How Gaudiya Vaishnavism can inspire eco-friendly living, The Monk’s Podcast 176 with Radhika Raman Prabhu

Podcast:

Summary podcast:

Video:

Transcript

This is an AI-generated transcript and may contain some errors.
Jai Hare Krishna Radhikarman Prabhu Welcome back to the Monks Podcast Thank you very much for sparing your time and joining today for sharing the wisdom, your wisdom Hare Krishna Prabhu It’s always a pleasure to be here with you and I believe this is our fourth podcast overall Yes So it’s always such a pleasure speaking to you and thank you for inviting me back Thank you So I thought that we could today develop last time we have discussed about ecotheology and that’s a very important subject and you also mentioned that you have studied that quite a bit and you are focussing on that So last time we more or less laid the what are the challenges for a tradition in engaging with the contemporary issue like ecotheology because intrinsically the tradition itself doesn’t talk about this directly So we have to find within the tradition the resources that can lead to appropriate engagement with this So with that maybe today we can go ahead and discuss how our theology can contribute to how we can build Do you want to call it a Gaudiya Vaishna ecotheology or what word Yes that’s perfect, Gaudiya Vaishna ecotheology Okay So In one sense, if I just tell my orientation towards this I read the book Divine Nature which is probably the first book on this broad topic that was written and I found it so it contains so many important insights although of course research keeps changing and there’s a lot of updating that can be done but overall this is one of the ecology and deep ecology and various areas like that there is a lot of lot of ferment happening and even raising of consciousness happening in the world and in the last I would say maybe decade or two or it is in the decade maybe from the Vedic tradition there is a lot of engagement happening so far more than before so what so in that sense this issue is becoming relevant and the broad Hindu tradition as well as within our Gaudiya tradition we seem to be also engaging much more seriously with it than in the past Yeah, I very much agree and as I mentioned last time I think we have something unique to contribute to the discussion from a Gaudiya Vaishya perspective that can add to it, that can assist in this global awareness, consciousness, awareness of these issues and not only is it rising around the world but I would venture to say that it’s probably in the top three concerns globally that people have and will continue to grow as the environment continues to deteriorate in various measures it will continue to grow and so we have some solutions some contributions to make from a Gaudiya Vaishya perspective that I think are very important it is our responsibility to bring those to the table and do our bit in both teaching it and also practising it Yeah, you know when you use the word like top three would you like to just quickly enunciate those? What do you consider your top three? I didn’t have any specific things in particular but I think I would say ecology is definitely one human rights in various aspects is another global concern and then the aspect of political stability in various parts of the world is always also an ongoing concern so there’s a handful of important things that continue to emerge but ecology is definitely there Yeah, I agree that different people may rate it differently but definitely this would be an important problem and more important than how important the problem is is that we could say we have something important which can contribute from our tradition and show the relevance of our tradition’s wisdom in today’s world Yes, so how would you like to begin this discussion? Are there some specific elements that you feel are important? One of the things which I noticed is that see non-violence, Ahimsa is it’s very much associated with animal rights today but it is often more associated with Buddhism than Hinduism and but it’s an important value within the broad Vedic tradition although the Mahabharata talks about a war there are many mentions about Ahimsa also in the Mahabharata so that could be that could be at a basic level where in one sense the value has been assimilated has been accepted and assimilated in the West but often it has been it has not its source is not newly acknowledged would that be something which you would consider? Yeah, so Ahimsa is definitely a key pillar that leads to ecological care in the Vaishnav tradition, in Hinduism broadly, in Jainism in Buddhism and in each of the traditions that is born the Dharmic traditions born in India, the value of Ahimsa is very central to those traditions and they go back you know the Buddhist engagement with Ahimsa goes all the way back to the time of Siddhartha, Gautam, Buddha so Ahimsa is definitely an important value and it’s considered to be Samanya Dharma, right? Something that is expected of all human beings and is one of the principles that makes us human but I would say that for Vaishnavas we have to accept and embrace Ahimsa but also go beyond it because the Vaishnava principle of Ahimsa see Ahimsa as a principle is still very much about not doing the right thing how we don’t want to get negative karma by harming another living entity we want to practise Dharma properly the Vaishnava and it’s a negative formulation Ahimsa means no injury non-injury to others Vaishnava principle is one of Karuna or compassion Daya, mercy and that is exemplified in Gaudiya Vaishnava literature as the ethic of Paradukha Dukhi that we take another suffering as our own not just that we don’t try to cause suffering that’s the first step obviously, Ahimsa don’t injure another but then moving a step beyond that and saying the suffering of someone else is going to be my suffering and this is called in Sanskrit Anukampa Kampa means to tremble like when someone trembles in pain or in fear and Anu means with or after so to tremble with someone is Anukampa, it’s exactly the same word in English as compassion passion means to suffer, to tremble and come means with so suffer with someone so that means suffer that’s why the passion of Christ it talks about so then today the word passion has a very different meaning in this discover your passion and things like that but our ethic is one of Karuna it goes much beyond Paradukha Dukhi and the key question for us is Paradukha Dukhi who counts as Para who is Para here and the Vaishnava tradition is crystal clear that Para is not merely human beings Paradukha Dukhi is one who suffers to see the suffering of others but who are the other who is the other here it’s not just other human beings of course other human beings but every living entity every living, every Jiva is a Para, is another who needs to be regarded in the same frame this is something Prabhupada emphasised over and over and over again in his discussions that why should we be specious in just regarding the human species so we decenter the human species and we say my role is to be compassionate to others so the ethic of Karuna I think is something that we need to add to the discussion of Ahimsa I think it brings something positive and very powerful Ahimsa just says don’t do something so you’re holding yourself back Karuna says you must do something it’s pushing you forward and it has, Ahimsa says don’t feel something namely what, anger injury, hatred for another Karuna says you must feel something, what must you feel? Compassion you must feel that pain in yourself right Can I just pause if you want to we can just discuss a little bit about the speciesism that in the west especially in the Christian tradition they talk about human exceptionalism so that humans are exceptional and humans are like the special or the culminating creation of God and in one sense we don’t disagree with them that there is something special in the 11th canto also in the Buddha Gita says that the Lord created all living beings, he created human beings and he felt satisfied but what is special is in one sense in the Christian worldview it is humanity is raised intrinsically above all other species whereas in our understanding is there is something special about human beings but what is special is not that there is an intrinsic difference but is the difference in the evolution of consciousness so there is both an acknowledgement of the difference and at the same time an acknowledgement of our integral relationship with the natural world so it’s it’s quite a philosophically deep appreciation of the or a take on the issue so you would like to elaborate on that, that de-centering the human race because it seems that which has centred the human race and evolution was they say that we are going to overthrow the human ego which makes humanity special so we acknowledge that humanity