How to make our Sunday talks relevant Chaitanya Charan with Caru P on the ISKCON Relevance Project podcast

Podcast:

Video:

---

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

Lecture Summary

Discover how global speaker Chaitanya Charan bridges ancient spiritual traditions with modern audiences by aligning core messages with contemporary needs.

• Focus on Universal Needs: Effective preaching addresses fundamental human challenges like managing the mind, building relationships, and finding personal purpose rather than relying exclusively on insular terminology.

• Match the Frame of Reference: Instead of presenting traditional practices like chanting or renunciation through an absolute lens, preachers must understand the audience’s contemporary baseline to ensure the message resonates.

• Appreciate the Audience First: Following Srila Prabhupada’s example, modern outreach must begin with genuine appreciation for people’s existing positive qualities rather than harsh critique of their habits.

• Embrace Thematic Flexibility: Sunday talks and public programs thrive when structured around engaging themes rather than rigid, academic scriptural references that feel unapproachable to newcomers.

• Utilize Diverse Tools: Leveraging universal wisdom quotes, relatable metaphors, and personal storytelling builds authenticity and bridges cultural gaps without compromising core philosophy.

• View Change Through Krishna: Adapting to modern cultural shifts is not a compromise, but an alignment with Krishna’s agency through time, opening fresh doors for spiritual connection.

Key Takeaways

• Match the message to the audience’s current frame of reference to make spiritual principles feel immediately practical and accessible.
• Use personal stories and relatable examples to establish authenticity rather than relying purely on abstract authority.
• Create multiple accessible entry points for newcomers while keeping the core internal practices and values intact.

