Hard Questions, Clear Answers. Youth Podcast. Perth, Australia

Disclaimer: This transcript was generated using AI and may contain occasional errors or inaccuracies.

Tonight, a shocking revelation, a disturbing revelation, a revelation that is shaking the foundation of today's youth itself. Questions are being asked, parents are asking, devotees are asking, even the people in the Prasadam Q are asking. Are young people coming for devotion or not? Tonight, we investigate and we debate.

This is Temple Wants to Know. So, joining me on my right, a man who has written over 5,500 articles on the Bhagavad Gita, spoken at Harvard, MIT, Google, Microsoft, travelled across four continents, and quite possibly knows more verses than our entire panel. His Grace, Jai Srinivasan Prabhu.

Please, a round of applause. Also joining us is a man whose popularity is rising faster than temple attendance after Prasadam announcement. A man known for his enthusiasm, his dedication to Krishna Consciousness.

Some call him a mentor, while some call him while needing help finishing Prasadam. Please welcome Madhav to the show. And finally, sources tell us that whenever Keeper is seated and stops, he's somehow already there.

Questions are being asked, how does he know? Who informs him? The Temple Wants answers. Please welcome the man, the rhythm, the mystery, Smotarana. Before I start tonight's debate, let me explain the rules.

There are no rules. I will ask the questions, Prabhu will answer, and the panel will counter. I will interrupt, and somehow by the Lord of Krishna, we will arrive at a meaningful conclusion.

So, Prabhu, my first question for you to start the progress, if you look to your screen. On the show, two days ago, there was an incident where TikToks were being made at the Bhakti Riksha. What do you say, Prabhu? What is your opinion on this? Do you think this is right? You mean while the Bhakti Riksha class was going on, somebody was making TikToks? Why somebody was making TikToks at the Bhakti Riksha class, Prabhu? I think at least they were attending the Bhakti Riksha class.

That is good. We always have to move incrementally. So, hopefully they are making TikToks.

They are making TikToks about Krishna. Were they making TikToks about Krishna? The panel, what do you think? I don't think so, Prabhu. I don't think they were making TikToks about Krishna.

Good point. What is your point, Marlon? I don't think they were making TikToks about Krishna. Instead, they were just wasting their time being at the Bhakti Riksha, and they were making TikToks.

It is not a spiritual activity. It is for propaganda. See, Prabhupada started this society and he called it the International Society for Krishna Consciousness.

It is not of Krishna Consciousness. What does it mean? Of Krishna Consciousness would move in. Krishna Consciousness is readily available here.

Come and pick it up. It is like a gold treasure. You go and just pick up gold.

It is not like that. It is for Krishna Consciousness. It is like a gold mine.

We all can dig and find gold, but it is for us to find. So, that is why ultimately each one of us has to develop our relationship with Krishna. And if somebody doesn't want to do that, that is their free will.

So, the institution and everything around it, it is a resource for our spiritual growth. It is not the source of our spiritual growth. Our Prabhupada would say that each one of us has to fly our own plane.

So, now if somebody comes to a temple, a temple class starts making TikToks. Is that a good thing? Certainly not a good thing. Is that something we want people to do? No.

But ultimately everybody has free will. Krishna says, I reciprocate with people. So, if somebody comes to the temple for Krishna, they will find Krishna.

If somebody comes to the temple for gossip, they will find gossip. If somebody comes to the temple for controversy, they will find controversy. If somebody comes to the temple only for prasad, they will find prasad also.

Now, ideally we come to Krishna for Krishna. And if somebody is coming to Krishna for something else, then it is the expertise of the community that they gently but firmly help them to come towards Krishna. And if they don't, then we have to create some boundaries.

So, that's how it works. When Prabhupada was in the early days, when they would do kirtans, somehow in the hippie world, the notion came that these kirtans are a very nice way of softening the post drug high landing. When people go take drugs and go high, after that when they want to come down, they can be very disruptive.

So, when people would come in the morning, kirtans would be going on and all these people would be high on drugs, they would come. And what did Prabhupada do? Prabhupada accepted them. Prabhupada welcomed them.

Some of them became disruptive at times. So, if they became too disruptive and the kirtan was stopped, Prabhupada would perform, but otherwise Prabhupada welcomed them. So, I think that we have to all be clear why I am here and say if you are here seriously for Krishna and you see some other kid making tiktoks, now you shouldn't think that okay, he is making tiktoks, let me also make tiktoks.

No, he may not be here, she may not be here for Krishna. That's unfortunate. But it is for Krishna consciousness.

So, it is each one's individual responsibility. Thank you, Prabhu, for that answer. But I think let's get serious, guys.

I think, let me ask you a difficult question, Prabhupada. Millions of people around the world inherit the religion simply because they happen to be born there. If I was born in Saudi Arabia, perhaps I would have been Muslim.

Or if I was born in Italy, I could have been Christian. Or if I was born somewhere else, I could have been something else completely different. So, I want to ask you directly, why Krishna? What is your proposal to the youth? Why to choose Krishna over all others? I won't say that we have to choose Krishna.

We have to choose meaning and purpose in our life. And in one sense, what you said is true. The Gita has a very inclusive understanding of spiritual life.

You see, this is spiritual consciousness. It's the top of a mountain. And here, at the top of it, we have love for God.

And the bottom of the mountain is material consciousness. And here, we have love for worldly things. It could be power, it could be pleasure, it could be iPhone, whatever it is.

So, the journey of spiritual growth is that we move from the bottom of the mountain to the top of the mountain. Now, in our tradition, Krishna says, sambhavami yuge yuge. I come again and again at different times and different places.

And at different times and different places, he provides people pathways towards him according to those time-place circumstances. So, our tradition is quite comfortable acknowledging that there are different paths to climb up the mountain. Ekam sat viprabhahudahavidanti.