is special so in one sense you could say evolution says that there is nothing special about humanity and maybe Christianity says that evolution is humanity itself is completely special so we say there is something special but what is special is that the soul is more evolved not that only we have souls because I think that is a very important basis for our Anukampa, the attitude which you are talking about would you like to elaborate on this a little bit? Yeah, I really like your formulation that evolution completely removes the specialness of human of the human species we are nothing more than a face in the ongoing evolution of life and Christianity elevates human beings to having an inherent or intrinsic uniqueness but in the Vaishnav tradition the human species, the human being is unique but for a very specific reason and one particular reason and that’s it which is our capacity to consider, to think about to reflect upon spiritual, religious subject matter, philosophical subject matters and act according to them our capacity to behave in a dharmic fashion this is what makes us unique amongst the devas, amongst human beings we have this unique capacity to make progress on dharma and situation as well but we’re not special in any other way our sensual capacity is not special, it’s much better in the case of animals sometimes our capacity to enjoy is not special, it’s much better in the case of the devas, our capacity for foresight and vision is not special again the devas are better at that sort of thing so we’ve physical abilities are not special, I mean we’ve got so actually there’s so little that is special about human beings except for this one thing and that one thing is essentially our capacity to be responsible to take responsibility, that is what is special, we do not expect responsibility from animals, we have a capacity to be responsible and that capacity is what then behoves us, why it behoves us to take care of the environment it’s beautiful you know metaphysical enquiry as the dharma but you phrase it in terms of responsibility and then connect with ecology that’s a very very natural beautiful way of linking it so because we can regulate ourselves we can act more responsibly not just pandering to our desires for say controlling or dominating the world, enjoying the world and in many ways that is that desire is the fuel of the economy that is damaging the ecology so in that sense the same thing that makes us special among the species can also help us to actually become more to live a eco-friendly life and to actually solve the environmental problem at its root yes yes Rumi nice to meet you thank you you want to go ahead with that? yeah so I think our starting point as Vaishnav compassion or Karuna I think this is a really good place to begin our discussion of the theological foundations for ecological care in our tradition and using that as a foundation that human beings are not at the centre when it comes to concerns of life and living life in this world and claiming a space a place in this world but rather we are at the centre in terms of our responsibility to express to act dharmically and to express our compassion to others so I think that’s a good starting point and from that I want to look at some of the metaphysical philosophical aspects of our theology that provide a foundation for ecological care and I think the place to start here is our firm understanding our theology that God is the world right and this is true in multiple ways in our theology perhaps the most obvious is that of the Lord’s Vishwaroopa, his cosmic form, his universal form that is found in Bhagavad Gita multiple places in Srimad Bhagavatam all the way back in the Rig Veda with the Purusha Sukta the idea that the Lord that the world is the body of the Lord and this was most beautifully expressed by Sripad Ramanujacharya in his philosophical understanding that that the world is Sharira Shariri Bhava right the world is the Sharira of the Lord, it’s the body of the Lord but it’s found in Gaudiya Vaishnav theology again and again and again that the world is the body of God but also in Gaudiya Vaishnav theology of Shakti right our understanding that the world is the energy of the Lord and because of the idea of Achintya Bheda Bheda that the energy is different but also not different from the Lord, this idea of non-difference, the energy of non-difference from the Lord is something that is very valuable for ecological understanding because we recognise that when we interact with the world, we’re interacting with the Lord, his energy his presence and the way in which we interact with the world reflects the way in which we have a relationship with Krishna right, that exploitation of the material world is exploitation of Krishna’s energy and because the energy is non-different from the energetic, therefore we are misbehaving in our relationship to Krishna as well so there’s the Vishwaroopa, there’s Shakti theology and then there’s the there’s the very nice understanding of Krishna as the cause of the world, that there are different kinds of causes, right, there’s Nimitta Karana and Upadana Karana that Krishna is the efficient cause of the world he is the one who creates the world and that understanding is shared across every religious tradition it’s shared across any theistic especially monotheistic tradition that God creates the world, no doubt here we might give the analogy of the Lord as the one who is you know like a someone constructing something, building something he builds this world, he takes the parts and pieces and they emanate from him he takes various forms to manipulate the elements and create a home for us to live in, but that is only half of the creation story, right, that’s only half he is not only the creator he is also the creation he is not only the Nimitta Karana he is also the Upadana Karana the substantive cause of this world, he is the substance of the world, and this is something that is held as a fundamental pillar of Gaudiya Vaishnava theology and several other Vaishnava groups also, that Krishna is the substance of the world, he is not just the potter who makes the pot he is also the clay which is the pot, both are aspects of the Lord the ways in which Krishna interacts with the world, so when we interact with the world and the way in which we interact with the world reflects how we behave, how we are behaving, reflects our relationship with the Lord himself and it affects him, it reflects that relationship and it affects that relationship also in the way that we treat the world Wonderful, a lot of points, maybe we can flesh them out, one by one So, I would like to ask how you want to take this discussion because there are two ways, we can say that one is that is the particular insight distinctive to Gaudiya Vaishnava theology as contrasted to either other Vaishnava or Vedic theologies or other religious theologies means do we want to go into the direction of the comparative theology or because how we could focus on how this particular world view helps address the challenge and of course maybe we can do both but because each of these points can be elaborated in many different ways so if you consider for example the idea of the universe as the body of God, so is this something which is there in other traditions, you want to explore in that direction or how would you like to do this? Yes, I mean we can say briefly that the idea is present in other traditions and my purpose is not to say that this is that any of the points we’re making is unique or distinctive or not found elsewhere, I mean like you said that would be a whole different discussion in terms of comparative religion and looking at religions in comparative perspective, so my purpose is not so much to say what is unique but rather to say this is a pillar of our tradition which influences or should influence how we relate to the environment and how exactly it influences our environmental outlook is something that we need to develop this idea further in order to get to that point. This is just the seed, it’s just the skeleton that we need to, like you said, we need to flesh it out more and understand it better.
Yeah, that’s a good approach but then maybe what we can do is rather than going into comparative theology, we could just contrast the insight that our tradition offers with the contemporary understanding, whether it is the materialistic understanding or maybe the mainstream theological understanding of a particular tradition or whatever it is. So that way we are not going into going into like comparative theology we are talking about, you know, why this particular insight is valuable in the current setting. Will that be helpful? That’s excellent, yes.
Excellent. So, now you mentioned three points. Should we start with the Virat Rupa conception or how do you want to? Yes, that’s good.
