How the pre-modern, modern and post-modern ages respectively stressed the spiritual, physical and mental

[Talk at Griffith University, Brisbane, Australia]

Video:

---

Transcript

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

So we have been discussing informally the topic of the mind. Do you want to continue that or you have some other questions? Maybe I'll speak a few minutes of the topic of the mind further and then we can go in whatever direction it takes. Historically, modern science began with an emphasis on the physical.

If you look at history, then we can say there are three broad ages. The pre-modern, modern and what is now happening in the post-modern. So each of these ages has had a certain emphasis.

So the pre-modern age was characterized by tradition, by stasis. That means the whole idea was that nature has determined things in life and your trajectory in life is determined. This is your position and that is the position you are meant to live at.

In India there was a caste system which was quite stratified and in the west also there was the class system you could say. If somebody was born in aristocracy, the person would have a comfortable life. If somebody was born as an ordinary person, they would have a different kind of life and there was practically no marriages across the classes.

So in the past, the pre-modern times, the idea was that nature has determined our position and we simply have to live according to that position. So the physical reality was considered to be almost like pre-ordained and more or less the idea was that this world is a place of transition. From this world we are meant to go to another world and whatever is our lot in this world, just manage that and move on.

That was the idea. So because of that conception, the attempt to change things at the horizontal level in this world, that was very less. Nature was considered to be almost supreme.

Now, since the time of the renaissance, humanity's attitude towards life in this world changed. Oh, we can understand this world, we can change this world and the scientific revolution brought in science and technology as a means to change things in this world. So whereas in the past, nature was considered to be supreme, now we could say that, go to the other extreme and use an oversimplified term, now nurture was considered to be supreme.

Nurture means, how you are born doesn't matter. If you work hard, you can become successful. So from the traditional perspective, the American Declaration of Rights, that every person is born equal, that is radical.

Traditionally it was considered that different people are different. And the idea was that the way we nurture ourselves, the way society nurtures us, that determines who we become. So, just as in the past, nature was overemphasized, so now, nurture is being overemphasized.

And for example, in a radical sense, this comes out as a phenomenon called gender dysphoria. Gender dysphoria means many people feel that they don't identify with the gender of the body that they have. And they try to do reconstructive surgery and things like that, by which they change their gender.

And there is much psychological theory which is touted to support this idea. And people say that actually gender is not a bodily feature, it is simply a psychological construct. Now gender is a bodily feature.

And that's why people change, if they change gender, they also try to do some surgery to change the bodily features also. But this is an extreme example of the idea that, the way we nurture ourselves, the way society nurtures, now nurture is a positive word, because negative word means condition. The way we condition ourselves, the way society conditions us, that determines who we are.

So, more or less in the postmodern times, society is moving towards what we could call the omnipotence of nurture. In the pre-modern times, there is the omnipotence of nature. In the modern times, the modern times were characterized by a great faith in science.

And science was considered as the means to be able to change everything. So, if we consider this in terms of the three levels of reality, which our philosophy talks about, Bhagavad Gita talks about, that the physical, the mental and the spiritual. So, in the pre-modern times, the physical reality was considered to be unchangeable.

That's how you are, whatever you are, you accept what you are. And the change is not horizontal in this world, but vertical to go to the kingdom of God. So, the main change that was thought to be done was spiritual.

Now, science came along and said that, we can change the physical. And when we change the physical, we can change everything by that. And this affected the vision of the psychological and the mental also.

In psychology, there are many different schools. There is one school called Behaviorism, which held that, actually, what is inside people is like a black box. We don't know it and we don't want to know about it.

They say, ultimately, they reduced psychology to the study of human behavior. That if this stimulus comes in, this response comes out. This stimulus comes in, this response comes out.

And animals, in many ways, are programmed. So, for behavioral studies, rats were considered as subjects. And whatever the findings from the study of rats, they were extrapolated to human beings.

And the idea was that by changing the physical, everything can be changed. In fact, in the history of science, there was a branch called Phrenology. Phrenology said that, actually, the shape of the skull determines the state of the brain.

So, if people's skull is shaped in a particular way, then that means they will be very intelligent. If the skull is shaped in a different way, they will be very foolish. So, now we may laugh at it, but the idea is that the physical was considered to be almost omnipotent.