There is one ultimate truth. The sages know that truth by different names. So, yes, if somebody was born a Muslim, somebody was born a Christian, through their own path, they can also approach God.

Prabhupada was asked what he thought about Jesus and he said that Jesus is our guru. He had so much love for God that he was ready to lay down his life for the sake of God. Now, having said this, that is our birth in a particular place the sole determinant of our spirituality? No, it is not.

Everything that happens in life, there are two factors. There is choice and there is chance. Now, ultimately we can say there is no chance.

It's our past karma and Krishna's plan. But from our perspective, we don't know the factor that led to it. So, there is choice and chance.

So, we could say by chance somebody might be born in this part of the bottom of the mountain on one side. Somebody might be born in some other part of the bottom of the mountain. Somebody else might be born in another place.

But the point is from wherever somebody is, they try to move up the mountain. So, Prabhupada, if he met somebody who is a devout Christian, he didn't try to pull them, you have to become a Krishna devotee. He would encourage them, okay, stop killing animals.

Be compassionate to all creatures of God. So, our purpose is not that we want to keep going round and round in the bottom of the mountain and pull everyone down from their parts of the mountain. Our purpose in one sense is not to convert say Christians to Hindus or Muslims to Hindus.

If there is any conversion, it's from being a materialist to being a spiritualist. To go from the bottom of the mountain to the top of the mountain. So, now there are three different kinds of paths.

There are some which are exclusivist. Exclusivist means they say that ours is the only way to God. If you are not following us, you are going to go to hell.

And those are the, you could say, the exclusivists. And there is a kinder version of these exclusivists. They are called extremists.

They say, if you don't follow our path, you are going to go to hell. But anyway, why delay? We will help you get there faster. So, these become the extremists.

So, the exclusives say that our way is the only way. If God is unlimited, why should the path to God be limited only one way? Now, the others are pluralists. They say, there are as many human beings, there are that many ways to God.

So, whatever you follow, that is your way. Now, politically, in terms of individual free will, the state should not be imposing any faith on anyone. But objectively, if I am at the bottom of a mountain, all paths don't take me up the mountain.

Some may just keep me going round and round. Some may take me down into a valley. So, to say all paths lead to God, that is naivety, that is foolishness.

So, what the Bhagavad Gita says is, in between exclusivist and pluralist is inclusivist. Inclusivist means what? That there is one purpose which includes many paths. So, the purpose is to go to the top of the mountain.

The path could be, I can go from the left, I can go to the right, I can go from the front, I can go from behind. So, Prabhupada said that developing love for God is the criteria. Now, which path somebody uses for developing love for God, that's up to the individual.

Now, having said this, our path is inclusivist. That's why I started by saying that. It's not that we advocate everybody has to worship Krishna only.

So, as long as you are going up the mountain, you have our best wishes and we appreciate them on the spiritual journey. Having said that, it's not that just because all paths go up the mountain, all paths are equally easy or equally difficult. So, in our tradition, some paths will be rocky, some paths will be marshy, some paths will be slippery.

So, it depends. So, in our tradition, what is special? Is Krishna bhakti the only way to God? No. But is there some special things about this way? Yes, definitely.

So, I like to talk about three things in this. The first is the clarity. The clarity of what is there at the top of the mountain.

The various traditions talk about God, but there is not much positive description of God. So, different religions try to deal it in different ways. Allah is considered in the Islamic tradition to be almost unknowable.

Then in Christianity, Christ or the ultimate divinity God, the father is unknown. So, many Christians make the son itself into God. They worship Jesus as if he is God.

But the idea of what is there at the top of the mountain, the vividness, the beauty of the Krishna conception of God is unparalleled. So, if I am going up the mountain, if I know at the top of the mountain there is something breathtakingly beautiful, that will inspire us to move forward. So, that is the clarity of the conception of God.

That is one very great advantage. Now, the second part is the facility for going up the path. What do I mean by the facility? In the Krishna Bhakti tradition, especially in the path of Shri Chaitanya Mahaprabhu, we have Bhakti which is a very inclusive path.

That is, we can use all our senses in Krishna's service. If you have singing ability, you don't have to consider singing as maya. You can sing for Krishna.

You can draw for Krishna. You can build, if you have architecture ability, build for Krishna. So, the facility for serving Krishna in many different ways is there.

Arjuna was an archer. He could use an archer in Krishna's service. So, the ways in which we can climb up the mountain, they are many.

And that's what, if the top of the mountain is very attractive, I want to go up. And okay, to go up I need a particular kind of shoes, I need a particular kind of support kit. If I have that, that makes it even easier.

And the third aspect that is very helpful is the logicality. Logicality means that when we are here in the world, now why do bad things happen to good people? That is a question which every tradition struggles with. Now, if we say it's because of God, that makes God arbitrary and discriminatory.

If we say it's not God, then it becomes chance. And then life just becomes like a lottery. But in the Vedic understanding, the principle of Karma, by which each one of us has the power to create a better future.

So, basically it helps us to make sense of our present and it gives us a sense of power that we can create a better future. So, these three are the very strong support systems. So, when Prabhupada was asked, how are you able to spread Krishna conscious all over the world? One reason he gave is, Krishna is attractive.

I presented him and he attracted people. So, to summarize the answer, we don't say that you have to worship only Krishna. Pursue higher meaning through a connection with God.

And if you are committed to a particular path, a best wish is there. If you are just exploring, then these are the strengths of our path. The clarity of what is at the top of the mountain, the facility to go up the mountain, and the logicality of why I am here, and how there is a support system available for me to go up.

Thank you. Okay, would the panel like to comment? Clarity is valuable, but clarity doesn't necessarily mean truth. Many religions have detailed and coherent descriptions about God.