So, if we consider the idea of the universe as the body of the lord, this seems to be there both in the Bhagavad Gita, this theophany, the revelation in the Bhagavad Gita and the Bhagavatam, it is quite prominent in the second chapter, second canto it is there but apart from that also it is there in almost every major prayer. So, it’s quite a central idea in the in the Bhagavatam itself. So, maybe theologically what does it mean? So, Prabhupada say, maybe we can discuss that from our theological perspective and then see how it relates with us.
The idea that God, this universe is the body of God. Now, we are not using that in a, we are not saying that in a literal or a pantheistic sense that this is God but we could say this is also God. This is not profane as compared to God being sacred.
Is that the emphasis and we can this is also sacred because this is also God and through this we can also attain the transcendental awareness, transcendental consciousness through nature. Is that the purpose of that discussion about the universal form in the Bhagavatam? Yeah, there’s an ontological element to this discussion. There’s an epistemological aspect to it and there’s a relational side to it.
Ontologically speaking, yes, we recognise that everything is not different from the Lord. It’s part of the Lord’s energy or it’s part of His body and so ontologically speaking, the Lord is present. There’s not a strong division between creator and creation and that immediately needs to change our perspective ecologically because the world is now not merely a resource to be exploited, a resource that is other than us and other than the Lord.
It’s not something that is merely separate, that it is actually incorporated in the being of the Lord and in our being as well because we’re in that same category of being the Lord’s energy, a different kind of energy but no doubt still there’s an aspect of non-difference there. So there’s an ontological dimension but then there is also an epistemological dimension, namely that now the world serves as a way for us to understand and appreciate the Lord and this is clear in Bhagavad Gita in chapter 11 where Arjun after chapter 10 he says, Krishna, I want to know you. That’s his concern, to know Krishna.
Who are you? And that’s what prompts the theophany, I want to see you, I want to know you. So there’s an epistemological side and Prabhupada often said, when we see the beauty of the natural world, then we reflect on the fact that, oh if the creation is so beautiful then how beautiful must be the creator. So in other words, the creation reflects something of the creator.
It provides us epistemic access, knowledge of the Lord. And then there’s the relational, the ontological and epistemic when we speak of bhakti, then the ontological and epistemic, we can’t stop with that. Those two have to lead to relationality.
It has to affect our relationship. That’s the point of bhakti. Otherwise we remain only on the level of sat and chit.
Ontology and epistemology. We need to move to the point of ananda or we need to move from karma and jnana to bhakti. And bhakti says, okay, this knowledge now iti matva bhajante ma One who knows this, if you have this knowledge then it’s going to affect my relationship with the Lord.
And that is what the step that is so crucial to an ego theology is to say, okay, now that I know that this creation is the Lord, therefore my behaviour towards this creation is going to be changed. It’s going to be affected. It’s going to be transformed in how I relate to this creation because I know I’m relating to the Lord.
Just like we ended on this point last time, right? Prabhupada saying that reprimanding devotees because the light bulb was left on or the water tap was dripping. That knowledge that this is Krishna’s energy affects a change in our behaviour, in our relationality to the Lord. And that’s the turn of bhakti.
Up to that point, bhakti is not introduced. Bhakti means that our knowledge leads to a change in relationship. Beautiful.
So, what you’re saying is that again, going back to the earlier point that if we internalise this worldview, then naturally the environmental consciousness will be expression of that. So, if we see that now, do we want to also consider from a historical perspective whether that has been a fact because sometimes one of the challenges that comes up is that it’s a whole different subject. We say that we talk Pandita Samadarshina, that we talk about the equality of everyone at the spiritual level.
But at the same time within the broad Vedic Indian tradition, the caste system came up which was quite a rigid hierarchy which led to discrimination. So, in one sense, the theology may be great, may be egalitarian, but the lewd reality was very, was not similar and that is a whole different subject. But do we see within Indian history any evidence that there was awareness, eco-friendliness? So, this is a very important point and I think we touched on it in the last conversation but it bears repeating here which is that there is no necessary connection between theology and praxis, between theology and action in the world.
If this were the case, if there was somehow some inherent or necessary movement from one to the other, then the world would be a perfect place. Because, I mean, every religion’s theology is wonderful. The principles are beautiful.
They’re really important and they’re well suited to living life ethically and dharmically in this world. And the vast, vast majority of the world’s population is religious. So, if there was a clear segue from theology to practise, then the world would be a perfect place.
We would not be discussing these issues at all. So, even though this may seem like an obvious point, I think it’s important to bear in mind that throughout the history of any tradition, including our own, there will be moments of which we should rightly be very proud and we should see how our theology has been placed into action and other moments where we can see that as human beings, we have failed our wonderful divine revelation that we have received. So, there’s no necessary connection between the two.
And so, if we looked at Gaudiya Vaishnav history, we would find examples of both. Especially because the Gaudiya Vaishnav tradition is revealed to us, especially in this age of Kali. So, most definitely, we have not been perfect in our practise through history.
But, there’s also some very bright spots. And before the modern era, it’s safe to say, this is true across the board, but before the modern era, the language of ecology and environment was not something that was described or spoken of. It doesn’t become an explicit concern in any scripture or text.
But, yet, the lifestyles and behaviours of various peoples and civilisations in different parts of the world, were either by design or of necessity, very much in touch with the natural environment. More so than our industrialised civilisation allows for us today. So, whether that was a conscious decision, whether that was out of necessity only, whether that was inadvertent, who is to say? But, the point is we have something to learn from the past.
Oh, okay. We had discussed this last time that basically, how a theology is lived depends on its living teachers. And how they we can draw from almost any sacred text whatever we want to justify our particular agenda or our particular agenda has a negative connotation or address the particular issue that we are.
So, depending on who is leading, at what time and who is dealing with what, different things could be highlighted. So, in this sense, historical examination may not be the most constructive way to actually evaluate the merits of what theology has contributed to today’s world. It is constructive in the sense that it provides us with examples and exemplars of both positive and negative applications for our purposes.
I’ll just add that yes, it is true that we can deploy a scripture or theology as we see fit, but it’s within limits, as in no text or theology is infinitely pliable or plastic. There’s a point at which one has moved beyond what is a reasonable understanding of the text, when it’s no longer a reasonable or logical interpretation of the text, when it’s no longer consistent with prior tradition or parampara, with prior acharyas. So, there is a sense in which one can when one reaches limits on this.
But yes, within a certain boundary, what you’re saying, I agree with very much, that it really depends on the commentator, on the hermeneut, on the interpreter, in terms of how they choose to understand, what they choose to emphasise, and how they choose to deploy it. And we can give many, many examples of that fact. There are statements in Bhagavatam and Chaitanya Chattamrita that one could completely misconstrue or apply in a way that would be terrible, right? But fortunately, we don’t do that.
If we wanted to, we certainly could. Hmm. That makes sense.