Full Transcription

This is an AI-generated transcript and may contain some errors.
We’d like to thank Chaitanya Charan for joining us on the Relevant Relevance project here. Chaitanya Charan is vastly experienced in speaking all over the world. In fact, he just finished a world tour.
He’s finally back in India and he’s agreed to meet with us this morning. Relevance is obviously a huge topic and I can’t think of anybody more qualified to give us insights into relevance than Chaitanya Charan who has written 25 books, given uncountable lectures under all kinds of circumstances, on all continents, to all different kinds of audiences, on any number of subjects. What I particularly admire about Chaitanya Charan is his flexibility, his versatility.
He can speak something on any topic. He has vast eclectic knowledge. He doesn’t take a simplistic approach to anything.
He sees nuances. He sees shades of meaning. He sees from different points of view.
So all of this adds up to whether he would acknowledge it or not to him being an expert on the subject matter of how to make Krishna consciousness a philosophy that’s thousands and thousands of years old and it comes to us from halfway around the world. How to make that relevant to a Western audience. So Chaitanya Charan, let me first of all, thank you from the bottom of my heart for taking time out of your valuable schedule to be with us.
I’m excited about your insights enriching the lives of many, many future preachers to come. Can you tell us? Personally, I am inspired by your constant attempts to make Krishna consciousness alive and vibrant for potential hearers or receivers of Krishna consciousness and the fact that we have a relevance group which is pioneering this effort is something which makes me feel feel enlivened all the more. Because we all at individual level do what we can to try to make things relevant.
But when at a broader level, a group of leaders take it forward, then yes, one of the challenges I feel is that we have our own standards and we could have standards with respect to practise, standards with respect to philosophy, standards with respect to etiquette, standards with respect to culture and we either we get caught in patting ourselves on the back for our high standards or slamming ourselves in the back for not following those standards. And in both ways, we get self-obsessed to some extent and that way it’s not relevant. We don’t say relevant to the world.
So just recently I had this realisation now this might seem a little provocative that we often say that the chanting is so easy. And we compare chanting with, oh in Satyuga people had to chant 60,000 I had to go to the forest and meditate for 60,000 years and in the previous years they had to do sacrifices and just see chanting is so easy as compared to that. Now, yes, from a scriptural perspective, yes, the Sankirtan is an easy process, is a recommended process, but from our potential audience perspective that they are not comparing our 16 rounds of chanting with 60,000 years of meditation.
They are comparing it with say 20 minutes of some meditation which is taught by some other, some breathing exercise taught by some group, 10 minutes of mindfulness taught by some group or once a week going to church and doing some mass at the jail. So from that reference point of view, what we are asking for seems to be very demanding. It’s not easy.
So, of course, we could say that chanting is easy in its own way and that’s a different subject. But the point is, we have a frame of reference. It’s not just that our, not that our message is irrelevant.
The frame of reference in which you present the message is often irrelevant. Because people live in a very different world today. So I’ll give one more example that I would like to have your feedback also on this.
This has struck me very strongly after I just came for three months tour of America and so many times when I would talk with college kids or with western people in general, it’s, there’s so much, there’s such a problem of families breaking down. It’s happening in India also, but not at that rate. So if we talk about how family attachment is a source of bondage and that is a completely irrelevant message.
Because in today’s world, there is hardly any family attachment. So it one says, to talk about renunciation to people who have aversion, that is, somebody’s sattva guna, you can take that they’re already responsible in their family, you have to think of something higher. To think of something higher, don’t just think of your family in this life, think of beyond this life, think of the soul, not just the body.
But here, we are living in a culture where people aren’t even thinking about the body. They’re not even material, material responsibility also is not there. So parents have done, I don’t want to generalise and criticise all of America.
There are a lot of people who are responsible and especially those who are those who are following Christian values do take care, do have respect families and there are others also. But the point is the majority of the audience, the family attachment is not the problem for them. It is rather a lack of sense of purpose, a lack of sense of responsibility.
And in those terms, our message seems irrelevant. So these are just a couple of examples that I had of how relevance means that we understand the needs of people and not just needs. Our frame of reference and their frame of reference, they need to match.
Otherwise, we may be speaking words that are intelligible, but the message won’t be intelligible. The message won’t make any sense to them. I hope I am making sense of what I’m saying.
You’re making a lot of sense. Prabhupada came from Vrindavan, which is a circle of intense, concentrated Krishna consciousness. It’s a user-friendly environment in India.
Vrindavan, India itself, is a Krishna conscious context. But Prabhupada wasn’t content to stay within the circle in which Krishna consciousness was accepted and which was common and which was appreciated. But he wanted to go beyond the circle of India, outside of that circle, to do things that would make Krishna conscious relevant and matter to people in the world in general.
And when he arrived in America, he had to make some changes from the traditional framework. He had to reduce the number of rounds. He had to allow ladies to live in the temple and to serve side by side with men.
So in your travels between India and America, you’ve raised a much bigger issue than we’d intended to address today, the very framework itself. But Prabhupada made some changes, contextual changes, practical changes, to make Krishna conscious more accessible and relevant outside the circle of India. Now, what do we need to do to continue that tradition to make Krishna conscious more accessible to wider and wider audiences, especially when they come to us on a Sunday afternoon to check us out for the first time? Yes, thank you.