The question is not whether Krishna-Bhakti provides a clear picture, but why should we believe that this picture corresponds to reality? Oh, I would just quickly also like to add my question. Is that, you kind of said that karma is illogical. It is illogical because it explains why… Can we take one question at a time, if you don't mind? Okay, so you are saying that clarity is… Is it factual? Is it real? Okay, so first of all, I have studied some amount of interfaith, and I don't think any other tradition has a detailed description of God.

There is some description of the principle of God, not the personal dimension of divinity. So often many traditions focus on what God is not than what God is. So that is one thing I would like to clarify.

The second point is that now how do we know this is real? There are two aspects to understanding God. There is the field of that understanding God is called as theology. Study of God.

And theology has two different aspects. There is rational theology and there is revelational theology. So rational theology refers to what we can understand through logic and reasoning.

And revelational theology is where we require revelation from a higher source. So now with rationality, we can make a reasonable case that there is a higher organizing principle, that there is a higher divinity, and because there is personhood in this world, there will be personhood in the divine. So in that sense, we can make a rational case for the existence of God.

Now for the personal features of God, for that revelation is required. What do you mean by revelation? Say you are staying in a hostel, and you come back home and your mother has made a very delicious cake. And she says, okay, what is the special occasion you are thinking? It's not your birthday, it's nothing special.

You can get the best scientist in the world to analyze the chemical composition of the cake. No matter how much you analyze the chemical composition, you can't find out from that why your mother made that cake. Isn't it? You have to ask your mother.

And the mother says, okay, today is the day, 20 years ago, your first tooth came out. And I want to commemorate that. So now, the point is that when you talk about personhood, there is an irreducibility to personhood, which cannot be experienced from outside.

You have to ask the person to know. We can make some inferences about some things. But ultimately, each person is individual.

So like that, to know about Krishna, we need to turn to revelation. Now, is revelation blind faith? Not exactly. Because what the Gita says is, patakshavagamam dharmyam.

Patakshavagamam dharmyam is, this is something which we can experience through our own realization. So in science, there are two aspects. There is theory, and there is experiment.

Similarly, in spirituality, there are two aspects. There is the philosophy, and there is the practice. Now, just as the experiment in science helps us to verify the theory, similarly, the practice helps us to experience and realize the philosophy.

So, going back to the metaphor, now, what we see at the top of the mountain, is it actually there? We will know that for sure only when we get to the top of the mountain. But as we are moving upwards, closer to the top, is the things becoming clearer? Say, if you use GPS, and you want to drive across Australia from here to Sydney, and now, you don't know for sure whether the map is accurate or not. But, if the map says, you go 100 miles down, you will come across a river.

And you come across, you go, find a river. You go further, there will be a huge, vast desert. Go through that, you will come across a valley.

So, if each of the landmarks you find it, then, that does not itself prove, that at the end of the journey, you will come to Sydney. But the point is, each landmark that is proven to be right, as depicted in the map, that increases your conviction that I am on the right path. So, ultimately, that God is a cowherd boy who wears a peacock feather, and plays a flute, and stands in a three-fold bending form.

That is something we cannot have objective, rational proof for. But the path towards God, as we keep following, we start experiencing transformations in our life. We start gaining more and more realizations.

Those are the landmarks, that the saints who have gone before, they have found those landmarks, and they have told that to us. And when we encounter those landmarks, we understand that, I am on the right track. So, it's the way the world has been made, we all need to take a leap of faith.

But that leap of faith is not irrational. It's based on rationality, but it goes beyond rationality. Okay? Was it understandable or am I becoming a little complicated? Understandably complicated.

Maybe if you could sum up what you just said in one line. So, the proof that Krishna is God, comes to us as we practice Bhakti, as we conduct an experiment of Bhakti, and we encounter the landmarks in our consciousness, as we move closer to Krishna. So, if practice is the evidence of truth, is what you are saying, so followers of many other religions, could technically make the same argument, but how do we determine which practice is revealing the truth, rather than just reinforcing the belief? That's a very thoughtful question.

How do we know which practice is revealing the truth, and which practice is confirming simply the belief? There are two different things over here. One is that there is subjective feeling good. So you could say that because somebody is born in a particular religion, when they go to the place of that religion, they feel good about it.

That's possible. But there are objective parameters of transformation. So the idea is, if somebody is going up the mountain, how do we know they are going up the mountain? There are two criteria.

The peak will come closer, and the bottom will go further. So what that means is, if we are actually growing spiritually, If we are growing spiritually, we will be coming closer to the Divine. We will be experiencing the Divine.

And how do we know? Anybody can claim I am experiencing God. But the test of that is, that the experience of God is so enriching, it's so fulfilling, that we stop craving for other experiences. So the idea is, that if somebody is truly going closer to the Divine, however they may conceive the Divine, their craving for material things will decrease.

If they are still craving for physical pleasures, if they are still craving for political power, if they are still driven by ego, then they are not really going up, no matter what their claims be. So now this change is not something which is just a matter of confirmation bias. It is something which can be objectively observed.

So for example, when people from various denominations, they start practicing bhakti, they may have had many many different unhealthy habits, and they are able to give it up without much difficulty. It's not that everybody gives it up the same easy, but they do give it up. And some people feel that the rules of Krishna consciousness are strict.

And as compared to other religions, they are strict. But the fact is that so many people are able to follow them. And follow them not with a constant feeling that I am being repressed by it.

No, follow it joyfully. Unless somebody were experiencing something higher, why would they give it all up? So that is the internal experiences there. But there is an external transformation that happens.

In terms of our decreased dependence on worldly things for our pleasure. And that is a transformation which can be objectively seen. Okay, so… Any time you need that, push back.

Sorry about that. So, I think we have all warmed our engines up now. So I think we can come to the biggest question of the modern age.