So, yeah, then, if you look at the Virat Rupa, if more and more people understood this idea that nature is sacred, then that would inspire them to act more respectfully towards it. Yes, yes, but this is insufficient, as in, we haven’t yet gotten to what I think is the most brilliant move from a Vaishya perspective, that this is just the foundation, that God is the world, right? It’s the starting point, and yes, it should and must affect our behaviour towards the environment, but there’s something yet more powerful that is coming, that I think is the most, more important thing for Gaudiya Vaishyavans. Oh, okay.
Yeah, so this is just the foundation, Shakti theology, Vishwa Rupa, the Upadana Karana, this is the foundation that comes from Vedanta philosophy, right? That the Lord is creation, Shakti Parinam Vada, this is Vedanta, and Vedanta is the foundation of our tradition. Vedanta is where we begin, but it’s not the ending point, right? We have to, we start with Vedantic principles, but then we move to the relationality that is part, that is the heart of Bhakti, and that’s the move that we still have not done yet. Shall we proceed there? Yeah, please, please, go ahead.
Yeah, so if we accept the starting point that God is the world, He’s also different from the world, but in a very substantial way, the Lord is identified as the material cause, as the non-different from the energy that is this material world. So if God is this world, and for Vaishnavas, for Gaudiya Vaishnavas, God is a personal being, right? He is not impersonal. The Lord is personal, and therefore this world also needs to be seen and related to in personal ways, right? The world is also personal.
So it’s very simple logic. God is the world, God is personal, therefore the world is also personal. Now, what do I mean by personal? This is, I think, such an important insight that is important for us and for others, that when we speak of the world as personal, when we look at how Vaishnavas understand the world, every aspect of the world is personal, is a person, is a living, breathing, conscious, aware, individual person.
Whether we look at rivers, every river is a person, a Devi, a goddess, a living being, a mother, Yamuna Maya, Ganga Maya, who we relate to, we should relate to as persons. The trees, how many times have you seen, in any Indian village, or even in a city, a tree with a face mask on, or a sari wrapped around, that tree is the embodiment of a deity, whether it’s Mahadev, or it’s Lord Vishnu, or it’s a Devi, most commonly is Devi. Trees are persons.
You look at even certain forms of stones and rocks even, like Shaligram Shila, like Govardhan Shila, these are persons. If you look at the clouds in the sky, and the rains, we understand that this is a person who is controlling, and with whom we are interacting, when we live through a storm, or through a major occurrence of some weather event. When we look at the earth as a whole, we know this is a person, Humi Devi, with whom we are acting and interacting, and even there is a prayer to offer, to request forgiveness from Humi Devi, for us constantly touching her with our feet, and stepping upon her and causing a burden.
We see throughout Bhagavatam how Humi Devi is personified, and comes to the Lord for pleas of help, when we human beings put her through so much suffering. Everywhere we turn, we see a world that is personal, that is individual, that comes directly from our understanding of who God is. The Lord is a person, His energy is a person, everything we relate to is personal in this world.
The most beautiful example of this, I think, is in Srimad Bhagavatam, in the story of the Prachetas, where the Prachetas, 10 wonderful brothers, who share great love for each other, and they go, they’ve been asked to rule the world, and to populate the world, and they go into a deep lake to do meditation for 10,000 years, to develop the spiritual strength and capacity to rule the world nicely. When they emerge after those many years from the water, we know that the earth is completely covered by trees. The Acharyas explain that there is no place for human habitation or agriculture, and their job is to be kings, to provide space for human beings.
Kings rule over human beings, and so facilitate them. When they see the ways in which trees have overrun this earth, they become very angry, very upset, and their anger takes hold of them, and with their yogic power, they shoot fire from their eyes, and begin to burn the earth from the surface of the trees, burn the surface of the earth, to rid it of all the trees there. I remember reading this story in particular, and thinking, what are the ecological implications of this story? These great Vaishnavas, and great kings, and sages, trying to rid the world of trees.
As their anger goes out of control, then Brahma himself comes to protect these trees, and to calm them down, and says, please look at what you are doing. Why are you doing this gratuitous killing of the trees, and destroying them? You need to take care of human beings, and you need to clear some space. That every human settlement needs to do.
But this is going too much. This is going over the top. Don’t do this activity.
The thing is, he provides a logical argument for not killing, not cutting down, burning those trees. But then, what he does after that, I think is just as significant. You recall, he then tells the trees to offer their daughter, Marisha, in marriage to the Prachetas.
The Prachetas accept. By doing that, what has Brahmaji done? He has transformed the trees from an expendable resource to a person with whom the Prachetas have to have a relationship. They have to contend with the fact that these are persons.
Now, it’s not just burning down trees. They’re burning down their own father-in-law. They’ve developed a relationship of kinship with the trees through marriage.
That has now turned the trees from a faceless resource to a personal entity with whom they have to have a relationship. We know this from so many studies that human beings can destroy things when they don’t have a face, when they’re faceless. The only way to slaughter an animal for meat is if you do not see that animal as a person.
No American can eat dogs, right? Because dogs have a face. They have a relationship. They are seen as persons.
We speak of dogs in the United States as he and she, not as it. As soon as you put a face on something, you cannot destroy it. As soon as you make it personal.
This is such a valuable resource that we have in our theology, the idea that everything in this world is personal and therefore deserves to be treated in relationship, not just as resource. Beautiful thought. Again, you’re talking about this dynamic of how the ontological effects are relational.
It’s a constant dynamic that is going on. In traditional society, one of the ways to have peace was between the warring kings if they have some kind of marital relationship, that actually would seal peace. So, that dynamic we applied over here is super.
I never thought in those terms in that particular past time. Just one point I wanted to maybe qualify or clarify either way, that it’s not that necessarily seeing the personal will always take away violence because sometimes when people want to take revenge, they remember the face of the person they want to take revenge and that keeps going on in their mind. But what we can say is that in that case, they feel that that person has hurt me and therefore I have to get back at that person.
So, you could say it’s more of a conscious and intentional aggression. But the casual nonchalant destruction, that will not happen if we see the personal. And in many ways that’s what happens when we depersonalise nature.
This is a very valuable point, Chaitanya Charan Prabhu. If you look at how Prabhupada spoke about slaughtering of animals, for example, he said even in the Vedic system there is facility. If you insist on eating animals, then you kill the animal, you offer it to Goddess Kali.
You say in the ear of the animal that I am killing you today, one day you will kill me. This is my Ansha, this is my body, my limb that I am cutting off here. We are, there is connection between us.
He said, but this slaughterhouse business is simply demonic. So, the point is you’re right, as in even the personal can allow for violence. But it is not the gratuitous nonchalant violence, as you said, that is the most destructive.
