion today on how we can empower our preaching. Yesterday I talked mainly about how the times are changing and how people's world views are changing.

So I'll just do a quick recap of the points we discussed yesterday. One main thing I discussed was about the ages, how in different ages, different people have different sources of authority. In the pre-modern, what was it? Shastra.

Shastra, yes. In modern times, it is science and in post-modern times, largely it is experience. So then we also, while we were discussing this, we also discussed various points.

One point we discussed towards the end was the relationship between the cultural and the spiritual, that how we cannot divorce the cultural from the spiritual, but we can also reduce the spiritual to the cultural, that there are multiple ways in which things could be adjusted. We also discussed the difference between appropriation and adaptation, how yoga, there's a battle over yoga in the West, and with respect to, is the audio good? Okay, I need to, so, little bit, maybe you can increase it. So anyway, I'll be taking a separate topic today, but it's building on this.

So there was a question which was brought up when that horrible rape case happened in Kolkata. So how do we answer it? Is it because of karma? Do we answer it because of karma? So, basically, I found one principle very helpful, which Prabhupada talks about in the first canto, where he says, realisation, it means to speak the message of scripture in a way that is interesting to the audience. So if we consider this is scripture, and this is the audience, then there is much in the scripture that may or may not be of interest to the audience.

Now, there may be much of interest to the audience. So realisation, the way Prabhupada explains it, no unwarranted meaning should be extracted from scripture. But at the same time, we should present it in a way that is interesting.

So what this essentially means is that we need to understand what the interests of the audience. Now, interest is one word, I would say we could expand that same principle. Most of you know this acronym NICE, be nice to people, what is that, needs, interests, concerns, expectations.

So basically, whenever we are trying to answer a question, we need to recognise where the audience is at. And the same question can be answered at many different levels. So we have to find the level that is acceptable to the audience.

So, for example, when Prabhupada had this conversation, which later became Life comes from Life, the actual conversations were much, much bigger. And what is published in Life comes from Life is actually a selected and edited version of it. So what happened is many of the devotees in the first generation had a very confrontational ethos.

So they took from Prabhupada's conversations the parts which were the most inflammatory, the most condemnatory. And that is what has come in the book. But if you read the detailed transcript, they are available in Vedabase, they are actually, Prabhupada is not dismissing the evidence that supports the theory of evolution.

So for example, if some fossil has been found of some being which looks half man or half animal or something which looks like a halfway between a reptile and a bird, then Prabhupada is not dismissing this as a concoction, this is evidence and he is addressing that from within the Vedic paradigm. So he said there are 8.4 million species and there could be some species like this also which existed before. So he gives various explanations.

The point is that there one of the things Prabhupada says is that when we are presenting Shastra, he says we should be able to explain Shastra based on Shastra and based on logic. That scripture by Shabda Pramana is the highest. At the same time, we cannot expect people to accept Shabda Pramana immediately.

So we should be able to explain in a way that is acceptable for people. And in one sense, we all adopt that methodology when we talk about the evidence for the existence of the soul. We don't just say Bhagavad Gita says this, we quote some scientists talking about past life memories, about near-death experiences, about consciousness being not materially irreducible in the brain phenomena, things like that.

So we in one sense do that normally. But the idea is that when we are trying to explain, why should we explain Shabda based on logic? Logic would be basically Anuman. The word Anuman has a negative connotation where it means speculation.

But it also has a positive connotation where it means inference. So for example, Prabhupada in marking a Bhagavad Dharma, he says, आच्छे किच्चु कार्जो तबे एई अनुमाने You have brought me here Krishna, I am making some Anuman, it is an inference, it is not a speculation. He is saying, बोरो प्रोपा करेले किर्षणादर मेरे प्रति की लागे आनेले हिता को रोये भिगती You have been very merciful to me that at this old age, with so much difficulty, despite so much difficulty, you have brought me here.

So you must have a sub-purpose for me, that's my inference. So Anuman, it's a very important thing that all three are valid Pramanas. प्रत्यक्ष is also a valid Pramana, Anuman is also a valid Pramana, Shabda is also a valid Pramana.

But the point is within a hierarchy, Shabda is highest. So the thing is that we need to, whenever we have any discussion, it is like implicitly we have to be thinking, what is the Pramana that is going to be acceptable to this audience. So even when you talk about logic, logic can be at different levels.

So when we say karma is also logic, true, but maybe will the logic of karma be acceptable to the audience, at that particular point. So the idea is that we need to be able to explain in a way that is interesting to the audience. That means, interesting is, it is not necessary that people will always accept it.

There is a difference between, there is something which is intelligible and there is something that is acceptable. So not everything that we say will be acceptable for the audience. Sometimes people just have a different world view, they are adamant about what they believe.

So they will not accept it, but at least what we speak needs to be intelligible. Okay, this is where you are coming from, this is how you are thinking. I do not agree with your conclusion, but I understand at least how you are thinking about it.

See, if it is not intelligible, then it is incomprehensible. And that which is incomprehensible, generally either people don't care for it or they just reject it. So not everything incomprehensible may be unacceptable, but much of what is incomprehensible, I just can't accept it.

It is ridiculous, people may say. So now, at least, if you are speaking with realisation, so we can get things at least to the intelligible level for people. Okay, this makes sense.

Now, it's interesting when people say it makes sense, they may not accept it. But because they may feel, okay, how are you arriving at this conclusion? I want to understand that. There is a difference between like giving vision and giving instruction.

So instruction is like giving the conclusion, do this, don't do this. Whereas vision is giving process to the conclusion. So for example, don't eat meat.

That is a conclusion. The process to the conclusion is, you know, meat eating is harmful for our health, it is harmful for the planet, it involves unnecessary violence. That is the process.

So in general, if you can give the vision to the conclusion, before we give the conclusion, then people become more ready to understand. Then again, I'm not saying we will be able to make everyone accept what we are saying. But at least let it be intelligible.