You change the physical, everything will change. And to some extent, that relic remains, where in today's world, in neuroscience, there is a reductionistic school which deifies the brain, which makes the brain omnipotent. In fact, even today, scientists have preserved the brain of Einstein.

And they hope that in future, when we learn how to recreate life, then we'll take that brain and put it in the body and we'll have Einstein once again. So, just like in the past, people preserved mummies, people preserved the bodies of the kings as far as the mummies. So, now, there is a mummy being made of the brain.

So, this is the excessive stress on the physical. So, in the pre-modern times, it was spiritual which was thought to be changeable. In the modern times, the physical was thought to be endlessly changeable.

As we are coming to the post-modern times, the idea is picking up that it is the mental that is endlessly changeable. And by changing the mental, everything will change. So, while science was emphasizing the physical, it actually undermined everything else.

It undermined the mental and undermined the spiritual. But within science itself, more and more studies indicated, especially in the field of mind-body medicine, that the physical alone doesn't determine everything. That even if sometimes people are physically okay, but still, psychologically, they are disturbed.

And that affects them physically also. So, science, in terms of mainstream medical science, is slowly and increasingly acknowledging the role of the mind in the care of the body. And to some extent, quantum physics has also, in physics, given scope for consciousness.

But what scientific studies indicate, that has been taken much, much further by the self-help industry. The self-help industry has made the mind into God. Change the mind and you will change everything.

And this leads to the idea that the mind is everything. So, in fact, there are post-modern thinkers who are expert deconstructionists. They say that a book has no inherent message.

So, every reader creates the message of the book. So now, yes, every reader will understand different things from what they read in the book. But the book has its own content.

And the most important, the book has its intent with which the author wrote the book. So, the intent and the content can't be entirely rejected. Although, there is definitely the room for the subjective effect or subjective interpretation, subjective appreciation, subjective comprehension of the book.

But that's not everything. So, this omnipotence of the mental level is a characteristic of the post-modern age, where everything is deemed relative. If it feels good for you, it is good for you.

So, everybody says that your morality, what is right for you is right for you. So, morality is also considered to be subjective. Now, how does all this apply to us when we are trying to understand spirituality while we are living in this body and mind? We live in a world where science and technology has changed many things at the physical level.

And we do use those physical changes to serve Krishna and to do our work in this world. We use phones, we use cars, we use planes, we use the internet. So, we cannot consider bhakti to be like a transcendental bubble that is unaffected by the atmosphere around it.

Bhakti itself is transcendental. But bhakti, when we are practicing in this world, it has to be practiced with the body and the mind, where we are, and which we have, and that body and mind will naturally be affected because affected by the world we are living in. So, we have to practice bhakti in the world we are in.

So, just as we may still study the Bhagavad Gita as was studied in the tradition, but now we may study it in a digital copy. We may hear classes on the internet. So, the essence remains the same, but the specific form may change.

So, what we easily understand with respect to the physical level, in terms of technology, in terms of technological adaptations, of the essential practice, that can also apply at the psychological level. What that means is that at the psychological level, because there are people who are very disturbed, and we ourselves live in a disturbing age. In fact, the Bhagavatam also says that the defining characteristics of this age is upadrutaha.

Upadrutaha is we are disturbed. In fact, the Bhagavatam gives a list of characteristics and it says, mandah sumandhamatayo mandabhagyaya upadrutaha. So, the list is given, manda is people are lazy, mandah sumandhamatayo mandabhagyaya upadrutaha.

So, they are unfortunate, they are lethargic about spiritual things, but ya, ya is certainly, certainly upadrutaha, certainly they are disturbed. So, there is an emphasis, especially when talking about the fact that people are disturbed. So, the Bhagavatam does acknowledge that the mind will be a significant cause of distress in Kali Yuga.

And just as if we had a physical disease, we would need to take the appropriate physical medicine to treat that disease, so that we could serve Krishna. So, if we have tuberculosis, then we may have to take the medicine for that and then we serve Krishna. So, similarly, different people may have different mental health issues, or mental issues basically, and then they have to do what is required by which they can continue serving Krishna.

And because the world around us is so physical, so, because still science has its glamour, and most people think of progress in terms of technological progress, that changes the world at a physical level. So, people equate everything non-physical into one realm, one lump. So, they often equate this mental and the spiritual to be one thing.