Science versus spirituality. Right? So science can scan the brain. We can measure electrical activity.

It can even identify which parts of the brain become active during certain thoughts and emotions. So many of the young people are asking the same questions again and again. Science seems to explore and explain more and more of our world around us day by day.

So, why do we need God at all? Yeah. It's a perfectly valid question. See, science is the study of matter.

Spirituality is the study of what matters. So… that… I was… Sorry about that. So, there are two fundamentally different domains of knowledge.

Science and spirituality. Science is the study of matter. That how does the universe around us work? And science has come up with phenomenal advancement in that.

But there is another category of knowledge is what matters. What is really important in life? What brings meaning to our life? You look at the Bhagavad Gita. Did Arjuna win the war at Kurukshetra by the knowledge of the Bhagavad Gita or by the knowledge of archery that he had learnt throughout his life? What do you think? I think he learnt it by heart.

Yes, both. So, the knowledge of archery was material knowledge. They had technology of their own kind by which they had celestial weapons.

But it was the Gita that gave the knowledge of what matters. So, in that sense, science and spirituality, they don't have to contradict each other. They are two different domains of knowledge.

One is about how to function in this world and how to understand how the world functions. So, and then why do I function? Why do I exist in the world? What is the ultimate purpose of life? Science provides us means. Means is how do I do things? But spirituality provides us meaning in life.

So, let's consider the example that kick-started the journey of modern science. I'll say Newton. When he was sitting under a tree and according to the story, the apple fell on him.

Now, when the apple fell on Newton's head, imagine if there had been a monkey instead of Newton. What would the monkey have done? Pick up the apple and eat it. The monkey would have been full otherwise.

Pick up the apple and thrown it at the monkey. How dare you? Isn't it? Now, it is to Newton's credit that he asked the question, what made this apple fall? And now, it is his brilliance that he came up with the theory of gravity in response. At the same time, Newton believed in God.

And yet, when Newton wanted to know what made the apple fall, he was not interested in the answer, God made the apple fall. He was interested in the mechanism by which the apple fell. And he, in his world view, understood that ultimately this mechanism is arranged by God.

But he still wanted to study the mechanism. So, the idea is that science and spirituality study events at different levels. If say, the event is the fall of the apple.

So, now, there is one level of explanation from science. That is, in terms of mechanisms. And there is another level of explanation by spirituality.

It is ultimately in terms of purposes. So, why does the tree exist at all? Why does the apple exist at all? Why does gravity exist at all? So, they are two different levels of explanations. And they can be complementary.

They don't have to be contradictory. Let's take two good examples for this. One visual and more relatable.

How many of you are familiar with this game called billiards? All of you know about billiards? No? Okay. So, billiards is a table game. Like if you play carom, you hit with a finger.

But with billiards, you hit with a stick. So, now, imagine if just above the billiards boards, there is a camera. And say, there are number of balls over here.

And a stick hits the ball. And then one ball goes into the hole in the corner. Now, this whole event can be explained in terms of the laws of physics.

This stick hit the ball at this angle and with this force. And that's why that ball went into the hole. And that would be a correct explanation.

Now, if we expanded the scope of the camera, we would see that this stick is held by a world champion billiards player. So, when the ball went into the hole, was it by the laws of physics or was it by the expertise of the player? Both are true. Isn't it? So, there is a mechanical explanation and there is a personal explanation.

And both can go together. So, say, imagine there is some cricket match. And say, there is the last ball and Virat Kohli is batting and India needs a six to win.

And everybody is expecting a Yorker. But the ball is a bouncer and Virat Kohli hits a six. And India wins.

And after that, say, the post-match press conference, they ask Kohli, How did you hit that sixer? And he replies, By Newton's laws of motion. Now, would that be a correct answer? Well, yeah, true. You can say that the ball came at this pace, he swung the bat at this pace.

Maybe he had been doing workout, so his muscles were strong. The bat and ball met at this angle. And we can say that it's explained by Newton's laws of motion.

But that is not the relevant explanation. In the conference, they want to know, Did you anticipate that it would be a bouncer? Did you practice the hook shot? And did you decide you want to hit at this particular angle? So, the mechanical explanation, the personal explanation, both are valid. But they operate at different scales.

So, the idea is that science and spirituality, which is taught through scripture, they don't have to be contradictory. They approach issues at two different levels. And both explanations can co-exist.

Now, does that mean that every single teaching of science, and every single teaching of scripture, and spirituality can go together? That needs to be investigated. But in principle, both of them are parallel explanations. And Newton and Alexander Pope, this particular quote is attributed to many others, they said that, Oh father, I think thy thoughts after thee.

What he meant by that is that, these pioneering scientists, they thought, it was not Alexander Pope, I think it was Leibniz or someone, okay, anyway, who said this? He said, basically, he saw his scientific discoveries as spiritual insights into how God has arranged the universe. So, that's why science and spirituality explain the universe at different levels. And both can co-exist.

I would like to pick up an example, if you know who Ramanujan is. So, Ramanujan, he was obviously a brilliant mathematician, and he travelled to England and I can't remember what time, but he created the identity of Pi and a formula to find Pi. But, before he could go, he was, in his village, or what they say, they said that a school lady, not a school lady, but there was a Vedic tradition there, to not be allowed to go out of the village.

And because of that, he had a lot of hindrance before he went to England until, obviously, they say that he had to dream and he, his school didn't allow him to go. So, here we kind of see a situation where like Vedic traditions go conflict against science or discovery towards science. So, my question to you is basically, a lot of people these days, a lot of youth, also sometimes face these kind of situations where Vedic traditions or Vedic understandings challenge or conflict those in need, I guess you could say, who are aspiring to do scientific discoveries.