So this is the second principle. So before answering this question, there are three principles. First is that we need to understand people's interest.

Second is, based on understanding their interest, we can give them a vision by which we are coming to the conclusion. So the third point is that, see, whenever any event happens, see, if there is any event, now an event can have many causes. We are at a practical level.

See, right now if I start feeling cold, it could be because the fan is very fast. It could be because I'm having fever. It could be because the temperature is dropping.

It could be because there is global warming. It could be because this world is ukhal hai. All these are valid exclusions.

But say a guest comes to our house, or we have guest reception, and some guest says, you know, oh, I'm feeling cold. And the devotee says, Prabhu, what can we do? This world is ukhal hai. That is a valid philosophical point.

But that's not the level we would want to address that issue. So every issue, every event can be explained or addressed its causes at many different levels. So now the idea of philosophy is that it gives us bigger and bigger causal boxes in which to put the event.

That's knowledge, basically. Say, if I'm feeling cold, if somebody is just a small kid, they will say, okay, I'm feeling cold, I'll wear a sweater. But the mother has more knowledge than me, I've got fever.

So this kid may not understand what is fever also, if a small toddler is there. So the idea is, as knowledge increases, the boxes or the causal circles in which you can put a particular event, it increases. So now, when something bad happens, which causal circle do we put it in? Or if any particular event happens, which causal circle do we put it in? We could put it in any of the circles.

But which one do we put it in? That depends on time-place circumstances. Say, when Sita was abducted, Ram didn't say that, it's probably her past karma because she was abducted. No, her focus was on, what is my dharma over it? What is my dharma? She's my wife, I need to protect her.

So, this happened because there was no protector with her at that time. And that happened because of misunderstanding. So basically, if we understand… Now, we could talk about various causal circles, not put something in.

Say for example, a war occurs. And say, now we could quote Prabhupada. Say, Ukraine war is going on, Israel war is going on.

We could quote Prabhupada and say that wars happen because as long as there is abortion and angel slaughter, wars will keep happening. As long as people are killing animals and babies, people will be killed. Now, this is true at one level.

But there are devotees, Kora is a question-answer website, where people ask thoughtful questions. Among all the social media, I found Kora to be the most intellectually orientated. And my God, ISKCON has got such a terrible name over there, unfortunately.

Because what happens is, we give many insider answers to outsiders. And it just doesn't work. If somebody to a completely new person gives this answer, why is the Israel-Palestine war occurring? It's because people are killing innocent animals and babies.

Now, you can see the responses, our devotees get so terribly trolled over there. It just becomes, we become a laughing stock. So, that's a valid answer.

But is it the answer that can make sense to people? So, what is happening? Why does it make sense? Because they have not necessarily, even if the audience is a Hindu questioner, and even if that person accepts the principle of Karma, for them to see this particular correlation, it requires a certain level of faith. And what is happening is, we say, oh, it's happening because there is a conflict over a region, there is fundamentalism in one religion, there is exclusivism in another religion, whatever. There are so many other reasons which could be seen.

And without seeing those reasons, when we jump to a reason, that seems unreasonable to people. So, there are two problems, Krishna says, mayi arpita mano buddhir, so the mind and the intelligence. The intelligence is associated with what makes sense, sensible.

And the mind is more associated with feelings. So, for the mind, it is sensitive. So, our answer, as far as possible, needs to be sensible and sensitive.

In fact, when Krishna talks about in 1715, anudvega karam vaakya satyam priyahitam jayat. So, those four attributes, actually you can put it in these two categories. So, anudvega karam vaakya satyam priyahitam jayat.

So, anudvega karam. What does anudvega karam mean? Non-agitating. So, that's a part of being sensitive.

And then priyam, pleasing, that's also sensitive. And then satyam, truthful. Hitam is helpful.

That is a part of being sensible. We don't want to speak, just to be sensitive to people, we don't want to speak untruth. But the idea is, Krishna wants us to be sensitive and sensible.

Appeal to the head and the heart. Appeal to the intelligence and the mind. So, we could see this as a pendulum.

We can be only sensitive. If we are only sensitive, we will become sentimental and we may start waffling and compromising over there. But if we are only sensible, we will come off as heartless.

We will come off as uncaring. It is, you know, when there was an earthquake in Nepal, that area a few years ago, there were some temples, Buddhist temples, Hindu temples that were destroyed. So, I think Chris Robinson is a hardcore evangelical Christian preacher.

So, he said that this earthquake was an act of Jesus to destroy the pagan gods and their worship. So that people would become receptive to the message of the gospel. And he spoke this in a way to actually call upon Christians in America to donate for this.

He said this is an opportunity for us for conversion. And he said you should donate. God has opened this opportunity to convert people.

You donate right. This was almost 5-6 years ago. But even then, even the American press, he was banned from it.

It's a heartless thing. Now within his world view, to him it might make sense. You see, every situation is an opportunity to convert people.

And he may have spoken it assuming that he had some good intentions. Maybe he wanted those people to be helped. And he believes that they coming to Jesus is what is going to help them.

And he wants these people to give money. But it's not just because we are Hindus and Hindus are getting converted. But even within that, just from a purely humanitarian perspective, it seems so manipulative, calculative, heartless completely.

Totally opportunistic in the dirty sense of the word. So there is one secular critic. He said that whenever there is suffering in the world, most religionists are not concerned about the suffering of the people.

They are concerned only about getting God off the hook. That God is not wrong, our philosophy is not wrong. So when that comes up, if our concern is only to establish that we are right, we have an answer and our answer is not wrong, then people just get alienated.

A typical postmodern saying is don't tell me what you believe, show me how you behave. Don't tell me what you believe, show me how you behave. Everybody can make bombastic claims about what they believe.

