How much will the mode of preaching be affected by the nature of different preachers?

Transcript

This is an AI-generated transcript and may contain some errors.
different pictures can have different natures and they may not be sensible they may be straight forward and others may not have they are compromising and they are more affectionate so what is the role of the nature of individual preachers in their preaching whether that preacher is coming from their past or they are acquired by the practice of bhakti yes the individuality is never to be denied and naturally different preachers present in the same points of time and the point which of this class is that we shouldn’t make alienating people or insensitivity a virtue we should think that because that person went away because I spoke the truth uncompromisingly there may be other reasons that the person went away because it was not as if I was being uncompromisingly I may as well be hostable I may as well be insensitive so whenever I speak this it is not to criticize any particular preacher and insensitive it is simply to not ourselves make the mistake of making alienating people into a virtue that means I should always be introspective and see how my presentation is yes I should be honest I should be candid it is not that I have to compromise but then all of us always have room for improvement and we can always become better and present better so how I can improve is what is important to discuss today definitely different people come from different backgrounds and they have certain presentation styles and certain people will be attracted to those presentation styles also no doubt about that because just as in the broader Vedic culture there are different devatas and in those devatas there are different people attracted to those so like that even in the devotional culture there are different people with different mindsets, different features different modes of presentation and different people get attracted to that but it is not that we have to make one good definition of fanaticism is to make one definition of success as the only definition of success to make one definition of success as the only definition of success is fanaticism I think somebody loves book distribution and they think that only if you are distributing books your followers will come otherwise all details somebody that is very good at distribution excellent, great respects to you obeisances to you about it but then you impose this is the only thing you should be doing otherwise you are wasting your time because you are not doing anything for Prabhupada not doing anything for Krishna that is wrong somebody may think that I want to be strong why do you fool your disciples yes Prabhupada has done that therefore he can do but to insist that this is what our responsibility is and anybody who is not doing this that is not, that is fanaticism so individual religions can definitely be accommodated and then according to one’s nature and these people will attract people of similar natures that’s fine, we are not denying individual nature nor are we belittling any particular nature that is sensitive we are simply trying to understand how we can make our preaching more effective by anticipating the kind of obstacles that people may have because of their backgrounds and how we can help them to overcome those obstacles and not instead make those obstacles bigger for them ok