So when I start looking at the topics which I could potentially speak on, I see like a pyramid. Let’s talk about the topics. I try to classify in terms of general wisdom, spiritual wisdom, and bhakti wisdom.
So it could be like a pyramid and depending on where the audience is likely to be. So if we just give bhakti wisdom only, so bhakti wisdom means, say, how to improve our chanting or how to regularly read Srila Prabhupada’s books. This is bhakti wisdom.
But if we are talking about how to read Srila Prabhupada’s books to somebody who thinks that, you know, this whole body of scripture is just a mythology, and then somebody has written a commentary on a mythology, and you are thinking about how to regularly read that commentary on a mythology. It just seems so self-referentially irrelevant for people. So in that sense, if we consider that this wisdom, wisdom is basically, how can I live more meaningfully? How can I add some value to my life? This is not necessarily in a self-centred sense.
But there is a search for people wanting to live, wanting to find meaning and purpose in their lives. And especially in the post-pandemic time, this has become all the more where there are the phenomena called the great resignation and other things where people don’t want to go to jobs with nine to five, which as they say, suck their souls. They want to, even if they don’t earn so much, they want to do something which is meaningful for them.
So in one sense, to present the bhakti wisdom, present the wisdom of our tradition in a way that is relevant for people, that is something which is relevant. What are people looking for right now? Because ultimately they are looking for Krishna, but initially they are not looking for Krishna. So they are looking for something which will address their immediate needs.
And for me, the best example of this is the Dhruv Maharaj pastime in the Bhagavatam. Three things happen in the Dhruv Maharaj pastime. First is that we could say that Dhruv Maharaj has just got insulted.
He says, me equipoise in dishonour and dishonour. And how much ego? A small five-year-old child, he has such a big ego. What kind of egomaniac is this person? This person is doomed.
But Narada Muni says, there’s a verse in the Bhagavatam where he says that, how wonderful is the, how wonderful the Kshatriyas, they cannot tolerate dishonour. So rather than just dismissing him for being egoistic, he appreciates that he has the courage to do something which very few people can do, leave home and search for something. So I think that basic point, before we can have relevance or as a part of being relevant, we need to appreciate what is good in the audience.
And that’s where if our reference style is, oh, these people are breaking all the greater principles, they’re doing this, they’re doing that, they’re just materialistic. It is not appreciation that we just can’t, then even if we try to speak on topics that is relevant, it will come off as very manipulative. So that was Shrila Prabhupada’s strength.
Prabhupada genuinely cared for people. That’s what now you can, you can correct me if you want. But from whatever I’ve heard from Shrila Prabhupada’s disciples directly and through their classes, their books, they, Prabhupada was aware of the fact that many of them were not having the best of habits and best of culture.
But Prabhupada appreciated them, Prabhupada valued them, Prabhupada cared for them for what they were doing, for what was good in them. And so that basic appreciation, if it is not there, relevance will not work. So you need to start with what is good in people.
And this one thing that a lot of people are looking for meaning and purpose, they’re not just happy with, oh, I want a job, I want a family, I want to have children, I want to have pristine society. They want those things, no doubt. But that’s not what is primarily driving them great.
Definitely a lot of people are looking for meaning and purpose. And I think that’s a big, big demographic that we can definitely become much more relevant to. Okay, let me ask you, you talked about people having their basic qualities and having concerns on a general level as being the basis of the pyramid.
So when you plan or think about an upcoming Sunday talk, I assume that you agree with me that the talks would be thematic rather than based on a single scriptural verse. Assuming that we agree with that, what are some of the themes that you present in your talks that fulfil the dual purpose of addressing the needs of your audience as well as acknowledging their strong points? Yes, thank you. Now, yes, can we start from our words? Well, in some places, it’s helpful.
But when what happens is we may get caught in the words itself. So now in now, if you’re talking about the West, there are different demographics. Prominently, we have Indians who are currently coming to our temples.
And we could talk about making the show much more relevant even for Indians. Because even if you consider the number of Indians in America, we are barely tapping even less than 1% of them. But I think your your focus is more on more on American people in our Western people in the West, primarily.
I think when you address a talk to a Western or at least a diverse audience, my experience is the Indians are right there. They really relate, even to the problems that our Westerns are facing, even if they’re not facing that problem themselves, because of a better upbringing, and a more wholesome orientation, they do resonate, they do resonate. So I think the more of a diverse audience you reach, you’re gonna that that’s not going to turn off the Indians.
That’s a good point. So I agree with you, then it’s better to start with a theme. And the words can be a launching pad if it’s required in the particular format.
But it’s not required, but it’s not required. I sometimes start from a verse, then it becomes a unfamiliar launching point. Again, if it is, it depends.
If somebody, if the people are already know the Bhagavad Gita, are interested in the Bhagavad Gita, or something like that. Let’s take this scenario. Let’s say we evolve in America to the point where we’re promoting in a really professional way, our Sunday programmes on Facebook, okay.
And part of that promotion involves naming the speaker who’s going to speak next Sunday, and what the topic is, okay. So are you going to put on Facebook that he’s going to speak on the Srimad Bhagavatam, first chapter, first canto, eighth chapter, 19th verse? Let me ask that question. That is true.