But how do we behave? That is the key thing. And here what happens is that if we can just position ourselves as an outsider, as a neutral person, then recently in South India, some of you may have seen, there was a teacher who was invited to give a talk in a school. And he said people who are physically handicapped, that's all because of their past karma.

And there happened to be a teacher who was physically handicapped. And there were also some students who were in such a mess. That whole day was spanned so terribly.

And immediately after that, I follow some Christian blogs to see what Christians are doing. It's like Christians in India and Christians in America are so different. Christians in America, because there have been generations of criticism of Christianity, they are very very refined in the way they present Christianity.

Indian Christians or Christians in India, they are so crude actually. But anyway, there was one big post which became viral in the Christian network. They said it is the philosophy of karma that is the cause of poverty and inequality and discrimination in India.

It is because Hindus are indoctrinated to believe that suffering is because of your own misdeeds, that Hindus don't give charity to feed the poor. It is as long as Hinduism is present in India, India will never be free from poverty and inequality and discrimination. And this particular teacher's statements are a living evidence of this.

So therefore, it is not a call that to be spiritually delivered, you come to Jesus. It is to be materially delivered. If India has to remove its poverty problem, then it has to give up this belief in karma.

Now, actually speaking, the philosophy of karma is not meant to be applied like this. If karma were the sole deciding factor, when we have in the fourth canto Maharaj Pruthu, the citizens come and tell him, we are starving. He doesn't tell them, it's your own karma, you are starving, continue starving.

So, karma is not meant to make us heartless. But sometimes, we may apply the philosophy of karma in a way that makes us seem to be heartless. So, even our point, see, Mahabharata says, I'll make a couple of points and I'll open for comments and discuss, and then I'll move to the answer to this question.

So, in the Mahabharata, basically, whenever we are trying to decide what is right or wrong, there are broadly three ways of deciding what is right and what is wrong. One is, just look at the content of the action. So, Bhishma, this is generally called as categorical ethics.

Categorical ethics means, this content falls in the category of right, and that content falls in the category of wrong. So, we should always speak the truth. Speaking truth is right, speaking lies is wrong.

So, if I have made a vow, I always have to stick to that vow, no matter what happens. That is categorical ethics. So, right and wrong are watertight categories.

That's one way of looking at it. That's called as categorical ethics. But overall, if you look at the deliberations that happen in the Mahabharata, these three factors are to be considered.

What is the content of the action? What is the intent of the action? And what is the consequence of the action? And after considering all these three, then we make a decision. So, in some situations, it is the consequence that needs to be considered the most important. And based on that, we make a decision.

Sometimes the content is most important. Sometimes the intent is most important. So, that's why dharma is guhya.

dharmasya tattvam nidam guhaya. It is guhya. It is not easy to discern.

So, different people, based on their particular natures or upbringing or conceptions, different people will gravitate towards different things. Some people will stick only to content. Some people will only stick to intent.

Some people will stick only to consequence. I could elaborate on this framework a little more later. But I'm talking here about karma.

Say, for example, we talk about one perspective that if we give charity to a poor person, and that poor person misuses the charity, then we get the karma. That's definitely true, and that's why there is a sattvic tradition, tamasic. At the same time, how many charitable cases is it likely that the person will misuse the charity? Some cases, maybe many cases, maybe all cases, we don't know.

So, when we are considering that the person may misuse the charity that we do, what factor are we considering? Consequence. Now, is consequence what should be considered? Of course, it should be considered. But is that the only factor to be considered? Well, it depends.

Say, for example, right now, lot of people want to… there is a trend in the institution to donate your organs. So, many devotees in the West, especially when you get a driving licence itself, that time itself, who do you like to donate your organs? That comes in your driving licence itself. So, now many devotees ask me this question.

I asked different senior devotees. So, I had asked Maharaja this question about 10 years ago. So, Maharaja said, generally we let nature take its course.

But recently I asked Maharaja, Maharaja said that, you know, we let devotees decide this. So, because then I didn't get to talk with him more about this particular question, but I had talked with different leaders. And I got two different answers to this.

So, one of them, he said, okay, if you give eyes and that person watches porn, you will get the karma. Okay. So, here what are we considering? Consequence.

I asked another, both of them are guru sannyasis, I asked another guru sannyasi, he said, that our very philosophy is that we are not the body. And now your relationship with the body is over. Why are you so attached to what happens to the body and what doesn't happen to the body? If something good can happen to someone, through that, now somebody is blind and they get eyes to see.

The whole world opens up for them. There is a possibility they may watch porn, there is a possibility they may come and take darshan of the deities also. So, why should you be so attached as to be worried about what happens to the body after your relationship with the body has ended? He said that if people, if somebody wants to give their organs in donation, it's up to them.

So, here the idea is that intent is beyond the system. Isn't it? So, now which is right? We don't have a theological body that will address such social issues. But broadly, it depends on the individual.

Some people may prioritise the consequence, some people may prioritise the intent. But the point is, so when I had asked this, no, we should not give organs. Let nature take its course.

But then what happens? When devotees are in need, we take organs. Isn't it? It's like a devotee may donate an organ or somebody else may donate an organ. So, no, but this is a devotee, this is using in Krishna's service.

But you know, how does this seem from an outsider's perspective? That means, basically, you philosophically justify being a parasite. Isn't it? You won't give your organs, but you will take others' organs. So, I hope I'm making myself clear over here, how it looks from an outsider's perspective.

So, to some extent… Givers philosophy and takers philosophy are different. Yeah, true. So, it's like… So, with respect to preaching, there are insiders and there are outsiders.

So, now what happens is, generally, we think of preaching as insiders speaking to outsiders. Can I just complete this point? So, generally, insiders speaking to outsiders is preaching. Now, there is also insiders speaking to insiders.

You could say that is teaching. So, for example, what Balram Jaitley proved us, he is teaching Shastra, going deep into Shastra. So, he is preaching directly to devotees.