So, if people experience relief at the mental level, they think it is spiritual. And if people experience agitation at the mental level, they feel what is spiritual about this. It is not spiritual.

It means if people continue to stay agitated at the mental level, even while practicing bhakti, they may see it as a failure of bhakti spirituality, and they may give it up. And if they experience calming of the mind, if they experience relief from mental problems, by the practice of bhakti, they will see it as spiritual. Now, how they see it doesn't determine the reality, but how they see it determines whether they practice it or not.

So, when we share spiritual wisdom, we have to consider people's needs, and we have to consider people's felt needs. Everybody ultimately needs Krishna. But not everybody feels the need for Krishna.

So, if we consider people's felt needs, and if we can address those felt needs, then by addressing their felt needs, we give them faith in the overall process of bhakti. And then they appreciate the need for Krishna. In the past, brahmanas were able to do that.

In today's world, often we put the material and spiritual in opposite, in the sense that our material needs are taken care of by science and technology, by the economy, by the government. How well they take care of it, that's a different issue. But overall they are taken care of by that.

And often scientists are atheistic or non-theistic at least. Whereas our spiritual needs are taken care of by the saints, by the devotees, by the spiritualists. In the past, the brahmanas and kshatriyas would take care of all needs of people.

And the kshatriyas were God-centered, and the brahmanas could do rituals by which they could lead to the, say, the rains coming, or somebody is not able to get a child, and the brahmanas do some yajna and conception happens. So people would see the material benefits of what the brahmanas were doing, and by that they would gain more faith in the brahmanas. And then when the brahmanas would give spiritual knowledge, people would accept that also.

So in that sense, the faith rises from the material to the spiritual. At least that's how it worked in the tradition. But now today, often we have to give up faith in the material and develop faith in the spiritual.

Which is challenging. Which is good if somebody wants to renounce the world. When we want to renounce the world and devote ourselves to spirituality, that time giving up faith in the material and accepting the spiritual is good.

But most people are not in a place where they can renounce the world. So for them, the faith in the material is an essential stepping stone for faith in the spiritual. That means if they follow something, if it benefits them materially, then they feel this works.

And then they will feel inspired to explore its spiritual benefits also. So we, of course, don't currently have access to the subtle kind of technology that was there in karma kanda rituals in the past. So what science and technology offers, we need to use it.

And people will use it from whatever source they get it. But as the mind related distresses are a major challenge for people. And because those are something which if we understand and share bhakti practices properly, we can help people to address it.

We can ourselves address it, we can help people to address it. So then people's felt need will be taken care of. So mental peace is also a strongly felt need of people.

And if we can help them address that need through the practice of bhakti, and then we help them to address the transcendental need, then it will be a stepping stone. So for example, when we do kirtans, sometimes devotees do kirtans as a way to channel their passion. They will use huge vampers and such loud noise.

So the kind of, we may condemn breakdance and rock dance and all those kinds of dances, but then that same passionate energy we may bring into our kirtans. Now it is good that we are channeling our passion within the jurisdiction of Krishna bhakti. But when people want peace of mind, they will not find our kirtans peaceful.

And especially if they don't appreciate the Hare Krishna mahamantra, they don't appreciate the particular musical instruments, then they may find this just as noisy. So if we have kirtans that are serene, that are gentle, soothing, calming, then people may not immediately appreciate the transcendence of the kirtan. They may get this, the peace that they get over there, a similar kind of peace they may get by simply hearing the bubbling of a, the flowing of a river and people use that kind of music sometimes.

They may get a similar kind of peace by hearing the chirping of birds. They may get a similar kind of peace just by some soothing, gentle music without any devotion in it. So they may get it by other means.

When they get it through bhakti, they are getting what they need, what they feel they need and they are getting something more. They are getting Krishna also. And gradually they will become more open to Krishna.

So in that sense it's important for us to recognize that the mind is a reality of its own and that is the reality where we ourselves need to many times deal with issues that arise and most people need to deal with issues that arise. So whatever helps us to calm our mind and whatever helps us to help others calm their mind, if we stress that appropriately, not excessively, but if we present that and stress that and apply that, then that can help us to practice bhakti more harmoniously, more peacefully and it can help us attract people to Krishna through the practice of bhakti. So those are some thoughts about this.