I mean, the animal industry is, the industrial farming of animals is one of the most, one of the top producers of environmental destruction on all different levels. Water pollution, air pollution, carbon, greenhouse gases, all of that. And it comes from this mass scale of gratuitous violence that is a product of factory farming.
So that even if someone says, okay, I’m going to raise an animal and then slaughter it with my own hands after offering it to Goddess Kali, still that is better. Because at least there is some personal relationship there. Beautiful.
Yeah, so like what you talked about dogs earlier in America that was very much there for cows and other animals in India. And the idea that when we we could say we can either objectify or we can personify. So when we, based on what we do naturally the mode of interaction will vary.
So now are we also we can decide how much you want to explore this area that from ontological perspective, when we say nature is a person, there are quite a few you could say complex challenges that come us. What do we mean by that? If you see from that particular pastime’s perspective the Prachita’s pastime, is it every tree is a person and then there is a deity who is a person who is in charge of the trees. Is every is every if a river is a person what does it mean? Does the river has a soul and the body is different from the soul with respect to trees? It’s literally easy to understand.
So is this personification at one level ontological reality in the same way as it applies for us humans? Because we do say that there are 8.4 million species and rivers are not exactly one of the species. Actually, there is something I want to say in response to that which I think you bring up an important point which is that that you know I think I mentioned in the last podcast that David Haberman has this book it’s called People Trees and it’s spelled P-E-O-P-L-E people trees because trees are people but it’s also a pun because peepal trees in India are considered to be sacred the peepal rickshaw and so there he talks about his experience travelling the length and breadth of India and everywhere he would go he would ask people this question in North India he was travelling Ye vriksh kaun hai? Who is this tree? And he said not once in his travels did anyone look at him like he was crazy like if you put this question to someone say in my town here where I live and ask who is this tree? Just point it to some tree and ask who is this tree? Maybe it’s a big tree in the botanical garden. Who is this tree? They would basically think I don’t know English.
They would say no no no what is this tree? You’re asking what kind of tree it is? This is an oak tree. But that’s not what I’m asking. I’m asking who is this tree? And that question David Haberman he reflects how that question never, no one ever looked at him like he was crazy it was the most normal question in the world and people gave answers ranging from I don’t know to this is this baby or this is this person or simply the name of the tree.
This is a Bhargava tree or Ashwattha tree or something like that. But the pronoun used was who not what and I think the answer is the same but the pronoun is different. That’s nice.
And so he also describes in his experience how he saw so many places where the tree was growing out of the middle of a home or out of the middle of a building or a building was built in a very odd shape to avoid a tree. These things are quite common and they’re becoming less common as India becomes industrialised and very modernised and so on. But the point being that regardless of how exactly we see the ontology, the Atma and the body and so on and so forth, the reality is that personality is there.
Personhood is there. Sometimes we may speak of Ganga Devi or Yamuna Devi as not an ordinary Jiva but she is a Sakhi. Yamuna Devi is a Sakhi in Krishna’s Leela and the Vallabha tradition speaks of her as Krishna’s Patrani, his queen.
So we may speak of them in different ways and other common trees are just ordinary Jivas. They’re not Devis or Goddesses. Some trees may be special.
They may be manifestations of Lord Shiva or so on. So there may be different ways of understanding the ontology in a specific circumstance. But the general principle remains the same.
That personhood is something that pervades the way that Vaishnavas see the world. And we have to draw upon that personhood theology, that personal theology in order to behave in a certain way with the world and to act in a certain way, to recognise that we have a responsibility towards the other. That this, the trees, the rocks, the rivers, they are also Para.
When we speak of Paradukti, they are also in the category of Para. We should not come into the trap of thinking Para is only the human being. Okay.
That’s beautifully put. And what this would mean is that we can be again, we could say that we are taking care of ecology also not simply from a utilitarian perspective but from a more intrinsic perspective also. It’s like we go back to the example of a dog.
It’s not that people, those who see a dog as a person, they care for the dog because the dog is going to guard my house. That is hardly there in the mind of people. So we are, there is within the materialistic worldview also there are some people who are highly ecologically conscious but they are simply concerned that this is our planetary home.
If it gets damaged, we will have nothing to live. We will have nowhere to live. That’s why we have to care for it.
So this is, that’s more like an extrinsic concern. But this is more intrinsic, like we say even in our devotion it is, are we loving God or are we loving God himself for who he is or are we loving God for what he gives us. And extrinsic, this is an important point because extrinsic considering reasons for care can never be sustainable in the long run.
There’s always ways to get around it. So, in other words, this river is useful to me. Therefore, as in I need it for drinking water.
Therefore, I don’t want to pollute it. Well, there’s two solutions to that. You can stop polluting it or you can just create a better water purification system before you drink it.
So when you speak of something in a utilitarian way, there’s always a way around care for another way to exploit that gets around the problem. Even this world is our home. Therefore, we need to care for it.
There’s only one earth. But at this very moment, there are billionaires who have a vision of inhabiting other worlds because they see a future where this world becomes uninhabitable. And so let’s go explore other lands.
There’s always a way around the extrinsic considerations. It’s only the intrinsic which will lead towards long-term sustainable care because it changes our care. And again, that’s a vice principle.
Unless you change what’s inside, you will not change what’s outside. Extrinsic considerations, they’re just attempting to change what’s outside. You need the river for recreation.
You need the river for fishing. You need the river for drinking water. So therefore, you should protect the river.
That is going to work only as long as the need is there. And someone can have multiple arguments. I’ll just purify the water.
I don’t eat fish. The water is not useful for recreation. I don’t care about recreation because I’m still struggling to find enough food to eat.
There’s so many arguments against that. But if you say that the river is your mother and your mother is sick because of you and it is your responsibility to take care of her, there’s no argument around that. That’s beautiful.
So maybe we can introduce a new dynamic in the viewing of nature as a person. And you’re not just seeing nature as a person but nature as a mother. And then Prabhupada would use that with respect to cows.
You take care of a cow, she’s like a mother. You don’t just… So the dairy farmers who take care of cows and then send them to slaughterhouse, they to some extent are not having that personal relationship. So is this metaphor of nature as mother also distinctive or is there something distinctive in the way we, our tradition understands this? You want to go in that direction now or you want to develop this point further? So I can say a few words about the mother idea.
But then I want to move further into the heart of the tradition. So we started in our theological explorations at a very basic level of ontology. That all Vedantists would agree with, or most Vedantists would agree with.
And then we moved specifically to the idea that God is a person, the world is personal. And then I want to move deeper into the heart of Gaudiya Vaishnav theology. So that’s the direction we’re heading in essentially.
But just to say a few words about what you said, which is that the idea of nature as mother is quite widely appreciated and understood around the world. It’s one of the fundamental ways in which human beings have related to the natural world, is in terms of seeing it as a sustaining, nourishing, caring force. But that’s a double-edged sword because mothers are also very much expected to sacrifice their whole lives for their children.