So, our Bhagavatam class would be largely what? Teaching. Our teaching, our prerana, our college programmes, our new people's programmes, they would be teaching. So, originally, till around 1985 or 87, the only mode that we had was this one.

All that we are meant to do is preaching. But then it was… we realised that we have to teach devotees also. That's why the VIHU was started.

Like, several big people, Giriraj Maharaj, Jai Gurukh Maharaj, Satsvarupa Maharaj, they all come together and they realise we have to teach and understand Shastra. So, we have, over a period of time, recognised the value of this also. Is this visible colour? Okay.

But now, there is also, especially as we are getting into the age of social media, see this outsiders to outsiders, what people speak about us, this actually is our reputation. So, I as a ISKCON preacher may say, Oh, Krishna Pasha is wonderful. Come to temple, you have wonderful experience.

But, a person will say, you are basically like an advertiser for your organisation. Now, if I want to buy an iPhone, I am not going to just see the video of Apple about it. I would like to see some neutral reviewers.

Third party reviewers, of course. Whether anybody is neutral, that's a different question. But, I would like to know some reviewers.

So, if somebody wants to come to Krishna temple, they will ask their friends. You know, this temple is there, what is your experience? They say, as soon as you go there, people ask you for money. I don't want to go there.

So, we as a movement have not really focused much on this outsider to outsider thing. All outsiders are Maya, so what people think is Maya, doesn't matter to us. But, there are also people, some people are more respected, some people are what we call as opinion leaders, now in today's world we might use the word influencers.

So, this is where our communication department was started. The communication department was primarily for people who have no interest in becoming devotees of the system. But still, if they are appreciative of what we are doing, then that is good for us.

So, one of the key purpose of communication is to create an atmosphere conducive for our preaching. So, our reputation matters. And, for that purpose, we need to be aware of what outsiders are thinking.

What outsiders are thinking and how they are perceiving us. So, to some extent, the third has also been accepted now, but the fourth is still a question. Is there something we can learn from outsiders? We are ignorant, we are unenlightened.

What we are going to do, we have to learn from them. Well, yes, we don't have to necessarily learn Shastra from them. But, we are teaching Shastra in a particular way.

So, like I mentioned after the class yesterday, whenever I talk with Maharaj about Western outreach, almost three times at least I remember, he has said, Prabhupada, he spent his time with Sally Agarwal and Gopal Agarwal, learning about American culture. He said that. If you read her memory of Prabhupada, Swamiji was interested in everything American.

So, how does the vacuum cleaner work? How does the subway work? How does this work? Prabhupada didn't go to America to learn how a vacuum cleaner works. Through that, he wanted to understand how the American mind works, so that he can reach out to them. So, the point is that, we need to know how outsiders are thinking, so that, going back to the starting point, we can know what are their interests.

What is the level at which we can explain, so that it is understandable. So, I'll summarise what I've spoken. I made four distinct points over here.

First is, speaking according to interests of people. Prabhupada said that is realisation. So, the realisation is to understand scripture and understand the interests of people.

Now, one example of the interests of people is that scripture can be explained based on scripture. It can also be explained based on logic. And to some extent, we always adopt that.

This is what Prabhupada… We do it in our scientific outreach, or we do it in our initial outreach that is based on science. We do not do scientific outreach entirely. So, we use logic.

Logic means the evidence that has come from Pratyekshana Hanuman over there. The third point I mentioned is that, every particular event could be explained at multiple levels. So, within our philosophy itself is, there is multiple levels of explanation.

So, we need to find out which level will make sense to people. And in connection with karma, I discussed this point about content, intent and consequence. So, somebody may say, okay, everybody is suffering according to their karma.

So, what's wrong? If people go away by that, that's their problem. No, but there are times when we need to consider the consequence also. That's why our speech, it needs to be both sensible and sensitive.

And the last point I talked about is, to be sensitive. You know, we need to be able to place… We are insiders, but we need to, at least to some extent, be able to place ourselves as outsiders. So, we need to know how outsiders think.

So, there is insider to insider communication, there is outsider to outsider communication. So, we discussed these four kinds of communication. So, now, to some extent, we need to be aware of how people think, so that we can know their interests and speak accordingly.

So, with respect to somebody suffering, somebody is being raped, as I said, whenever there are two examples of women being violated, not necessarily violated people, Draupadi and Sita, and in neither context, either of their karma is brought on. So, we should focus on, if such a thing happens, that it is a breakdown of law and order, and law and order needs to be established. We talked about it.

Now, you know, lust, to say it is because of lust, that's also an oversimplification. Because if somebody just had lust, then they can just go to a prostitute. Why does somebody have to force themselves on a woman? It's more lust combined with pride.

It's more of a power. You know, I am powerful, and I will exert my power on you. So, to reduce a crime of rape simply to lust, it's an oversimplification.

There is definitely lust over there. But lust could be fulfilled in so many different avenues. So, if somebody is forcing themselves on someone, so at an individual level, lust needs to be decreased.

I need to provide people resources to be able to decrease the lust. At a societal level, there will always be people who will be like that. And they need to be controlled by stronger laws.

Now, here also, there is one devotee who made a video. Every rapist should be killed. Capital punishment.

Now, the reality is, if you look at the studies, there are 5-6 countries where this is there. Rapists are given capital punishment. And what happens over there? That is the place where rape is accompanied by murder.

Because what happens is, a man might just rape a woman and let her go. But if he lets her go, then she will speak against him, and he will be killed. So, better that, just kill her.

So, life is complex. And there are no simple solutions. So, kill a rapist, that actually ends up killing the rapist, rather than the rapists.

More killing. So, there is no simple solution to this. So, I mean, the idea seems, oh, we are very strong against the law.

No, it doesn't work like that. At least in today's world, it doesn't work like that. So, the idea is, you know, you say thieves just cut off their hands.