I think that makes it completely, it’s like we are doing an excellent job of making the class unappealing. So it’s almost like, those who are to come, they come in spite of the promotion, not because of the promotion. So yeah, from that perspective, definitely thematic is required.
Now, from what I understand is that there are like three broad needs, not going to be many, but we can look at the many needs of people. And then we can look at which of the needs can our philosophy serve, the wisdom that we have served. So my understanding is that it’s like managing one’s mind, emotions, managing relationships.
And it could use the word passion in a positive sense, like finding one’s purpose, finding one’s passion, aligning with one’s nature. These are three broad topics that are related. But the way I see it is that this is very much in alignment with our own, our own tradition, where we understand the soul is actually covered by three circles, the body-mind circle, the social, the body-mind is the adhyatmic, the social circle, that is the adhibhautic, and then there is the environmental circle, that is the adhidaivic.
So basically, okay, you know, how do I better manage my body-mind machine? How do I manage the urges, the moods, the impulses, and especially the negative emotions, the oscillations? So managing the mind and emotions is a big topic, which is first, I would say. Second is managing relationships. And if we consider the Bhagavatam, the Mahabharata, Ramayana, they are filled with relationships.
And there are a lot of principles that could be drawn. The culture is different. Some of the underlying assumptions that, by which people operate in that culture are different, but still there are universal principles.
Now, when people watch, say, people watch remakes of Shakespeare’s plays or Jane Austen’s novels, they understand that it’s a different culture, but still the principles of relating with human beings are universal. So the relationships are there. And the third is, okay, the world is such a confusing place.
What am I meant to do in this world? So what is my calling? What is my passion? What is my nature? Christians often use the word finding your shape. So God-given shape or something like that. So these are things which I have found click very, very much with people.
So these are topics which will be perennially relevant. Now, beyond that, there could be something which is contextually relevant. If some issue has happened in the current affairs, and that we would like to comment on that.
But that’s different. But these are issues, my understanding is, when you speak on these, it connects with people a lot. When you research for your talks, what’s your modus operandus? Do you just start out with a search term? Do you do database? Do you do Google? Do you also have an access to Vaishnav commentators? Do you do statistics? Do you try to prove the ancient axioms with modern statistical evidence? Do you tell stories? When you’re starting a talk from scratch, let’s say, what are the number one, number two, number three, and number four things that you do? Okay.
Well, I wish I were that organised. Somehow, my classes are organised, but I’m not very organised about organising my classes. For the rest of us that aren’t as brilliant as you are.
What would you do if you put yourselves in our shoes? No, not like that. I could say that I have become more lazy over the years. I can see that my memory and my intelligence, what it was at 35, is not the same as 45.
So I am recognising that I need to become more organised in organising my thoughts. I know that you often illustrate your talks with PowerPoints, and that in itself requires organisational time. That is true.
That’s one thing I started with. There are many points that you mentioned which could be used. There are some things which I relate with a lot, and some things I don’t relate with too much.
The statistics, I personally am not particularly fascinated by statistics somehow, because I feel that… I studied statistics in my college, and I have several friends who are statisticians, and statistics can be used to tell whatever story you want to tell. So in that sense, it’s not to minimise statistics in any way, or not to minimise the profane of statistics. But what happens is that generally, if you’re going to quote some statistics, we have to give some broader context in which the statistics have been quoted, and that takes a good amount of time.
So a lot of people are depressed today. A lot of people have addictions. There are a lot of people who have a family breakdown.
I don’t think we need statistics to establish this point. That’s something which is reasonably well accepted. But statistics can be a very powerful tool, initially, to drive home the importance of a topic, if people don’t consider the topic to be important, at the sheer scale of the problem.
So in that sense, it could be very relevant. Personally, I don’t use it much, but it could be very relevant. So I find three things which I use a lot.
One is quotes, second is visuals, and third is metaphors. So since my childhood, one of my hobbies was just reading a lot of quotes by different authors. And then, and then trying to memorise them.
And there was a saying in writing, that the best writers are the best robbers. If you steal from one person, that is plagiarism. If you steal from 100 people, that is creativity.
So many times, I find that if I talk about the hierarchies, wisdom and goodness, spiritual wisdom and bhakti wisdom, so there are many, many thinkers across the world’s traditions, who have given very good wisdom at the at the goodness level, at least sattvic wisdom, we can say, sometimes some spiritual wisdom also rarely bhakti wisdom, but they have given and either using their quotes, or, you know, taking their quotes as launching pads for, for rephrasing and rewording and conveying the bhakti, our tradition’s truths. So quotes, I find are quite powerful. So now we often use scriptural quotes and quotes from our acharyas.
Now, there are two things. There is one is giving authenticity to our teachings. And the second is giving appeal to our teachings.
So quoting from our tradition will bring authenticity. But using quotes from contemporary authorities, or people who are respected in the contemporary world, or just quotes that give wisdom in a memorable way, that brings appeal for the audience. So in that sense, if you’re looking at a diverse audience, I would say using quotes from contemporary sources is very helpful.
It connects with people. And we don’t have to emphasise the sources too much. I quote Mark Twain or something like that, and they made some points that they’re helpful.