That's a good question. So, Ramanujan was obstructed in this scientific quest by the prevailing traditions of those times. So, now there are two different things over here.

See, there is, there are particular rituals, traditions, conceptions prevalent at particular times. Now, how much those are reflective of the original teaching of scripture and how much they are conducive for a person to go towards God, that has to be evaluated on time, place, circumstance. So, there is two, there is an important thing over here, which is slightly conceptual detour.

I mentioned that spirituality has these two aspects to it. There is philosophy and there is practice. So, now, this is similar to science, in which you have theory and experiment.

Now, if there is a student who knows the theory and the student is doing the experiment and something goes wrong in the experiment, okay, this is the theory we are trying to prove. If this particular kind of beaker is not available, let's get some other beaker and do the experiment. When they know the theory, they can pursue the theory by adjusting something in the experiment.

But what happens, when the experiment becomes successful to some degree, it becomes systematized. It becomes organized. And when it is systematized and organized, gradually through that, a technology is formed.

When the technology is formed, technology is very widely available to people. Most of us, when we use mobiles, when we use internet, now we use AI. How many of us know what is the theory behind it, what are the experiments done behind it? No, we just use it.

And sometimes, when the technology is being used, it can be misused. And say, Einstein never really wanted that when he sent a letter to the American president, that Germany is getting religiously close to a bomb, you, you develop it first. And the Manhattan Project came up.

Now, he didn't really want America to bomb Japan. But that eventually happened. Technology can be used for purposes which may not be the intention of the original scientists.

So like that, similarly, when the practice becomes systematized, that leads to religion. And within religion, there are many rituals. And there are many people who do the rituals, like say somebody who is simply an operator of a machine.

They just told, you press this button, this will get heated, this will get cold, and do this, do this, they simply are pressing buttons. They know nothing about the science, they know nothing about the experiment, they just talk to press buttons. And they do that.

But when things don't work, some fire breaks out, if they have just been pressing buttons all the time, they will not be able to deal with the situation. So like that, there are many people who just follow rituals. And when they follow rituals, often, they start thinking, for last five years I have been coming here, I have been pressing this button like this, things have worked.

So this is all that needs to be done. Nothing needs to be changed over here. But, things change.

Maybe the temperature has increased, and you cannot use the same button, same temperature. You have to adapt. So what happens, when religion has rituals, sometimes those rituals become very rigid.

And then they can even become superstitions. So that is why, we need to know the philosophy. Even if everybody doesn't know the philosophy, there are some people who need to know the philosophy.

Just like everybody who knows a mobile, doesn't know how the mobile works. There are some people who need to know how it works. And then they can fix it, if something goes wrong.

That's why, just in science, theory and experiment has to be there. In philosophy, in spirituality, philosophy and religion both need to be together. So, if certain practices are going against the growth of God Consciousness, then those practices, are they essential or are they peripheral? When Prabhupada came to America, at that time, when he went to America, he didn't have the resources to build a temple.

There are traditional rules of how an architecture of a temple should be. But, even with no temple architecture, even people from Indian traditional religious families, when they came to the temples of ISKCON in America, they felt there is more spiritual potency here, the devotional enthusiasm and vibrancy here, is more than some of the traditional temples with all the traditional rules of architecture. So, it is not that Prabhupada neglected those rules.

Prabhupada recognized what is more important. That's why those who are saintly people, who know the philosophy, they can adjust certain rules or certain traditions or certain rituals and without that, if spirituality is simply reduced to a set of rules, then it will become sometimes regressive or oppressive. So, just to conclude this point, see Ramanuja, although he faced all these obstacles, that did not make him lose his faith in God itself.

He said that an equation for me is nothing but a thought of God. So, he faced religious obstacles, he still pursued his science, but the obstacles caused because of the religious conventions of his time did not make him lose his faith in God. He was able to separate the rituals and the conventions from the principle of divine intelligence organizing the universe.

And similarly, we also need to be able to separate. I just want to add one more follow-up question on that before the panelists answer. This is just a short question.

Eventually, Ramanujan died. And he died because he refused to take medicines and he refused to eat anything other than potatoes and just a few spices that he could find. But this was a huge loss for the scientific community of that time.

Because there was a lot of scripts that they were unable to undecipher because he was a veteran and he couldn't help them. So, do you think it's fair for people or these youth coming up, when they have these discoveries that they want to make, for them to abandon these rituals or these, I guess, not even rules, but these assumptions that, like, for Ramanujan, the assumption that if I eat anything other than potatoes, something I make myself, it'd be a hindrance to my devotion. Which is why he never took any medicines until he, on his deathbed.

So, would you say that at that point, a person who is wanting to make these assumptions for the good of humanity should reduce themselves? So, Ramanujan didn't take any medicines, ate only potatoes. Now, I would say that there are two different things over here. There are individuals' personal preferences and there are the traditions' mandated rules.

So, are all the individuals' personal preferences reflective of the traditions' mandated rules? Was it that a particular Guru in India told him that you cannot eat anything except this? I don't think that's true. So, you know, not every single action of a person can be attributed solely to the faith of that person. No, I mean, not, we could say, it was the individual faith of that person, but it's not necessarily the faith tradition of that person.

So, now, was that a judicious thing to do? I would say, not really. So, that's why if you consider that every one of us, say, if we belong to a tradition, a tradition is like a larger collective. Now, within that collective, some people may adhere to the externals of the tradition a lot.

Some people may adhere moderately. Some people may adhere loosely. And that's okay.

So, in every tradition, it's important to understand what is central and what is peripheral. So, for example, in our tradition, we generally don't eat food that is not cooked by devotees. But suppose somebody is in a place where they have to take a job, where the job is 18 hours, 20 hours, medical internship or whatever, and then they barely have time to do their mantra chanting.