But okay, if we do that, what happens is, thieves will not just rob, thieves will kill the people who they are robbing. So that there is no evidence left for. So, yes, there might be some principles somewhere in Shastra, but can they be translated and literally applied in today's world? So, there could be, just saying it's their own karma is completely heartless.

But saying that, you know, this is such a terrible crime, just kill them. I mean, it doesn't work like that. So, it is not that Ravan killed Sita just because, sorry, Ravan killed, so Ravan was killed because he abducted Sita.

Ravan was killed because he abducted Sita, and he refused to return. Ram gave him many options. Ram tried to settle things peacefully.

So, this is not to say that we should go soft on crime. But the point is that, from Shastra, you can take Ravan as an example, but there is much more nuance over there. So, anyway, these are a few thoughts on this issue.

You would like to comment something? Yes, sir. Recently, this Trump was saved because he contributed to Jammu-Tamukai. So, I mean, it was so, insider to insider, okay.

You know, the word for that is self-congratulating. Self-congratulating. Oh, we are so wonderful.

We are patting ourselves on the back. So, we were in Kolhapur, and we were driving, and we were being told, Maharaj, Maharaj, this has happened. Maharaj said, yeah, Jagannath saves everyone.

Yeah. Thank you. Thank you, yeah.

It's that insider to insider perspective, when you apply it to outsider, it just becomes, we become a laughing stock. Because, you know, there are Christians who are claiming that. Because, relatively speaking, among the Democrats and Republicans, Republicans are more supportive of Christianity.

There are many Christians who claim that he supported the church, he repealed the law, he appointed the judges, who repealed the law that allowed abortion very easily. So, because he stopped the killing of babies, that's why God arranged for him to be saved. So, now, these are correlations which are fine for believers.

But, you know, for those who are not insiders, they are not fine, they actually take a fine. Because, you know, people just lose credibility. Thank you for sharing that.

Yes, could we add a question? Questioner 2 So, this is about the orphan donation which you had discussed. So, at one level we can understand orphan donation is, you know, depends on the devotee or person who is involved. So, what about, you know, donating the body? Because if the body is donated for some medical purposes, then it is like actually butchered, the body is like dirt and everything.

So, if from a medical, from a devotee perspective, we can say, okay, the soul is gone, so it doesn't matter. But what if the outsider, a new person asks this question? So, how should we, you know, explain this? Should we promote or, because NTHP is one of the very important substances for a person who has departed. So, how important this fund is? Good question.

Good question is a good way of saying I don't have a good answer. So, when I talk to the devotees, I talk to them in the transplant hospital. So, you know, there is, like there are organ banks, like kidney transplant is very common.

Eyes transplant is common. There are organ banks. So, one of the biggest, yeah.

Just to add to it, because as you said, if devotees, they need to intake organs. So, in the medical field, they learn because somebody donated the body and we are, you know, we don't think of dirty sex and everything. So, if somebody is not donating, then how the medical centre, the transplanted devotees are only using the medical science.

Yeah. In the West, the accident that happens, even if it is claimed, it gets burnt. Many people, many people, Yeah, that has become, it is becoming a trend now.

It is becoming a trend now. But let me just come to that point. So, one of the things that they tell, there are skin banks.

Now, the skin, when people get burnt, or especially when women are subject to acid attacks. So, you know, that time, storing the skin, you can take it from another part of the body, but if substantial burning is there, you cannot take it from someone's body. So, storing skin, so that it can be transplanted, that is quite common.

And it does save people from a lot of pain, a lot of shame, a lot of other things. I was talking to my mother-in-law, she said, that's a default practise in almost all hospitals, so we also do that every day. So, they said, we never had any philosophical discussion on this issue.

that's, so the point is that, now, I didn't really ask him at that time, how do you get the skin? So, is it that you skin the person and then send them to antarsamskar, or you skin the person and then, please ask me. Or even, I don't think any Christian, Muslim will agree to that, because they burn the body. Their idea is that the body will be restored at resurrection.

So, maybe they take some part of the skin, I don't know. But, it's, antarsamskar is important. So, the whole body, people, they don't need thousands and thousands of bodies for doing research.

So, the bodies that they get, which are unclaimed, from moths, those are enough for the research. It's like, those who have studied medicine, it's not that, every person is cutting bodies to do research. Every person may be, but it's not that, you need, for every student, you don't need one body.

As far as I know. So, you are doctors, you probably know better. So, but the thing is that, they don't need, organs are specifically needed.

The whole body is not needed so much. So, I think donating the whole body, if, somebody wants to do that, that's up to them. But, that's not so much, that's never a big issue.

Like in America, when I got a driving licence, we just filled it up, that, nobody asked for a body donation. And, I checked with other people also at that time. So I asked them, what are organs, what do they mean by the organs also? Which organs will they take? So, I had to find out more about body donation.

But generally, I would say that, it's a bit extreme. It's rare also. And, if somebody wants to do it, even if somebody already feels okay, my body will get, burned this way, destroyed this way or, destroyed that way, it doesn't matter to me.

Then it is okay. But generally, the last rites are important. That, and these people are also, when they do these kind of things, they are also, in the whole medical field, there is a, certain, respect for the, sanctity of a person's, beliefs, or whatever it is.

So if, you know, if in a particular person's tradition, the body is treated in a particular way, generally they are not dismissive about that. They will not do it without consent on most occasions. And, Christian, Muslim, unless people are atheists, they are not going to, give the body like that, fully.

So I will find out more about this, what is done. Actually, especially if they, unless of course the, person desires because, one of my classmates from MSc, she is, her father was, one of the great, poets, in Mysore, of his time. Then, later also.

And he had, written that, my body should be given to the hospital, sent to the hospital for, science, scientific work, scientific advancement. And she had put it in the group. We have a college group.