And so in the same way, we’ve expected all these natural elements, rivers and the earth to sacrifice constantly for our own misbehaviors and sinful activities. So we have to be careful that we are also recognising our dharmic duty in relation to the mother, right? Matra, Deva, Bhava. That we have a relationship that we need to, okay, we we’re grown-up children now.
We have to also have a responsibility to take care of our mothers and make sure that she is healthy, especially if the lack of health is because of us. And I think the most striking examples of this in Vaishnav literature come from the repeated instances of Bhoomi Devi going, crying to Lord Vishnu and saying, please, the earth is just, people are exploiting me without end, right? These kings and rulers and greedy materialists are exploiting me endlessly. Please do something about it.
Relieve the burden of the earth. So we have explicit descriptions of how we as human beings can cause so much burden on Bhoomi Devi that she has to take extreme measures for her health. And we see this in the accounts of Lord Krishna’s appearance, Lord Ramachandra’s appearance, and most distinctively in the appearance of Lord Varahadev, where he comes specifically for Bhoomi Devi.
What I find so beautiful in that story of Varahadev is how tenderly the Lord relates to Bhoomi Devi. Yes, he saves her, so he’s a saviour, but she’s also his consort, right? And we see this most clearly in the Sri Vaishnava tradition that worships Bhoomi Devi, Sri Devi and Bhu Devi as the consorts of the Lord. And in the form, and there’s beautiful murtis of Varahadev in South India where she is not in the form of a globe, but in the form of a woman who is seated upon the lap of Varahadev.
And she is the Lord’s consort, right? And very dear to the Lord. And imagine, imagine how Krishna would feel if we provided pain to his consort, if we injured her. I mean, he feels terribly about it, and that’s why he comes running to this earth again and again and again, just as a husband would come running to a wife who has been injured by another.
You see that relationship and Bhagavatam specifically says that the Lord is very concerned that in the battle, in his battle with Hiranyaksha, Bhoomi Devi will become a casualty, that she will become afraid, that she’s scared of the situation, and places her very tenderly, very gently upon the surface of the causal ocean, of the Garbhodak ocean in order to take care of her nicely. So it’s a very sweet, very tender relationship that the Lord has. And again, we have to remember that when we relate to this earth, that what a, you know, she is our mother, and she is the Lord’s consort, and there is no way we are pleasing Krishna if we are committing violence to his consort.
Right? It’s just, it’s an impossible idea to think that Krishna is going to be happy as we, as we injure Bhoomi Devi, and we try to worship him. It’s not going to work. Beautiful.
So now, just one quick question before we move ahead, that, so are we talking about two distinct things over here, that as we share the bhakti wisdom and more and more people become bhaktas, then they will naturally take care of environmental consciousness. That is one way the environmental consciousness and eco-care can happen. Or the other is that even if people don’t accept the whole bhakti worldview and bhakti practises entirely, but these elements of the bhakti worldview can inspire people, maybe they will accept only this part and that can give a new intellectual or relational impetus for them to care more for the environment.
How are we talking about, or are we talking more in terms of building a worldview? Very nice, very nice question. Chaitanya Chaitanya Amit says that when Sri Chaitanya Mahaprabhu came, he brought a flood of bhakti with him that covered the earth and drowned the world in this bhakti. Now with any kind of flood, some people will be more affected by it than others.
This is a backwards analogy where the negative is being made positive, but some people will drown in that flood of love of God. Others will get their feet wet and others will simply see it and get affected. The nature of a flood is that everyone is affected, but in different ways.
Not everyone is affected in the same way. So if our goal is simply that everyone must drown, it’s not going to happen, at least not right away. Some people are going to drown.
Others are going to be transformed in their own they’ll continue with their lifestyle, they’ll continue with their religions, they’ll continue with their basic approach, but they will be changed, they will be affected. They will benefit from being touched by those transcendental waters. So we have to think of this flood from Mahaprabhu in a very broad sense and recognise that we have something very significant to contribute to the world and that contribution is not limited to merely everyone shaving up.
It’s limitless. That contribution is limitless. Mahaprabhu’s effect is going to be limitless in its scope and it’s going to come in all different ways in all different directions.
We have to have a broad vision for engaging with the world. Otherwise we are being limited by our own narrowness of vision. That’s nicely put.
I was thinking of some parallels. In some ways, a lot of people adopt Buddhistic values without necessarily endorsing the Buddhist worldview. Many of them don’t even know the whole Buddhist worldview.
Yoga has been adopted without many people knowing the yogic worldview. Yes, that may lead to some utilitarianism but in some ways it’s better that people take care of their health by more natural and holistic means rather than by simply pumping chemicals into their bodies. So, if we can contribute to raising consciousness of people, whether it is all the way from Tamas to Shuddha Sattva or from Tamas to Rajas or from Rajas to Sambha towards Sattva, that is also a valuable contribution.
To be honest, when we say we are raising someone from Tamas to Sattva, the reality is that when we raise someone to the level of Sattva or even to the transcendental level, we are already getting them at the level of Rajas. They arrive at our door sometimes already at the level of Sattva and then we take them to the level of engaging on the transcendental level. Rarely are we, I don’t know if we are ever part of a soul’s journey from the start to finish.
I mean, what we say is oh, we made a devotee. The reality is we got someone who was already 75% of a devotee, we helped them cross to the next level, so then we say we made a devotee. But someone else did all the hard work of bringing them from 0% to 75%, right? Isn’t it? Someone else did all the hard work to get them to the point at which we met them.
So why should we not find value in getting someone from 0% to 25%? Right? From just learning from going from half killing animals to killing animals fully, like in the story of Nagari. Is there no credit in that? Of course there is, because that person who recognises the pain of another Jeeva, he will be more acceptable to appreciating the importance of Ahimsa and of Karuna. So getting from 0% to 25% is just as important as getting from 75% to 100%.
Beautiful. So then we need to broaden our understanding of what sharing Krishna consciousness or basically sharing spirituality or spiritual wisdom means. It can’t always be quantified in terms of tangible results in a particular way.
Yeah, so it’s beautiful. Sometimes we say that in our outreach don’t and it’s difficult to make people interested in spirituality, better to find people who are already interested in spirituality. But then we don’t ask the question, why have they become interested in spirituality? Some, not just some circumstantial event that prompted a spiritual enquiry, but there could also be their upbringing, somebody did something for them either in this life or in a previous life.