I'll summarize quickly. I spoke about how the three broad ages, pre-modern, modern and post-modern, you could correlate them with the physical, mental and spiritual levels. In the pre-modern age, the physical was considered unchangeable.

The mental was not thought about much. The only change was spiritual. So our place and position in society was determined by our birth and we just moved along that trajectory.

When science came along, then science said the physical can be changed. And progress was defined not in spiritual terms but in physical terms. The more we can change physical, the more we can become happy.

The more we can become prosperous and happy. But this promise did not work out. Although we have changed the physical a lot, but still people are not happier.

And this emphasis on the physical also affected the psychological where the psychological was reduced to the physical and people were treated like rats. Simply psychology was reduced to the study of behaviors and the spiritual was completely neglected. But then indications started coming up that the psychological also matters.

And that's why at least in medicine, the importance of mental health is significantly acknowledged. But this has been taken further by the self-help industry. The idea of the psychological being important and psychological is made into God.

Just change your mind and you can change everything. And the post-modern ethos has taken the psychological level and has said that everything is determined by the mind. And in that sense everything is relative.

Traditionally everything was considered to be determined by nature. The physical is unchangeable. Now it is said that everything is determined by nurture.

That even something like gender, which is a biological feature, is made into a psychological construct. So for us, from our scriptural perspective, Kali Yuga is defined as people having disturbed minds. So mental distress is predicted and it needs to be addressed.

So most people, they are exploring spirituality not because of a search for ultimate meaning in life, but because they want inner peace. So we need to address people's ultimate need and we need to also address people's felt need. Just like brahmanas could take care of people's felt need by providing them crops, by having yajnas which could provide rains or which could lead to the conception of a child.

Similarly today technology is offering people at the physical level. But if through proper customization of bhakti spirituality you can offer people relief at the mental level, then people won't have to choose between the material and the spiritual to come to the spiritual. They can reject their faith in the material to come to the spiritual.

Rather, what gives them material benefit and what they feel, material in the sense that psychological or mental relief, they may explore it further and that may take them to the spiritual level. Thank you. Hare Krishna.

Any thoughts, any comments, questions? You say that gender, how it's a theme of the physical, what about someone who comes in to say a male body, but they've got strong female tendencies, so it could be from a past life? Yeah, of course. When I say that gender is a physical construct, there are people who do have, like women may be tomboys or men may be feminish. It just happens.

Now this, when it happens in an extreme degree, we understand that it is because of the soul not being adequately integrated with the body. Generally, when a soul enters into the body, the soul identifies with the body. And although we say that misidentification is an illusion, but that misidentification is in a sense required for functioning in the world.

A Kshatriya cannot function as a Kshatriya if the Kshatriya is always thinking I am a soul. Kshatriya has to think I am a Kshatriya right now. But in some cases, because of some peculiar karma, some souls may enter into a body, but they may not adequately integrate with the body.

So this also, this can lead to, so just like if we travel from one end of the world to another end of the world, there is jet lag that happens. So the body is still in America, although we have come to Australia. And physically we are in Australia, but the body cycles are in America.

It takes time to recover from it. For some people it is more, for some people it is less. Similarly we could say when the soul goes from one body to another body, the soul has a body lag.

So the soul keeps identifying with the previous body. And because the mind goes with the soul, the mind may continue to exhibit characteristics of the previous body. And they may manifest in the physical body also.

So when that happens, then that is also our understanding of why some people may have homosexual tendencies. That they are attracted, they are in a male body, but they are attracted to another male. Because in the previous life they were in a female body.

And that also explains why some people may be in a particular body, but may have characteristics of another gender. And that's why they feel very uncomfortable with the gender that they have. Now there is no need, some people just make it an issue of rights.

This is what I feel I am and this is what I want to become. And there are some Christians, or many Christians, who consider that this is a revolt against the natural order. And they strongly oppose this.

But we don't have to go on a campaign for this or a campaign against this. Ultimately the body is a temporary tool we have. And how best we can use this bodily tool to serve Krishna and to channel our physical and psychological in a way that it doesn't come in the way of the spiritual, but it helps us along the spiritual.

So what to do? That can vary from person to person. But that's our understanding. So what those who claim this is a matter of right, they say that such people are in a different category only.