So in that, and then, our director, where we studied, speech engineering, he also received, wrote, my, body should be given. So, I had kind of commented, you know, you know, someone who is so, loving, respectful, you just, know that that person, who will be lying in the hospital, is a little painful to the heart, to me. Because if I love someone, I want to see that, they are given a very decent, you know, their body is, is put out in a very, respectful way, and, it's also showing, affection and love.

Yes, we are not the body, but we are in the body, for such a long time. That was, one thing. And, secondly, yeah, I heard that, many of these beggars, who just died, none of them, those type of bodies, unclaimed bodies, which is reported to the corporation, was, that's because, that's what it was to me.

So, in one sense, just, I was returning back from, in New Jersey, I was coming back, and I saw, acres and acres of land, where all this, huge, acres and acres of land, very beautifully painted, like that, and I was appreciating, the Indian system, of this project. One place, none of them, none of them wrote, about this. That is the serious part.

There is a big, theological debate, right now, in the Catholic Church, whether, they should allow, cremation. Because, many Christians, they are environmentally sensitive, they are aware of the, there is a New York Times article, America is majority Hindu, what they meant by that was, majority Americans, in their will, they say they should be cremated. So, from a logistical perspective, graveyards, they are a grave problem.

So, it's a very efficient. So, what happens, that's what you mean, when the, resurrection happens, at the end of the, world, then there will be, restoration, and all. Well, at least in Christianity, the idea is that, just as Jesus, after he was killed, he appeared in the, self-saved body, to use our religious word.

So, he appeared in that, saved body, that is called, resurrection. So, resurrection is, completely different, from reincarnation. Resurrection means, somebody rises, from the dead.

So, in the same body. So, their idea is that, we all, will come back, in the same bodies. And that's how, we'll be united.

And, that leads to a lot of, logical problems. It is that, you know, that's one of the reasons, why the Catholic Church, is against, so strongly, against divorce. Because what happens, is a man divorces, and remarries.

Then, everybody is resurrected, leaving with the first wife, or the second wife. Or, never after. So, it will become like, hell in heaven, or after.

So, so, the protestants, just avoid the issue, they say, the ways of God, are inconceivable. The protestants, they have, the protestants, they have divorces, they accept. But yeah, it's complicated.

It's like, the, the philosophy, that people will go back, in the exact same body. And, that's the reason, why they put it in coffins, and preserve it. But, everybody knows, that the body is not, going to last for long.

Embalm it, and everything else. Yeah, it's like, there's a whole industry, I was in New York, I saw, it's like, the shop name was, Death Style. Then, I googled, what it is.

It is like, many people, Death Style, Death Style. Death Style is, people, before they die, they actually, write in their will, what kind of coffin, I should be buried, buried in. So, there are different kinds, of coffins, and that is called, the Death Style.

So, there was an article, somewhere in Atlantic, or wherever, Death Style is the, latest lifestyle. Yes, please. I'm doing this, thing of sensible, and sensitive.

So, many times, there is this talk of, we should not be judgemental. And, I have never been able to understand, this concept of, not being judgemental. Sometimes, it appears that, to not be judgemental, means, to either switch off, your intelligence, or to use your intelligence, to somehow see, some good, and cover up, you know, what is obvious.

And, like, is there any scriptural, evidence, or some Shastra? So, every word has to have, a Sanskrit, reference. non-judgemental, where does it come from? And, if we have to be non-judgemental, I get the point that, we should not look down, upon others. But then, how to do that, in a sane way, and like, hmm, so, in Brisbane, I had given a three-part, serious class, on, being non-judgemental.

So, somehow, those classes ended up, with Bhaktivikas Maharaj. And, he wrote a email to me, he said, I searched the entire, Veda base. I didn't find, the non-judgemental word, anywhere, in the Veda base.

So, then, I talked to, Prasanna Maharaj, I talked to, Radha Amma Maharaj also. Then, I replied that, you know, if you look at the Veda base, even the word, judgemental, doesn't come out. So, both, judgemental, and non-judgemental, not in the vocabulary, of Prabhupada.

So, we cannot just, make that, as the basis. So, certainly, need to be judgments. And, I mentioned that point, this, Madhyamandikari, makes judgments.

So, words have particular, connotations. So, judgments, it's necessary, to make them. And, we use the word, discrimination.

Discrimination itself, has a negative connotation, So, now, the word is, discernment, rather than, So, but, the idea is, that, we all have to make judgments. But, when we use the word, judgemental, the specific connotation, it has is, that, we are, imposing, our values, to make, a value judgement, of people, who have not accepted, those values. That, if, I say, meat-eating is, terrible.

If, somebody, has not accepted, that value, they may have just grown up, that is a normal way of living. So, now, is it wrong? Of course, it is wrong. But, when, they have not accepted, those values, then, they may not even be, aware of those values.

Then, we have not explained, the rationale of those values, to them. So, it's like, if, we are judged, by a value system, that we have not accepted. So, it's like, in the Christian value system, anybody who doesn't accept God, except Jesus as God, is going to go to hell.

Anybody who accepts, a false God, or some other God, is going to go to a worse hell. And, anybody who preaches, to follow such a false God, is going to go to a worse hell. So, according to the Christian worldview, all of a sudden, it's time for the darkest hell.

Because, you are preaching a false God. Now, if somebody says that, you are going to go to the darkest hell, you will consider it ridiculous. You won't get scared, and say, no, I am going to go to hell.

So, I will stop preaching about Christianity. No, because, that is not a value system, that is even intelligible to us. What to speak of something, that isn't accepted by us.

So, judgemental means, basically, that, we are evaluating people, not just evaluating, but, we are expressing that evaluation, to people, who have no familiarity, or acceptance of that value system. So, like, you mentioned yesterday, fair women, who dress scanty, they are degraded. Well, you could say, the culture is degraded.