Yeah, very wonderful. If we are in one sense reaping the fruits that are of the seed that others have sown, then we also need to sow some seeds for others to reap the fruits also. Yeah, one of my, I mean, this is a whole topic that we could discuss, but I’ll just add one thing that one of my childhood mentors, Ganapati Swami, he’s a Sanyasi Prabhupada’s disciple who spent his life distributing books by travelling in his camper, his RV from one remote and he always goes to remote places, remote college town to another, distributing books and various places.
He sets up a book table and distributes Prabhupada’s books. And one of the things I remember he told me, again in my childhood, it stuck with me a lot. He said, every person almost whom he gives a book to, if he spends the time to talk to them, he realises that somewhere they have eaten Krishna Prasad.
Somewhere they have heard the holy name. Now, whoever gave them that Prasad, if that person was results orientated, then they would have never given them the Prasad because 99% of Prasad distribution has no immediate tangible result connected to it, other than the person saying, oh, this tastes good. And yet, he would get these people who had eaten Prasad sometimes thousands of miles away and he would give them a book.
And that would be another step. Another step in their spiritual progress. And who knows, one of those people who got a book, sometimes they would show up at our temple.
My point is, it’s a… We have to see the holistic picture of the Jiva’s journey. Not just that sliver of the Jiva’s journey, that we have the eyes to see. Because our vision of the eternal journey of the Jiva is like one snapshot, one moment in a person’s journey.
And we have to say, no, I’m participating in this moment because Krishna has asked me to participate. He’s given me this opportunity. This is my seva.
But the whole journey is neither in my vision nor in my control. So, in that sense, we have to be detached. Beautiful.
We can… It’s quite presumptuous to say that we’ve made somebody a devotee. From a devotional perspective, so many people devotees contributed to it, not to speak of others. In one sense, we have… We have a defined finishing line.
Yes. Then that person has gone on a long journey by many people. We just help that person go across the finishing line and say, I brought this person.
Yes. And what’s even more funny is that it’s a finish line that is self-defined. That is not actually the finish line at all.
Right? As in, who is to say that that line is actually the finish line? Suppose we take them across the finish line. Then 10 years down the road, they then give up their practise of bhakti. So, was it the finish line? Of course, it wasn’t the finish line.
That was just a milestone in their progress. What is the actual finish line? It’s a self-defined finish line that is… It’s socially useful as a finish line. But from a bhakti perspective, maybe when we learn how to boil milk to assist Srimati Radharani, then maybe we can call that a finish line.
Maybe. But even there, even there, every devotee in Vrindavan is growing in their relationship with Krishna. It’s progressing in their relationship with Krishna.
So, what is the finish line? We have to ask ourselves anyway. We take credit to bring someone to the point of deeksha. But then if five years down the road, they give up their practise of their vows, will we take credit for that also? No.
We don’t want to take credit for that. You see what I mean? We take an arbitrary snippet from someone’s long journey in bhakti and we take that as our credit, as our marker of success. But how about the person who helps the devotee recover after their loss of practise? They take deeksha, then they leave, and then someone comes and inspires them to continue again.
Should that person not get credit for bringing them to the so-called finish line? So we could say that in many ways I’m just going to bring this topic back to the ecology. Expanding our conception of outreach is itself a huge topic and what you have brought is very vital and I mean how should I put it, like a paradigm altering insight. Maybe as I said we can discuss it separately.
But I was just thinking in terms of a progression. So we could say that there are people who are already ecologically interested and we can help them on their spiritual journey steps forward, even if they’re not necessarily going to come to that finish line which we socially or institutionally define. And there are people who may already cross the finish line, but they may not be environmentally conscious.
And then our understanding of philosophy can help them also. So there’s a variety of ways in which this environmental consciousness and devotional consciousness can interact in a constructive way. Yes.
Yes. Very nice. Very nice summary.
You would like to go ahead. You said that’s the heart of the theology till now. Yes.
So we have the general Vedantic principle that God is the world. Upadana, Karana, Shakti. We have the idea that God is personal, which is something that is not just general Vedanta but specifically a Vaishnava idea that God is a person and therefore the world is also personal and we ought to relate to it as such.
That was step number two. And now step number three is the going specifically to a Gaudiya Vaishnava appreciation to the heart of the tradition. That that person, namely Krishna, throughout our Gaudiya Vaishnava literature, we find that Krishna is happiest in natural surroundings.
Our vision of ultimate reality, of paradise, of heaven, of the divine, of the ultimate good, that vision which we worship as the highest and we adore and we aspire for is a pastoral vision. It’s a vision that is surrounded not by cities and industrial development and huge human accomplishments. It is a vision that is surrounded by rivers, forests, mountains, animals, Krishna, the Krishna we worship, is a cowherd’s boy.
The part of his life that is most dear to us, ārādhyo bhagavān vrajeśa-taneśa, is spent in Braj, where Krishna is a cowherd. He does leela after leela that involves the protection of the people, the forests, the rivers, the land of Vrindavan. If you just look at the accounts of Krishna’s protection of the forests and his relationship to the forest, it makes actually a very sweet study of the Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam.
There’s the account of Krishna walking through the forest and praising the beauty of the forest and the ways in which it’s relating to Lord Balarama and to himself. The trees and how they’re bending down, the bees in the forest, and the animals. He’s glorifying every aspect of it.
The 10th Canto has a beautiful description of Vrindavan in the autumn season, showing us the glory of that environment and that transcendental environment and how it is something that can teach us so much. We see that when Dhenukāsura pollutes and controls one of the forests of Vrindavan, that palmyra forest, Krishna defeats him and allows all the residents of Vrindavan to access and enjoy the fruits from that forest. We see that on two occasions when the forests are being burned by a forest fire, Krishna swallows the forest fire and protects both the people and the forest of Vrindavan.
We see how when the river Yamuna is being polluted by Kaliya, killing, of course endangering the residents of Vrindavan, but also the animals, also the fish, the birds that fly over the river are killed by its fumes. The plants and trees on its banks are drying up, poisoned by that toxins. Krishna jumps into that river to remove Kaliya and his poisonous hoods.
Again and again, we find that our vision of who Krishna is, our ācārya’s vision of who Krishna is, is connected with the fruits, forests, flowers, rivers, gems, trees, and the natural environment of brunch. And if this point isn’t entirely clear, even after this, we can make it even clearer by contrasting, by seeing the opposite, how more or less every account of demons in Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam is connected to destruction of the natural environment. That may not be their primary purpose, but it is a constant corollary of their behaviour.
There’s a description of Hiranyakashipu, and in that chapter where he tells, in Bhāgavatam’s seventh canto, he tells all his demons, associates, to go out and destroy all the brāhmaṇas and all the villages and terrorise the world. Part of what he specifically instructs them to do is destroy the natural environment, to cut down the trees. Śrīla Prabhupāda has a beautiful purport there in that verse where he says specifically, this is Canto 7, chapter 2, text 12, and he says, Prabhupāda ends that purport by saying, the cutting of trees simply to manufacture paper for the publication of unwanted literature is the greatest sinful act.