We are in a different category and you can't understand us only. But rather than seeing it as a different category, we see it as a different degree. It's an extreme degree.

At one level we could say that who is satisfied with the body that they have. Everybody feels, maybe I could be healthier, I could have a more attractive physique. So everybody feels that way.

So everybody has some discomfort and some dissatisfaction with the body that they have. So it's a matter of degree. For some people that degree may be extreme.

And how to deal with that, that is something which has to be, that is something which has to be individually decided. But the emphasis is on not making an issue for or against the body, but focusing on working with the body for growing spiritually. So isn't it that we work at all three levels, physical, mental and spiritual, whatever age we may be in? Yes, definitely.

Ultimately, when we speak, the soul is speaking, the mind is a tool and the body is a tool. So for all our actions, the physical, mental and spiritual, all three are involved. It's just a matter of emphasis.

We are all seeking happiness. And what is the way to happiness? So the broad idea, if we see within the Christian tradition, especially the Catholic Church was there, and in India, when the traditional Indian culture was there, that don't try to change things too much in this world. This world is temporary, this world is the valley of death, this world is dukkhalaya, vishashvatam, dukkhalaya.

So focus on changing the spiritual. So seek happiness, but by focusing on the spiritual reality. So that was the ethos in the pre-modern times.

In modern times, everybody is seeking happiness, and everybody is going to their souls, they are working at the physical level, they are working at the psychological level. But it's a matter of emphasis. In the age of science, or the modern age we could say, the whole hope was on technology.

We change technology, we progress, we become happier. But now it is more on the mind. It's not that even now people are infatuated with technology.

People want to use technology more and more. But the euphoria that is associated with technology, that technology is the source of unmitigated good, and technology alone will make us happy, that kind of belief is not there. We want technology to improve, we want the facility of technology, but most people understand that technology alone will not make me happy.

So in that sense, it's a matter of emphasis. We work at all three levels, but where we channel our search for happiness primarily, that varies in different ages. That's true.

So while addressing people's felt needs, we may just get materially entangled. That danger is always there. So, for example, when we are working in the material world, there is always a danger that we may get materially entangled.

Even if we are building a temple for Krishna, we may get so caught in fundraising, that we may just, let's say that we shouldn't just do pattern cultivation, so much that we forget, we shouldn't do donor cultivation so much that we forget to do devotee cultivation. So, going to extremes is typical of a mind in the mode of passion and ignorance. So, the mind in passion gets captivated by one thing, and focuses on that, and overemphasizes that.

The mind in ignorance takes one thing and makes it into everything. 18.2 Krishna says that, to make one thing into everything. That is the characteristic of knowledge in the mode of ignorance.

So, going towards extremes is a danger in every activity. Even in activities such as studying scriptures, one can go into learning Sanskrit, studying Acharya's commentaries, and that is all good, if that is helping us become more inspired to serve Krishna, and that is helping us to share inspiration for serving Krishna with others. But if somebody becomes a bookworm because of that, they may study a lot, but they may not actually make spiritual advancement, or inspire others to make spiritual advancement.

So, we need to be cautious when we are engaging with anything material, and with respect to the mind, and trying to help address people's mental needs. We have to be careful. There are two extremes.

One is that if I tell someone, I care for your soul, but I don't care for your body and mind. Only when your spiritual problems come to me. Well, very, very few people will come.

But the other extreme could be that nobody is going to treat us like a doctor and come to us with a physical health problem. They will go to a doctor for that. But some people are so emotionally clingy and needy that they may start treating us as dumping grounds for all their emotional garbage.

And when that happens, then they want us to hear about all the problems that they have. But when we try to encourage them to practice spirituality, they say no. Then if that is happening, then we have to draw a line over there.

We want to address people's emotional needs so that they can practice bhakti. So, we can't say that I will not address your emotional needs at all. But we are not here to address only their emotional needs.

So, we have to see things in perspective. And if we have a structure wherein we have people's emotional needs taken care of and then we encourage them to practice bhakti. So, maybe in future we might have, I know some of our leaders who are into western outreach, they say that associated with every temple, we can have a wellness center.

And in that wellness center we can teach yoga, we can have a trained psychotherapist, we can have a yoga teacher, we can have a psychotherapist. And it's not the temple, but it's associated with the temple. So, it can work both ways.