But, are those women, degraded? No, maybe they are just doing, what is fashionable. Maybe, like I said, they are doing, based on their autonomy. So, last week, I was, the attenders, I was talking with Maharaj, about, you know, nowadays, I am commenting on contemporary issues, so, I have to be very careful, to ask Maharaj about various issues, that I comment on, how to comment, what not to say.

So, he said, stay away from politics, as much as you can. So, I asked, what do you mean by politics? So, then, he asked, what are the issues, that you comment on? Then, I gave some samples. Then, he said, with respect to abortion? At one level, we can say, abortion is a black and white, it is a wrong thing.

But, in America, there are these two groups, they call it pro-life, and pro-choice. So, pro-life is, the Christians mainly, who say that, embryo is life, and you cannot kill it. Pro-choice, is mostly the feminists, who say that, women should have the right to choose.

So, Is feminism not Christian? Sorry? Feminists don't follow Christianity. Well, there is a significant Christian feminist lobby, also. Wait, then what happens in the Christian feminist lobby? Well, Church strongly condemns them.

But, it is like, you know, the church can't control all Christians. Yeah. True.

So, there is one devotee, who says, in the West, he is quite a vocal second generation Western outreach preacher, he says that, you know, there is ISKCON, and there is the Krishna Consciousness Movement. And, the Krishna Consciousness Movement is much bigger than ISKCON. And, that means, he basically says that, like, devotees who are inspired by the principles of Krishna Consciousness, but, they don't know how to necessarily adhere to ISKCON.

So, his thesis, and there is some reasoning behind it, says that, Western outreach is not going to be done through ISKCON. It is going to be done through the Krishna Consciousness Movement. Because, ISKCON is too rigid in many ways.

Now, it's a different subject, but it's, it's like, you know, I was talking with Vajwan Gupt, who runs this Krishna Feminist Movement. He says, Prabhupada said, ISKCON is my body. And, Prabhupada told us, we are not our body.

But, so, I was, so, he said that, for most women in the Western world, when they have illicit sex, so, he said, none of them even know that it is wrong. They don't consider it to be wrong. And, it's like, somebody who is 16 or 17, and such a woman gets pregnant, and she has an abortion.

Well, he said that, of course, she is guilty that she is being aborted. But, she is just acting according to the culture that she has grown up. So, it's like, he is innocent, but guilty.

He is innocent of having done anything consciously wrong, intentionally wrong, but guilty that she has done something just reasonably wrong. So, now, if we get into specific issues, so, in America, there was a Roe v. Wade case, that the Supreme Court had decided that there is a right to abortion. Now, it's not mentioned in the Constitution.

So, that, that had legalised abortion. So, that was overturned. And, the Republicans considered it a big victory.

But, then what happens is, America is a confederation. India is a federation. Federation means that the centre has power, and the centre gives power to the states.

America is a confederation, that means the states have power, and they give power to the centre. So, any state in America can secede from the union anytime they want. Not easy, but they can do it.

No, no, not that much. I mean, they have their own state guard, not exactly a full-fledged army, but they have their resources, yeah, definitely. So, so, the idea is that now, it's not that abortion has become illegal, it has been decided that it is not a central issue, it is not a federal issue, it is a state issue.

So, what happened when it became a state issue, even states which were Republican, they had a plebiscite, they had a vote, and they also said we should be allowed abortion. We should allow it. So, the point that Maharaj is making is that if we take a position, are we against the overturning of the roadway or any politics, this has become a very politicalised issue.

And even if, say, a particular state bans abortion, all that is going to happen is two things. Either the girl or the woman is going to get abortion by illegal means, and that can injure and disfigure and wound her for life many times, or they have to go to some other state, they'll travel and do that. So, all that happens is the healthy people will do that, poor people will end up disfiguring themselves.

So, from a sociological perspective, so basically Maharaj used this word innocent but guilty. So, this is how if somebody says women don't kill their babies, their demons. So, that's a terrible oversimplification of the problem.

So, the issue is that they see it as a woman has to by nature's arrangement, childbearing. First nine months, a woman has to do it. After that also, a woman has to take care of the child.

So, they feel that why should a woman have to be imposed like that? And they see it as a woman's rights issue. So, if you support abortion, the way it is in America is support abortion, you are against babies. If you oppose abortion, you are against women.

Now, it's not that simple but they see it as if a girl is 16, 17 and she becomes pregnant and she can't do abortion, what is she going to do? And she may give up her adoption but that is not that simple. we need to… So, judgemental means that a woman who has no awareness of the sanctity of life, who has no awareness of the many women, it's like when they go to an abortion centre, they are not even told that it's actually a life. There is a very nice movie about a movie called Unplanned.

So, Unplanned is basically, you don't plan to have a child but you get a child and you become pregnant without planning. So, this woman was a nurse in an abortion clinic and she was a nurse like a receptionist kind of attendant. She was never in the surgery and she said that she eventually did the job very well and she became the in-charge.

She was not a doctor. She became in-charge of the clinic and at one time because of some issue, some storm or some issue, they had a shortage of clinicians. Not doctors but people who assist, nurses.

And then she had to go and assist. And she said when she went to assist, that was the first time she actually to this is not a tissue. This is a baby.

she just killed her. And now she has become anti- abortionist. So my point here is that we could take this as a story of how abortion is human.

But you can see it also from the perspective that somebody who works in that industry doesn't know the reality and the gravity of it. Because the propaganda is so much. So if you poll most of the people who come for our flower festival, many of them are women, many of the people, even men, who come to Rishikesh, who come to Westerners, if you took a poll, 99% of them would be pro-life, no choice, not pro-life.

And he said, if you take a position publicly against Roly-Poly, then that will just be a filter for them. And they will just not want to listen. So he said, by making this rule, is it that abortions are going to be stopped? Unlikely.

By our supporting this rule, are we likely to make more people devotees? The opposite. So what is the point of our taking positions in these issues? So that judgemental essentially would mean that we evaluate and label people based on values that they are not aware of. It doesn't mean… So judgments we have to make.