And if they are going to do cooking or food, then they don't have time for mantra chanting. Then what should they do at that time? See, there are things which are, the kind of food we eat is important, but our primary connection with Krishna is through our mantra chanting. So, that kind of prioritization has to be clear.

So, that's why philosophical education is important to understand. Prabhupada defines intelligence as to see things in their proper perspective, to understand what is more important and what is less important, and accordingly function. So, yes, if somebody has particular aspirations to pursue, and while pursuing those aspirations, if they find it difficult to follow all the rules or regulations of Krishna Bhakti, then they can talk with their particular mentors and guides and see what they are able to follow and what they are not able to follow.

See that, for example, in the temple, we have a long morning program. It's almost 4-4.5 hours. In India, we have created many youth centers.

And youth centers, obviously, the students who have to go to college, they can't attend that full, that length of morning program. So, we have a shorter morning program of 2-2.5 hours. And that is their spiritual foundation.

That's adaptation that is made. So, that way, adaptation is possible. So, that's why understanding with guidance, what is the more important principle, what is the less important principle, what is negotiable and what is non-negotiable, that has to be done carefully.

That's why the tradition is not a fossilized set of rules. It's not like a fossil, these are rules and stone. The tradition is understood through those who are living the tradition.

That the tradition is not just texts, it's texts and teachers. It's Shastra, but it's also Guru, Sadhu and Shastra. Okay.

Prabhu, I just have a question on the village, like that example. So, when we are actually watching a game of village being played, we can see the player behind the player. And you are saying that, that also could be a reason, like a personal explanation to why the ball went in the hole.

So, when you are talking on a cosmic scale, how do we know that it's Krishna that is actually controlling everything? Now, when you are using the word Krishna, are you specifically talking about Krishna or God in general? God in general. Okay. So, if we look at the universe, how can we know that there is a God controlling things? See, there is, it's very important to understand what God's role is according to our scriptures.

That if you say, the Ishopanishad verse, Om Poornam Adah Poornamitam. That God is complete and he has made this world to be complete. And this world to be complete means that the events in this world can be explained in terms of this world.

So, it is not that for every single thing that happens, we need to bring God as the explanation. If somebody slips and falls, God wanted them to slip and fall. No, there was water over there, they didn't see the water.

That's why they slipped and fell. So, the idea is that there are levels of explanation and the world is complete in itself. The world can be explained in terms of the world, the world's mechanisms, how they function.

And now the question that comes up is, not in the mechanisms exist, but where did the mechanisms come from? So, the more science advanced, traditionally, say in the 18th and 9th century, the expectation was of sociologists, as science increases, belief in God will decrease. That people will become irreligious. In fact, the first, I think the second time when I came to Australia, in one city I was here and they had an interfaith panel debate, interfaith discussion and the discussion topic was, why has God not died till now? What it meant was that, there was a famous philosopher, he said that God is dead.

The idea is that, the science and its advancement had made the idea of God completely irrational and untenable. And it is expected that people will stop believing in God. But that has not happened.

In America, the evangelical Christianity has grown. Middle East religion has seen an upsurge. India also, Hinduism is growing.

Russia, after communism fell, religion has again seen an upsurge. So, God and religion seem to have a lot of staying power. Now, why is that? There are many reasons.

Surprisingly, one of them is scientific. What science has found, the more we have studied the universe, the more there are remarkable patterns within the universe. I am not talking about the design argument over here, where you look at one thing and say it has to be designed.

This is a slightly different argument. Suppose somebody was playing a gambling man and what was at stake was their life. If it falls six, you live.

If it falls anything else, the person dies. And throw up the dice. Everybody is tense.

And it falls, the dice rolls and comes to a motionless state and it is six. You are really lucky. You toss a second time, again it falls six.

Third time you toss, it falls six again. Five times you toss, it is six again. What is going on? Is it six on all sides of the dice? How is it falling six? Imagine if it falls 150 times six each time.

Something is extraordinary over here. So, scientists as they have observed the universe, they have found up to 150 or more parameters that are exactly right and necessary for life to be possible in the world. So, for example, if the distance between the earth and the sun had been slightly different, life as we know it would not have been possible.

If the earth's magnetic pole had been tilted at an angle slightly different from what it is today, again life would not have been possible. If the earth's motion around the sun or on its own axis had been any faster or slower, again life would not have been possible. If the percentage of oxygen in the universe, in the atmosphere had been anything different.

If you go at a very deep level, if the balance between nuclear strong force and nuclear weak force had been slightly different. So, each of these is like the roll of the dice. One of them goes wrong, life would not have been possible.

So, the more science has studied, they call it the fine tuning of the universe and the more they have found that there are more and more factors that are just right, what are required for life to be possible. Eugene Wigner is a famous mathematician and he wrote a paper called the unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics in the study of the universe. So, the idea is at one level maths is a construct of the human mind.

You know, we have integral calculus, we have square root of minus, imagine numbers. Now, does maths exist in nature? Many of the concepts of maths seem to be constructs of our mind. And yet, they correlate with how the universe works.

So, why should something that is a construct of our mind correlate with how the universe works? The only reasonable explanation for that is that the working of our mind and the working of the universe both come from the same source. So, in that sense, the weight of the evidence that science has uncovered is strongly pointing towards the existence of a divine intelligence as an organizing principle. Ok bro, I think I'm going to come to our final question of the night now.

And it's probably one of the most important questions that we have here today, right? So, bro, I want to address something that many young people may never say out loud, right? So, today a teenager can watch a documentary about a Buddhist monk and say that story is inspiring. Or they can watch a cricket match, a cricket play, give namaz on the field and think, wow, he's so faithful to his faith. But when it comes to their own faith, a lot of them back out, thinking, oh, no, no, no, Hinduism isn't as cool as those other religions.