So that’s the first thing, quotes I use. And over the years, I’ve prepared a database. And nowadays, quotes are quite popular to share on social media.
So many people also prepare, many websites are there with quotes like that. Tell us just a bit about your database, how you have it indexed so you can match, you’re putting together a talk on say, how not to complain. And so how do you find the quotes that are going to be relevant for that talk in your database? Okay, so that is tough.
I was hoping to organise something now. So on my website, Gita Daily, where I have created a structure, and I’m trying to use that structure in my quotes also. So I have nourish yourself, nourish your relationships and nourish your devotion.
Nourish yourself, nourish your relationships and nourish your devotion. Yeah. Those are the three broad categories under which you put the quotes.
Yes, I put my quotes and even my analogies also, which I’ll talk about metaphors later. But those are the three broad categories. And then nourish yourself, there could be many things, resisting temptation, dealing with adversities, becoming more mindful.
Those are topics, those are actually search topics in your database, right? Yes. So it’s like, I’ve been trying out different softwares. So I’ve tried Evernote, OneNote, the software which you can make a notebook and you can have sections of the notebooks, and then sections, you can have pages within them.
So nowadays, through digital searching has become relatively easier. So that is the current situation. So that’s with respect to quotes.
That’s what I use quite a bit by Krishnaswamy and I find that that does create some impact. Now, you want to comment on this? I’ve seen that you also use a lot of, in your talks, there are, what is the word you use? Pithy. Something that stimulates people every two, three minutes.
Some rhyming words, is it the word sticky words or something like that? P-I-T-H-Y, pithy, pithy phrases. Pithy phrases, yeah. It seems like every successful preacher has a lot of those, like, make your mess a message, turn your test into a testimony.
A famous one that I’ve heard you talk about is material science studies matter, spiritual science studies what matters. Seems like every successful preacher has a whole catalogue of those. Yeah, that is true, definitely.
One of the things I say is that we may have to live with pain, but we don’t have to live in pain. What, it doesn’t happen to you, it happens for you. That’s beautiful, yeah.
What is it, suffering is, suffering, what is it, pain is mandatory, suffering is optional. Yes, true. Where do you, where, how does one, you know, like, again, I’m putting, I’m thinking of a young preacher, someone who wants to cut his teeth on some Sunday classes and make a difference.
Is there a, is there any way to, again, do you have a database of pithy phrases, catalogued and indexed as well, or is it just kind of in your mind after a lifetime of preaching? Okay, so, actually, when I, currently I write on the Gita every day at GitaDaily.com, so every article almost, either the title or the summary is something like a quote. So in that sense, the GitaDaily.com itself is a resource which I have, I can just, if I may, I’ll just share my screen and show it to you quickly. And can anyone subscribe to that just by Googling Gita Daily? Oh, yes, GitaDaily.com, certainly they can subscribe.
So, there are, yeah, here there is, so. I get your Gita Daily every day in my inbox. Oh, okay, so this is the way it is here.
For example, if I go date-wise, chapter-wise, let’s look at, some of the quotable quotes are, there are quotes like, to be awake is to be aware of our wake. That’s a quote over here. So how our actions are impacting the world, impacting those around us.
That’s a, this is chapter seven-wise. So now, our mind is influential, but it is also influential. And this is meant to help us look up at the world, not look up at Krishna, not look down at the world.
So, our attachments are like a rented house that we don’t usually leave unless we are evicted. So, each of these is, either the title itself is the quote, or if we click on this, then we can go there and then there will be a quote in that. So, that’s available to the public, that whole index? Everyone can use that, yes.
Excellent. And that’s on your website? You can access it through your website, Spiritual Scientist? Yes. I think this would be an amazing resource for young preachers.
Yeah, if we are grateful when ability manifests through us, we can be graceful when it doesn’t. So, things like that. So, I think this is a resource.
Now, I plan to put all these separately as quotes on other websites. I have three websites. The Spiritual Scientist is my first website, where mostly my audio and classes are there.
Second is the Gita Daily, where a lot of quotes like this can be found. And then I have another website, my name, Chaitanya Charan. So, there it’s not a very active website, but there I’m trying to put all these quotes.
Under Chaitanya Charan? Chaitanyacharan.com Okay, I’m there. I’m there so fast. Okay, thank you.
So, that is with respect to quotes. And if I may, how do you, can I turn this question around? Because I would also like to learn from you. How do you come up with these sentences? You also read extensively and find them out? I have a lot in my head.
But I also subscribe to some Christian sermon resources. One’s called eSermons, and one’s called Sermon Central. They’re each $99 a year.
And they provide a whole database of Christian sermons, so that you can search by any individual topic. You can search by humour. You can search by illustrations.
But what I like to do is, I just like to search by sermons. And then you go through the sermon, and the word that you’ve searched for is highlighted. And if there’s any stories or any phrases that go with that, then of course, all that’s there as well.
So, that saves me going through the internet in general, because this is all separated out from Google in general. And it’s specifically a resource for preachers to find stories and illustrations and pithy phrases and all. That saves me a lot of time.
It would be amazing if we had a database of ISKCON preachers also, that categorised all of our talks and sorted out searchable stories, searchable phrases and all. It’s a huge job, but it would certainly be a wonderful resource for preachers. Yeah, I agree fully, yes.
With respect to this one point, I am amazed by the level of organisation that Christians do with respect to the content, with respect to the content preparation, content accessibility. And there’s a lot that we could learn. Since Prabhupada said that organisation and intelligence, our movement will spread.