So it is, you know, this is right, this is wrong. And this is Anupul, this is Pratik. But imposing our judgement on others, that is being judgemental.

How he made the connection between Maharaj So that's an indication. Maharaj is such an already evolved person, but even for him, after going through such a spiritual journey for a long time, then that connection was made. So within that culture it's very difficult.

Like I saw one cartoon, it's like, you know, one American is asking another American, are you a vegetarian? I am an American! So, anyway, it's just a normal way of living the thing like that. ignorant and attached. So, if we are high up and we expect people to take a high jump all the way here most of the times people will fail and they will go further down.

Instead, what we need to do is we need to create a staircase by which they will gradually come to the surface. तो जोशे सर्वकर्माई विद्वानित्त समाच्वे So, there are times, there is that conversation Prabhupada had in Hawaii where some devotees came and asked him, Prabhupada, when we speak about the Bhagavatam to scholars when we tell them that Maharaja Ugrasen had some astronomical number of bodyguards they start laughing at us. They start saying, where were their homes, where were their toilets, how would they live? Prabhupada could have given a lead on that.

Prabhupada could have said, Krishna can sustain the whole world with the tip of a needle. It is true. But what did Prabhupada say? He said that among the thousands of verses in the Bhagavatam was that the only thing you found to speak to the scholars? Is it true? So, take from scripture what is interesting to the audience.

So, as to talk with people about that which they will find it difficult to have faith in then that is actually an offence. That is, we are doing a disservice. You may think we are doing a service.

You may think we are being faithful, we are being uncompromising. There is a difference between being compromising and being compassionate. So, compromising is where we change our message.

Compassionate is where we choose from our message that which can resonate, that part which can resonate with the audience. Thank you. Stop with this.

Kala Kanda Prabhu in one of his Ramacharitra ashrams he said that when such scenarios are there whatever you have in mind, instead of telling them do this we ask them what is your opinion about this approach or this one. And then we ask them their opinion and what they think about this. What is their philosophy? Other side's philosophy.

And what they feel about it. If they are so adamant, no, this is the thing. What is their philosophy and what is your opinion about it? And we find that they are not going to agree.

So then what choice are left with them? They will come to their conclusion just by asking them the questions. Even if we have something in our mind, we ask them the questions and live to what we have in mind. And live up to them whether they want to agree or not.

That's interesting, Prabhuji. I think I go to the one to one level. In a class, you can't ask them what you think.

Yes, that's one to one. It's a one to one level, yes, definitely. One to one level is a different ballgame in that.

One to one level, yes, we can, it's like there is, you know, there is talking to people and talking with people. So in one sense, preaching is like talking to people. Although even that can be very interactive to some extent.

But counselling is talking with people. So talking with means we also hear from them. We also understand where they are coming from.

We also understand how strongly somebody may speak or how strongly somebody feels about a particular issue. And based on that, then they address the issue about it. Otherwise, you know, we might just be going from one perspective, speaking a particular line and then we might just be using the person company.

So, there are, I was in UK a few years ago. There was one couple came and met me and this Mataji, her husband told me that, they heard about my class and they said that this Mataji has had four miscarriages. And she said that, before she became a devotee, in the typical western culture, so she had an abortion.

So she said that, she heard in the class, the devotee said, if you abort a child, Krishna will punish you and you will never be able to have a child. So, she was asking him, will I never be able to have a child? He said, I want to love Krishna. But is it Krishna causing this miscarriage for you? She said, no, first of all, I think the Shastra says, that Karma is complex.

Can you make a correlation like that? You have the abortion, so there will be miscarriage. So, then she asked her husband, what is the medical reason for this? He said, you know, there are some medical issues and they need some treatment. The treatment is working, but my wife is afraid to try again now.

She said, every single issue, you don't have to escalate to the level of past karma. So, it is Krishna got a vengeful God. Krishna wants us to come closer to him.

Krishna wants us to be as happy as possible in this world. So, just focus on the biological cause and address the biological cause. We can come off as very heartless.

So, it's abortion, it's a terrible thing, but you making a correlation like that, that is, making a direct statement like that is very bad. You shouldn't be making like that. So, understand where people are at.

I'll just give you an example of sensitive, sensible. There was one, Mataji, she had become, she had, she was a big booze devoter. And then she became pregnant, so she couldn't go out of the solution.

And then she had a miscarriage. And she called her devotee council, it's not in India, it's some other western country. So, she called her guide, counsellor, whatever it was.

And the first reply of that guide was, Krishna has removed this obstacle for your book distribution. She said, her thought was, you know miss, does Krishna consider distributing his books so important, he killed my baby for that? Is that the kind of God that Krishna is? So then, and I know this Mataji also, the person who gave the guide. So, I talked with her, and she said, you know, I was only trying to help her see the positive in the situation.

And she said, you know the example, like when Naraguni's mother died, he saw this as an arrangement by Krishna so that he could focus on school child. Now I said, there is a big difference. The difference is that, he himself arrived at the conclusion.

You are giving that conclusion. And if you don't understand, see, what is the person going through? When somebody's child is lost, she was at a level, where she was thinking whether I should even practise Krishna Bhakti or not. I am doing so much Bhakti, why did this happen to me? So she is at a level where her own faith is being shaken.

And you are speaking from a platform of faith. But that's just, at that time, if you don't talk with her, to understand what she is going through. So I am literally Kalkanthos Municipal over here.

If you don't talk with people, we may have good intentions, but what is that saying? The road to hell is paved with good intentions. So, you can just completely lose people. You can just come off of totally heartless.

So yes, you need to talk with people to understand what the emotional state is. Like you see, you want to comfort the afflicted and afflict the comforted. But sometimes we may end up afflicting the afflicted.

And that will be disastrous. Thank you very much.