And I've seen this happen firsthand, right? With a lot of my friends, they think that the Hinduism as a religion and following Krishna isn't as cool as the other religions and what they're doing, even though they're really, really faithful to their own religion. So, there's this sudden hesitation that happens when suddenly, like, spirituality or specifically Hinduism and the talk to follow our own religion happens, right? Suddenly it's uncool. So, why is it that devotion often looks impressive when it's from another faith? But when it comes to our own religion, youth tends to back out.

That's a good observation and a very honest question that why is Krishna not as cool as, say, a Buddhist monk or a Muslim doing their particular practices? I'd say there are three different factors over here. First is that definitely there are aspects of Krishna Bhakti which are quite contemporarily appealing. For example, kirtans.

It has become a widespread genre of music. In India, there's bhajan clubbing. In the West also, people go for kirtan concerts and people like that.

So, I don't think any other tradition has a core practice of their tradition that is appreciated by people outside the tradition. Like, we may appreciate somebody Muslim doing namaz, but seeing a Muslim doing namaz, how many other people want to do namaz? But if you have some devotees that are doing kirtan, kirtan can be of two different ways. One is we go out on the streets and dance and the other is we have soothing, sweet performances in places that people come.

How many people come to watch somebody doing namaz? How many people are ready to pay to watch somebody doing namaz? Nobody. But kirtan concerts, people are ready to pay for that. So, kirtan is quite cool.

So, rather than reducing our tradition to only like particular things, you see there are some aspects which are cool. Other aspects, for example, vegetarian food. Vegetarian, vegan, there are some differences, but there are a lot of similarities.

And vegan has become very cool. And we are more environmentally conscious, we are more conscious of violence to animals. And so, in many ways, Prabhupada was among the first spiritual teachers who went to the West and emphasized vegetarian food.

One Prabhupada disciple said, Swamiji's knowledge of cuisines was as vast as his knowledge of shlokas. So, I think there are aspects of our tradition which are also quite cool. And Indira Gandhi Maharaj does this festival of India where he has these various booths are there.

One of them is where people can put on, especially women can put on gopi dots and put on a saree and people love to do that. They may not like to wear it every day, but as a cultural experience they have. India attracts a lot of spiritual tourists.

So, I would say that yoga has become very, very popular. And yoga has become more of a health and wellness practice than a spiritual practice. But still, it is coming from India.

So, I won't say that Indian spirituality and even bhakti spirituality, all of it is uncool. So, generally, when we are presenting, that's the first aspect of it. Second aspect is, there are aspects which are cool.

And second is, when we are presenting, we need to learn to present our tradition in the most inclusive language, in a way that makes sense to the broadest demographic. So, I was in Seattle. Seattle also, we have a nice devotee youth community.

And they were, we had done a session over there. And we asked them, what aspects of Krishna Consciousness do you feel comfortable sharing with your friends? And what aspects of Krishna Consciousness do you feel uncomfortable sharing with your friends? So, then they said, we like to do kirtan. People learn music, musical instruments, people do skates.

So, one of them said, if we wear tilak, this seems very weird. In America, they have this, Native Americans used to put mud on their head. You are putting weird mud on your head.

So, then, as I told them, when you want to explain it, you don't have to explain in terms which they can't understand. So, I tell them that in our tradition, our understanding is that our existence is possible due to the blessing of nature and the blessing of God. So, this leaf represents nature.

And in our tradition, this represents God. So, we express our gratitude to nature and God through the symbol on our forehead. Now, this is not exactly the explanation, but it's not completely wrong.

So, generally, we need to come up with creative ways of explaining our tradition in a way that is cool for people. So, that doesn't mean we speculate and come up with nonsensical explanations. But there are ways.

Prabhupada was asked once that, Swamiji, what is the bliss of Vaikuntha like? And this person would ask him about stone on LSD. Prabhupada said, Vaikuntha is like an ocean of LSD. So, what was Prabhupada doing? Prabhupada was explaining that in a language that was understandable for the person.

That's why, especially those of you who are now in the contemporary culture. So, you need to see what is the tradition teaching and how can I explain it. And we have many different teachers.

Some teachers are more traditional, some teachers are more contemporary. So, talk with those who are more contemporary and then try to understand how we can present our tradition in a more creative and contemporary way, which people can relate with. Prabhupada himself said, this is one meaning of realization.

Realization means what? Let's say, this is the teaching of our tradition. This is scripture and these are the audience interest. The people whom we are meeting, these are their interests.

So, how can we explain things in a way that is interesting for the audience while also preserving the teaching of our tradition. That is our creativity. That is the second thing.

And the third thing is at a bigger level that, see, because of various factors, Buddhism and Islam to some extent, they have somehow culturally become more acceptable. It's not just an accent of history. Buddhism, because Buddhism does not have the idea of surrender to God.

So, Buddhism is seen almost like a, it's like a religion without religion. That means religion without all the uncoolness is also religion. So, Buddhism is often portrayed, at least portrayed very positively in Hollywood for many years.

That's why people have sleeping Buddha and smiling Buddha statues at their homes. So, there was a bigger effort. Now, Islam, especially with the money from the petrol rich states, they have used that to create a particular narrative.

And now, in the Hindu tradition, because of various factors, that did not happen. So, there is a broader narrative that is to be said. And is it changing? I think slowly it is.

But that narrative has to be said. And as long as the narrative is not said, things will be seen as uncool. So, will that change? I would say there are lots of young Indian youth who are going into academia.

And they are giving more thoughtful presentations of Hinduism. There are youth on social media who are presenting the Hindu tradition, the Vedic teachings, the Bhakti teachings. And slowly people are understanding more and more.