So, organising… Let me just say one word too. I know there’s a certain hardcore level of devotees that would raise an objection, sometimes a very, very rancorous rejection to quoting mediators, to quoting non-devotees, to quoting karmis, to quoting Christians and all. But our emphasis in trying to up our relevance quota in America is on tools, that’s all.
We’re looking for tools that will help us be more effective. If a Christian hands you the wrench that you need, a Muslim hands you the wrench that you need, a mediator hands you the wrench that you need that’s going to help you do the work that you need done, then why would you quibble over about where it’s coming from? The point is, it’s going to work. And so, do you find that that kind of approach helps you not be too sensitive to criticism from certain quarters? Yes, one of my favourite traditional metaphors for this is that when Lord Ram and his Vanaras, his monkey soldiers were trying to build a bridge across the ocean to go from the Indian subcontinent to Lanka, at that time they didn’t think that we have to get rocks only from our kingdom, that we have to go to Ayodhya and the bridge has to be built with the rocks only from Ayodhya.
No, from wherever the rocks are available, use the rocks. The means are not as important as the purpose. The purpose was to actually reach Sita and rescue Sita.
So, I feel that we have to be very, very careful about the ultimate message, the ultimate direction in which our message is pointing. But to point the message in that direction, as I said, the tools that we use, the means that we use, can and not only can be, but need to be circumstantial. So, it’s like if you’re going to build a temple in America, we don’t have to get the rocks and the bricks and the cement from India to build a temple.
The point is that even the architecture might be somewhat similar to, might not be exactly Indian, but who is at the sanctum sanctorum in the temple, that is the important thing. So, like that, my understanding is that if we are building a coherent message and it is pointing towards a core conclusion or a core point that is in consonance with our tradition, that is key to our tradition, then how we build up that point, that is up to each person. And some devotees may prefer to build that point with only traditional sources, but traditional sources from our own tradition.
Some may build it by using contemporary sources. But I feel that more than the particular sources for the particular points that we are making, we have to focus on how that point is leading to the central argument, concluding the central argument and what that central argument is. So, I don’t feel that using different tools to achieve the same result is compromising or minimising our philosophy or going against Prabhupada’s mood.
As long as what you have in the circle, as long as what you have when people get in is Krishna, chanting Hare Krishna, offering your food associated with devotees, there’s a difference between opening a different door to give people access to your inner circle and changing what’s in the inner circle. And I think critics within our devotional community often make this mistake, that because you’re opening a different door, they think that you only have to come in through one door to get to the inner circle. But it seems to me that successful preaching and relevance means that you’re going to create multiple doors based on multiple audiences and multiple interests.
That’s not the same thing as compromising what’s inside the door. Am I right or wrong? That’s beautifully put. If you don’t have multiple doors, some doors may just not be relevant, may not be accessible or appealing to some people.
So, yes, beautiful example. So what we are saying is that the now, for example, Prabhupada addressed the counterculture and then he also adopted some of the like the idea of a love feast or stay high forever. These are all countercultural terms that became prominent.
It’s interesting that Prabhupada actually even came up with the word ISKCON in America. In India, at those days, the word consciousness was not very common. Krishna was common, but consciousness has now become well-known in India.
So my understanding is that Krishna consciousness, that phrase, Prabhupada actually coined it in America. I haven’t seen it anywhere written in Prabhupada’s writing, in Prabhupada’s Back to Godhead before 1944. I haven’t seen that over there.
The counterculture was obsessed with the idea of consciousness. Yes. So Prabhupada himself has set the example in the very name of the organisation that he started, so of being relevant.
Some Latin American communities, they like dance, they like colour. Some other African communities, you know, based on what their conditioning is and what they’re familiar with, you might have to create another type of a door for them, another door for people who live in Europe and different European countries. It seems to me that when you fish, for instance, you don’t put on the end of the hook what you like, but you put on the end of the hook what the fish likes.
Oh, God. When you put it that way, it’s not just common sense, it’s lack of it is a shocking level of lack of common sense. Just, yeah, true.
You know, we have to put, some people insist we put on the hook the same thing we put on the hook in 1970, and it’s going to work in 2022, 52 years later. Well, that doesn’t necessarily follow. True.
I mean, we’re trying to get everyone to the same place. We all share the same. Now, this is a great point that you talked about with Radhika Ramana in Faith and Reason.
What doesn’t change in Krishna consciousness is the practises, the chanting of the rounds, the taking of prasad of the association of devotees. Those are the core elements of Krishna consciousness. But how you bring them to that can be multiple, multiple ways, depending on the audience.
To preach without considering the audience is like fishing without considering the fish. Would you agree with me? You would fully put fishing without considering the fish. In some ways, the metaphor of fishing might seem a little, what in the world are people like fish and we are baiting them.
But I think that you’re talking from a Christian perspective that be a fisherman of men or something like that. Jesus also says that. But the point is well taken that if you want to, it’s almost like if you want to reach people today and somebody is making, say, if you consider somebody making movies today and they make movies of the kind which were made in the 1970s.
Well, there are some demographic who are filled with nostalgia and they like them, but most people will not. So, yeah, we don’t have practise. Yeah, go ahead.