People who have physical mental issues who come to the temple, they can be referred over there. And people who anyway come there, they can be referred to the temple. So, in that sense, if we have devotees who are trained yoga teachers, devotees who are trained psychotherapists, trained mental health care professionals, then they can serve a need of practicing devotees or upcoming devotees.

And they can serve a need of non-devotees and by that inspire them to become devotees. So, it needs to be seen as one aspect of our outreach. Whether it is at an individual relational level or at an institutional initiative level.

It can't become our whole mission. That caution we always need to have. Yes.

I am talking to a devotee. The devotee said to me, before I came to bhakti, my mind was… After I came to bhakti, it is more disturbed, you know. And the devotee is not very much younger or older than me in terms of the time in Krishna consciousness.

She says that in bhakti, we can't remain in isolation, especially in Krishna consciousness. We have to work with people. And she said, I have to work with people who have got different mindsets and different psych upon them and they come and show their anger or emotions, whatever their conditioning they have on me.

And that's too hard for me to actually put up with and take. And therefore, I prefer to do service in isolation where I don't have to look at anybody. Could you help me to… Yes.

Some devotees feel that after coming to bhakti, their mind is becoming more agitated because we have to work with many different kinds of people and they bring their own mental issues on us or they behave in ways that disturb us. So can we just practice bhakti alone in isolation without mixing with others? Well, I'd say there are three different components here. One is does bhakti cause the increased agitation of the mind? The second is the kind of variety of people we have in the devotee community.

And the third is how one can best do service. So let's address each of these separately. First is it's not that bhakti itself causes agitation of the mind.

It may be that sometimes we may become extremists in a certain particular aspect or practice of bhakti and that may agitate our mind. If I become a perfectionist with respect to chanting, this is Hare Krishna, Hare Krishna, don't say Krishna, Hare Krishna, Hare Krishna, and then anybody says Krishna, don't say Krishna, and I will just become disturbed with everyone. I'll be disturbed with everyone and I'll disturb everyone.

So it is not… Yeah. So then it may be that we are, see in bhakti there are principles and there are preferences. So chanting the Mahamantra is a principle.

How exactly we chant the mantra, whether we chant it Hare Krishna, Hare Krishna, what volume we chant, what speed we chant, that is a matter of preference. When we make a matter of preference into a matter of principle, we become fanatical. And when we become fanatical, we agitate our minds and we agitate others' minds.

So it's not that bhakti practice makes our mind more agitated, rather fanaticism in the practice of bhakti can make our and others' mind agitated or others' fanaticism can make our mind agitated also. So it's not bhakti practice that makes our mind agitated. And additionally, it could also be that just as sometimes by past karma we get some physical diseases.

So that's a time when the physical pain is more. So sometimes it may also be that by past karma we may get some mental issues, mental distresses may be more for us. So now with respect to, this is the first issue.

So it's just as past karma, it's not because of bhakti practice, it's just the reaction playing out. Now with respect to devotees often causing agitation to us, well, yeah, it's possible because again different devotees have different conceptions of bhakti, different conceptions of what is important bhakti, of how bhakti is to be practiced. And one disadvantage we have is that because we are trying to follow some standards, we often become judgmental.

And we think that we are being spiritual by being judgmental. Actually I am helping you by telling you that you are wrong. It may be, it may not be.

So the problem with being judgmental is that we often dismiss people's sentiments as sentimentality. And we also think that we are in a superior position to correct others. So it creates a lot of psychological issues when we become judgmental.

And also just the sheer variety of people who we have to work with, that can be difficult. So we have to recognize that within devotee association, there are many different kinds of devotees. There is a senior Prabhupada disciple who told me that, he said that devotees, the way more you practice bhakti in ISKCON, you will discover that devotees can be more wonderful than you can imagine, and devotees can be more dreadful than you can imagine.

So it is both ways. Sometimes we see the dedication of some devotees. Say, how can anyone be so dedicated? How can somebody be so inspired, so inspiring to others? But somebody else, we may say, they may just criticize so harshly, they may be so judgmental.

How can somebody do that and still be a devotee? So we will get both extremes. So we shouldn't get, we shouldn't reduce devotee association to any one extreme. Most of us are in between, and we will have both extremes also.