When I joined as a monk, when I was writing books, I got published to a publishing publisher. He said that in your whole book, don't mention ISKCON anywhere. You give wisdom from the Bhagavad Gita, from the Ramayana.

So, my wisdom from Ramayana. My publisher didn't even want me to identify as an ISKCON monk. He says that you are a spiritual teacher.

But that book was published around 2013-2014. But now, the way things have changed. We have had monks like Gaur Gopal Prabhu and others become very popular.

Now, at least in India, monks are seen as very cool. And now, publishers not only want to publish books or written by monks, they want to put the pictures of the monks on the front cover. My book Gita for the CEO, the publisher insisted that we have to have your photo over there.

So, there is Gaurang Prabhu's book or Gaur Gopal Prabhu's book or other people's books. So, the cultural trend is also changing. So, I would say things will change gradually.

So, yes, that's why if some things we feel uncomfortable talking about or doing in public, that's perfectly fine. You have the discretion to decide how much of your personal spiritual practice or spiritual faith you talk about or practice in public. But it is not required that we be embarrassed about it.

Personally, that's a very good explanation to give. But I feel that for an immediate solution, which isn't really possible. So, if I give the example of a lot of devotees, not devotees, a lot of youth that we have here that have already passed off.

They have kind of strayed away from our own philosophy because they are unable to enjoy those aspects of youth like parties and all those. Because Krishna Consciousness does not give room for those kinds of things. Like all aspects of party is completely against.

So, mostly against the whole idea of a party. So, because there is a lot of this like immediately, what you are saying is like. OK, I got your question.

OK, sorry. So, I was thinking from a broader perspective. But your question is that there are many social activities that we do with our, with the general youth do.

And if we are a devotee youth, we can't do those activities. Yeah, I think that is a challenge. And that's why earlier I said that every individual practitioner needs to decide what are the central aspects and what are the peripheral aspects.

So, from what I have come to know, as compared to 10 or 15 years ago, nowadays, even if people who are working in companies, they go for the corporate parties or corporate dinners. There are far more salads and other things available now than there were 15 years ago. So, 15 years ago, they just had to take water at that time.

But now there are salads with dressing which are quite vegetarian. Take that, that's OK. Now, I know friends who say if you go to a party, how did you say because I know I am following certain principles, according to my tradition, I don't drink.

And, you know, people, because of the multicultural ethos, they accept it. So, for example, those who follow Islam seriously, they also don't drink. Is that they don't go for parties? I don't think it's like that.

So, each tradition will have certain boundaries. And do those boundaries prevent us from doing all kinds of social activities? I don't think so. So, we have to negotiate.

Some things what we can do, some things which we can't do. We have lots of youth groups. We go on outings and our devotee youth go on outings especially.

In Australia, we don't have so many youth right now. But I think in UK, they have a Pandavasena retreat and they have various other youth forums. So, who knows in future you can create youth forums and you can have fun among yourself.

It's not easy, but I don't think it's impossible. And if one somebody finds that particular aspects of Krishna Consciousness are, say, obstructing me in doing particular activities, then we have to evaluate how important is that activity for me and how important is that aspect of Krishna Consciousness within the overall structure of Krishna Consciousness. And then we can decide accordingly.

So, Krishna Consciousness is definitely not against fun. It is just fun that is often harmful for us in the future. It's like discipline.

This is the last point I'll make over here. Sometimes what happens is that we may think that discipline and rules, they deprive me of so many things. But see, this is the present me.

I exist today. And then there is going to be a future me. What do I mean by that? Suppose, say, we were trapped on an island and we had only 7 days food.

And hopefully within 7 days somebody will come and rescue us. Now, we could feast today and eat a lot of food. On the 5th, 6th, 7th day, we will have no food.

We will be in big trouble. Or we could starve today thinking that, Oh, what if after 7 days nobody comes? But if we starve for too many days, even if somebody comes, we will not be there at that time. Isn't it? We would be dead.

So, the thing is that we need to negotiate that my present me wants to have fun, wants to have some good experience, but not at the cost of the future me. I shouldn't eat so much food today that I can't have any food in the future. At the same time, I can't worry so much about my future that I won't have any food today.

So, in general, discipline is not about somebody else giving us rules and we following the rules. That's one way to look at it. Another way is that there is a negotiation between the present me and the future me.

So, much of what people call as enjoyment, that is often the present me enjoying at the cost of the future me. So, yes, sometimes the Krishna conscious rules can seem like deprivation or restriction. But now you are probably most of you are say 10, 12, 15, 18, 20.

But by the time you get to 25, 30, I would say many of you will feel that the Krishna conscious rules were not deprivation, they were protection. That actually you may see your own peers who might have got into some unhealthy habits because of unrestricted indulgence and you were protected from that. So, there is no pure blessing in the world.

Every situation in life comes with trade-offs. So, the thing that happens is when you grow up in a bhakti family, what you experience primarily is the restrictions. And that can feel a bit too much.

And that's why the urge is that I want to explore and experiment, which is understandable. And we can do that within boundaries. But those restrictions are also protections.

And they protect us from developing unhealthy habits, which can endanger our future. So, if you see that, it's not just this is my traditional rules or my parents' rules. It is I who am going to live in the future and say the present me.

So, if I at the age of 20, I will say I want to enjoy. But would me at 30 feel happy about the me at 20? Or will regret the me at 20? If you think from that perspective, then the traditional rules won't seem so negative. They will actually be very empowering for us to have a good future later.

Well, we have ended our introduction. But tonight, we had a completely successful debate. We discussed faith, science, and spirituality, and the challenge the young people face in the modern world.

So, I would like to thank our guests, and I would like to thank our audience, and, of course, thank Krishnamurti Chiranjeev. And I would especially thank the panel for remaining calm and respectful throughout the debate. Good night and Haribol.

And remember, the temple still wants to know.