So just there are these three modes, goodness, passion, ignorance. So it’s almost like our attitude toward change is shaped by these three modes. So if you are in ignorance, we just let us, we feel we are helpless that we underestimate our capacity, just let ourselves get swept away by the change.
If we are in passion, we overestimate our capacities and we try to deny or prevent the change. So so we could say in ignorance, there is compliance, compliance. We just become compliant to whatever changes there.
In passion, we define ourselves by resistance to change. But you could say in goodness, there is resilience amid change. OK, there are certain things I’ll have to change with those things.
There are certain things I’ll not change with. So to some extent, while we may talk about a message of transcendence, our approach might be like throwing the same fish again and again. It’s it’s a rig of passion that we are trying to control the world and deny the change.
But Krishna says, I am time and time is a primary change of change factor. So it’s almost like our own tradition tells us to see Krishna in the times that we are in. The changes that are brought by time are are not just mundane changes.
We understand that Krishna is acting through those changes. So in one sense, understanding the times is not just being contemporary, it is being conscious of Krishna as time. And we may be conscious of Krishna as the holy name, conscious of Krishna as deities.
But are we conscious of Krishna as not just time in the sense that minutes of my life are passing, but Krishna as time in the sense that he is the agent ultimately who is bringing about a change in the world. And OK, what kind of changes have been brought about now by Krishna’s agency of change? And what what doors has it closed for me to share Krishna and what doors has it opened for me to share Krishna? So that that attitude, when I present Krishna as time, then, you know, it changes the framework. Then it’s not just adapting Krishna’s message to the world.
Rather, it’s like attuning ourselves to Krishna in the world. It’s a different thing. Wow.
I’m going to just edit that part out and have it as a standalone morsel in the irrelevant series of shows. That was just so wonderful what you just said. Thank you.
Prabhu, I’ve taken a lot of your time, but I just want to conclude in an area that’s very important. Would you agree with me that you hardly can give a relevant talk without including stories? And I find in my experience stories are of four types. There are stories from the scriptures, from Srimad Bhagavatam, Mahabharata, Ramayana, Caitanya, Chaturmita.
There are stories from my own personal experience, times that I’ve realised the truths of Krishna consciousness or even felt Krishna in my own life. And then there are stories that are not ISKCON-generated stories, that are not scriptural stories, but there are stories of contemporary people who achieved a dream, who achieved a dream through relying upon a sense of God consciousness. I actually forget right now what the fourth type of story is.
Oh, other scriptures like biblical stories and all. So first of all, would you agree with me that without at least one story, a half an hour talk is not going to be nearly as compelling? Would you go further to say that there should be more than one story in a talk? Would you specifically say, do you consciously try to have, say within a half an hour’s time, X number of stories? And how do you value these different categories of stories according to their effectiveness? Yes, so stories are very important. Somehow I am poor at telling stories.
I love metaphors and metaphors and comparisons, which involve some brief anecdotes. But whenever I have told stories, they’re really very helpful. And I love this classification, which you have made.
So now certainly scriptural stories are there and I have found that if we present them appropriately, then there are a lot of people who are interested in stories, but they may not accept the stories as ultimate realities. They may not see the stories as the way we see them, but see the stories as something interesting happening and learning something from it. People are quite open to even scriptural stories presented appropriately.
Then the most powerful I find is in terms of establishing. There is, within the tradition, we focus on establishing our authority that I’m quoting from scripture. But for most people today, authority is not as important as authenticity.
And authenticity often comes by telling our stories. And you know, OK, how did this principle work in my life? Or how did I realise this? How did I come to with the conviction that I have? I have a conviction that I have right now. So those are the kind of stories that I’m trying to add more and more.
And I’m finding that journaling helps me a lot. So I have taken some seminars on journaling also. I have a course on journaling.
But when I journal, whenever I’m journaling regularly, naturally in my classes, my incidents from my life, from my observations, from my pre-devotional life, they come and they add a lot of they bring authenticity to the message. So scriptural stories are wonderful. But our own stories, now there is a danger over here that we may get caught in telling our own stories.
And we may tell the story very entertainingly, but then the point from the story may not be that powerfully told. So that is one of the challenges in telling the story. People remember the story and they forget the point of the story.
So now if this is where I feel scriptural stories are safer because people remember the story they connect with Krishna and that sense. But if you are going to tell other stories, then yeah, tell the story, but make sure that the point is adequately emphasised. So that’s one precaution.
And I’m quite open to taking stories from various sources. So if I understand right, what do you think is from our tradition, maybe from our experience, from other traditions, and we could say from the contemporary world, contemporary success stories or contemporary inspirational motivational inspirational stories and a lot of values. So in one sense, in our own tradition, there is that example of the honeybee who goes to various flowers and takes nectar from those flowers.
So Chanakya Pandit also says, accept gold even from a filthy place. So yes, I feel that we can draw from various places. Now I’m looking in the sense, do you have any resources where you get your stories from? My own life.