So, rather than reducing devotee association to only negative experiences, or rather than idealizing devotee association by looking at only positive extremes, we need to be realistic, and look for that devotee association that inspires us. Within devotee association, if you find that some devotees I can't get along, then keep a respectful distance. Bhaktivinoda Thakur says that we need to work with like-minded devotees.

Sajyati Aashe Bhagwat Bhakta Sangha, that is the principle of Swami's Bhakti Samyam Siddha also. So sometimes I feel that that principle is not adequately emphasized in our emphasis on association. Association of devotees is very important.

Yes, but a devotee who is completely into book distribution will not be able to appreciate another devotee who is spending hours in studying Shastra and teaching Shastra and conducting Bhakti Shastra and Bhakti Vaibhav courses. So then if we associate with devotees whose definition of success in Bhakti is reduced to only one particular activity, then they will create insecurity within us about what we are doing. And we need to keep a distance from them.

I remember, you know, I am a writer. I always wanted to write. So in India there is a time, the biggest newspaper is Times of India.

And in Times of India there is a spiritual column called Speaking Tree. So I used to read that when I was a child and as a student. And I used to like ideally dream one day I will write over there.

And then I started practicing Bhakti, I became a Brahmachari. I started writing articles. And one day I just sent an article, I got the Speaking Tree email address, I sent an article.

And a few days later that article was published. I was so delighted. The dream come true.

So I came to the ashram and told devotees, my article is published in Speaking Tree. And one devotee said, how does that tree speak? So they just couldn't understand at all. And even when other devotees who are well read, okay, why are you so excited about it? But it was then a few, maybe a few weeks later, Jaya David Maharaj came to Pune.

And then I had already published in some small local Indian newspapers, in Pune based newspapers. And it was on the first day, this is my book publication in a national level newspaper. So then I made a comparison of all my articles, I showed it to Jaya David Maharaj.

He was so happy. He said, Prabhupada has blessed you Krishna, keep writing. He said, others can manage, others can counsel, you focus on writing.

And he was very profusely encouraging. So much so that when I asked him how can I improve writing, he gave me a long list of books. At that time there was not much internet in India, Amazon was not there.

So I asked Maharaj, these are not Indian author books, how will I get it? So actually Maharaj went to America, and then he personally went to a book shop, purchased all the books, and through different devotees who were coming to India, he sent the books to me. So the Chowpatty Temple President, he phoned me and he said that, Jaya David Maharaj gave me some books. Another devotee was a senior devotee in Juhu Temple, he told Jaya David Maharaj gave me some books.

So I was completely overwhelmed by the amount of reciprocation I got from him. So that was the time I realized that, I need like-minded association. Devotees are not into writing, they will not appreciate.

But devotees who are into writing, they will profusely appreciate. So we do need like-minded association. And when you find that, then we will be able to move forward.

And the third part about wanting to do service in isolation, I think all of us have our natures. Some of us are more introverts, some people need more space. And overall our movement is an extrovert movement.

Go out and do Kirtans, go out and do Harina, go out and do this. So it's an overall extrovert movement. And often introversion is considered to be Maya.

You don't want to associate devotees, you want to be alone. Now it can be Maya. Of course when we are alone, we are alone with our mind.

And the mind can get us in trouble. But it's not necessary that it is Maya. There is a modern philosopher who was asked, he was an atheist, so he asked, what is your conception of hell? So he said, hell means other people.

So some people were just so averse. So if somebody is an introvert or somebody feels the need for their own space, then it's not that that is wrong. Then they need some kind of service which they can do in their own space.

And of course one cannot be completely disconnected. We will need some association. We will need some guidance of some devotees who will give us space at the same time monitor us within that space in a broad way.

So I think if some devotee is not introvert, as an extrovert nature, but simply burned by devotee association and then tries to be an introvert, that will not work. So then it's best that they try to find like-minded association and connect with that and serve over there. But if some devotee wants to serve a little bit at a distance, then if they can find a service by which they can serve sustainably, that is perfectly fine.

Thank you. Shall we stop here? So thank you very much. Shri Prabhupada Ki, Gaur Bhatt Bindaki, Gaur Premanandai.

Thank you for taking time to come to this meeting tonight.