He says, trees should be given protection. During its lifetime, a tree should not be cut for industrial enterprises. In Kali Yuga, trees are indiscriminately and unnecessarily cut for industry.
In particular, for paper mills that manufacture a profuse quantity of paper. And he has this beautiful purport focused specifically just on one word in the verse. It’s vṛṣchata, which means they cut.
That’s all it says. They cut the trees. Anytime you have a description of demoniac nature, it’s connected with destruction of the environment.
With Hiranyaksha destroying the earth and pushing it into the ocean, the Garbhodak ocean. King Vena and his henchmen kicking up such a big cloud, so much air pollution that just like in Delhi and Beijing and Los Angeles, the light of the sun was occluded by that dust. Again and again, we see that in visions of perfection, they are accompanied by descriptions and love and care for the natural environment.
In descriptions and visions of demoniac nature, we find with it, accompanying with it a destruction and callousness towards the natural environment. This goes to the very heart of our tradition. ārādyo bhagavān vrajeśatanāyas tad dhāma vṛndāvana.
Beautiful. There’s two, three different points. One is the demons.
Yeah, they are destroying, disrupting. Kaliya’s example is so so vivid in that also, apart from Lenukas and others. So, now if you consider at one level, Krishna also lives in Dwaraka and Mathura and there is, it’s not intrinsically against urban living, but even the urban living is not disharmonious.
Whereas, the ultimate focus is the Vṛndāvana, which is our highest vision. So, our highest vision is a vision of, we could say, not just an eco-friendly divinity, but it’s almost like an eco-loving divinity. You can go even further and say that in one sense, the dhāma is non-different from the Lord.
So, it’s also, there’s an even higher sense of oneness. The earth itself is nature itself in one sense God, but in an even more special sense, nature in its full prosperity as manifested in Vṛndāvana is also God. Yes, and so we have a positive vision to offer, not just asking to avoid the negative, but we have a vision to offer that we want to live in this world also.
As Vaishnavas, we understand that our entire lives are an attempt to prepare ourselves to re-enter Krishna’s Leela. This is what our life is about. And given the fact that that Leela is the Leela that we want to enter is, as you said, an eco-loving Leela, then does it not behove us now to live our lives in such a way? To behave in such a way that we too can prepare ourselves to enter that Leela? As I’ve heard Radhanath Maharaj say, if we don’t know how to take care of the cows, how will we go back to brunch? As in, this is the world that we’re entering, right? We may not be cowherds, but we’re going to be connected somehow to that pastoral life.
We’re going to be connected somehow to Yamuna and to the forests of Vrindavan. This is our home. This is our home.
Beautifully. Maybe this is just to make a point that in some ways, in a more eccentric aspect of our tradition also, that we talk about emanating the life of the Vrajavasis in a devotional sense for that is acting as a way of salvation, that is Raga Atmika Bhakti and Raga Anuka Bhakti. That is at a very transcendental level, but that same principle of living here the way we live there, can also be applied for ecological, eco-friendly living.
It’s wonderful. So, we covered a lot of territory. Are there any further points you would like to, will be left out or you’d like to address? No, these were the points that I wanted to make today, cover today.
We started with that idea of Paradukkadukki, of Karuna, of Ahimsa, the character of a Vaishnava and then we worked our way through the theology, from the theology the idea that God is the world, the world, God is personal, therefore the world is personal, and then not only is the world’s personal and God personal, but the God we worship is Krishna and Krishna is in his two-handed form as Nandanandan, is offering us a vision of ecological harmony and relationship. And certainly living in harmony with nature is not sufficient to go back home, back to Godhead. But I find it difficult to imagine how one could go back to Godhead while still exploiting this material world.
That’s the point, is that if we want to prepare ourselves to actually enter Krishna’s vila, and the prospect that we can do that while still injuring his consort, Bhudevi, that we can do that while still living in the world as you know, not as maybe Hiranyakashyapu did, but as miniature virgins and exploiting the natural world and cutting things down indiscriminately exploiting the resources of the world, that seems like a very implausible idea, that somehow that behaviour, attitude is compatible with our goal of pure prema-bhakti. So I think we’ve worked our way gradually into the heart of Gaudiya Vaishnava theology, and that’s more or less where I wanted to leave our discussion or bring our discussion to leave our listeners with that thought, with that idea. Well, I can say you stole my job today.
Oh, sorry. I do a more elaborate summary, but you did a very precise pathway, which you charted. I was just trying to steal my job back.
Yes, please. You know, it could also be a little exercise in itself to how these elements of the Gaudiya Vaishnava theology also come together. So at one level, the Virat Rupa is, we started with not just Haimsa, but Karuna, where it is more of kindness, care, and that’s based on, so that is related with, when we see the Virat Rupa is God is a person, then we, that also is, so in one sense, Karuna will be natural if we see nature as personal, and then that will, that will be further intensified.
So we can have compassion or care, but love is a far greater emotion. Isn’t it? So where if we see the world not only as, and life not only as non-different from the Lord, but like very intimately connected with the Lord as it is Vrindavan. So we could say that the relationship with nature will also evolve through these elements which you have mentioned.
The appreciation, the environmental consciousness itself, we generally talk about evolution of consciousness, but maybe there could, in the three elements which you mentioned, there is the evolution even in environmental consciousness. Isn’t it? Yes, yes, yes. I think that was one of the really nice insights that came from this discussion as a result of our back-and-forth was that there is different levels of engagement with the environment, and that aspect that we talked about, how the difference between thinking of the environment in utilitarian terms versus in inherent or intrinsic terms makes such a big difference in terms of how we relate to it.
So there’s different levels of relating to the environment and I appreciated that insight that you brought up between the extrinsic and the intrinsic approaches to the environment. I think that’s very crucial there. Thank you.
I’m happy to be of service to this very stimulating discussion and not only stimulating, intellectually stimulating, but I think it’s also practically empowering us to do our part in environmental consciousness. We may not become environmental activists, but as a part of our bhakti itself, we can do many things which can be helpful in taking care of the environment in small ways, small yet significant ways. So thank you very much for this wonderful discussion.
I look forward to having you again for some future discussions. Thank you so much, Itinichar and Prabhu. Always such a pleasure spending time with you.
I look forward to it very much and to your wonderful insights. So always more comes from the conversation than just what would come individually to say a lecture or something like that and this is why I appreciate the podcast format because dialogue always raises insights that monologues cannot, right, that are more than the sum of the parts, that are distinctly born from the meeting of two minds together. I appreciate that very much.
Thank you very much, Prabhu. You can look forward to the future. Hare Krishna.
Hare Krishna.