It’s amazing how many times when I’m preparing a talk, and it usually comes towards the end, it usually doesn’t come right in the beginning. What I like to do is illustrate the point from scripture, and then I like to give the seed of the scriptural story within the first one third of the talk, and then discourse on it in such a way that it connects with what people are going through, come back to it a second time, discourse on it, and come back to it a third time. So I think the scriptural story is more effective if you kind of break it up and explain it in a contemporary way throughout.
So it’s like a thread that goes throughout the whole talk. And then in the middle or towards the end, then I talk about how this same principle, what happened to Dhruva, what happened to Prahlad, in a very, very small, minor way happened in my own life. And I find that as I go back through the archives of lectures given over, say, 50 years, the ones that really give me goosebumps that I feel like have really gotten through are almost always the ones that I told a personal story.
Amazing. Goosebumps, that’s a beautiful way of putting it. Because what could be more relevant than saying, I’m here, this is what happened.
It works. What could be more compelling than that? Amazing, bro. That’s so beautiful, the stories.
And do you consciously contemplate your own life to come up with these stories from your life? Or that’s been something which you have been doing for a long time, so it’s almost like a default instinct for you? It triggers, it triggers. The preparation of the talk triggers the story. Recently, I was talking about generational blessings, how maybe your father or your grandfather had a dream, but some or other circumstances didn’t align in his life that he could fulfil the dream.
But then the dream took fruit in you, his son. My father had a gift for telling stories and public speaking, but he couldn’t go to college. He didn’t get the tools to be able to get the career where he could do that for a living.
He went to war. World War II happened just when he was coming of age, and he had to go into the army. Then he got married, then he got a job.
Only a few times did the preacher at our church ask dad to give a lay sermon. Maybe a half a dozen times in his life did he get the chance to actually preach. Now, when I graduated grade school, I was the valedictorian of a very small class, so dad was much more excited about me being the valedictorian than I was.
He coached me. He suggested a theme. He had me rehearse in front of a mirror, and needless to say, it was a big hit.
But dad never got more than a half a dozen chances to do public speaking in his life, although he was clearly gifted for it. But I, conservatively estimating, have been able to speak publicly in Krishna consciousness, what to speak of the radio and so on, over 10,000 times. So that dream, which was in my father’s heart, passed down and took birth in me, and wherever my father is right now, I know that he would be more happy to know that I gave birth to the dream than if he had done it himself.
It’s a beautiful way of putting it. Thank you. So Krishna fulfils all desires.
That’s amazing. So it’s, this is also one important thing, which sometimes we, that what happens is that we sometimes think there’s a radical discontinuity between, between, okay, all that I learned in the past is maya, it’s illusion, and now I’m becoming Krishna conscious. But we are products of our past.
Maybe our past doesn’t, doesn’t determine the direction in which we are going, but our past does determine the overall kind of thinking that we have, the body-mind-machine that we have, which we’ll be using. When you were seven, Krishna was preparing you for where you are now. When you were 15, Krishna was preparing you.
We didn’t see it at the time, we may not have been aware of it in the interim period, but so often when we’re putting together these lectures, bingo, it comes out, out of your, your distant past, and you put, you connect it, and you see that Krishna, even, even in my father, even before I was born, Krishna was preparing, and it fits very much with what you’re saying about seeing Krishna in time. For him, past, present, and future are like a fruit that he holds in his hand. Beautiful, a flute.
Is it a flute with past, present, and future? Fruit, fruit. Fruit, okay, okay. A fruit, a phal, a fruit.
Fruit, okay, that’s beautiful. Yes, so Krishna, one of the things which I often, you know, when we took off appreciating people, maybe we could conclude with this. I have slowly started recognising that there are two aspects of Krishna consciousness.
This is something which, in one sense, in the Christian tradition, they focus a lot on how God loves you. In our tradition, we focus a lot on how we are meant to love God. And you have to show your love by this, waking up in the morning, by doing this, doing this, not doing this.
So, now, both are important in the relationship. But what happens is, we can say there are two aspects of Krishna consciousness when we are approaching people. You know, what they are doing in relationship with Krishna.
You say, oh, this person doesn’t come to a temple, doesn’t even follow the, follow basic principles of morality or whatever. So that is one way, and that is the way we look at normally. But another way of looking at it is, okay, what is Krishna doing in this person’s life? And that really expands the universe of Krishna consciousness.
Because then we just see beyond, okay, this person is eating this kind of food or is having this kind of particular habits and this and that. We see, okay, the very fact that this person has come to a place where they’re coming to a temple or coming to a Sunday programme, they’re interacting with the Lord. Krishna has done something in that person’s life because of which this person is here right now.
So, when we look at it from that perspective, it just opens up a huge new dynamic for Krishna consciousness. This reminds me of, After Yudhishthira was made the king, he was questioning everything that had brought him and Bhisma said, you know, if you don’t accept this, if you don’t embrace this wholeheartedly, you’re basically an atheist. So, Krishna worked from within the heart of people to bring them along to the Sunday feast.
Krishna did 99% of the work to get that person after millions and millions of lifetimes to make the choice to come to the Sunday feast and check out the Hare Krishnas. Now, if you don’t do your level best, if you don’t take what Krishna has done and you don’t seize that opportunity by preparing your talk and tailoring it for that particular person and recognising what Krishna has done in their life, then what Bhisma said to Yudhishthira could apply to you, that you don’t believe in God. That’s very sobering, Krishna.
Amazing. Prabhu, I can’t tell you how happy I am. You know, what often happens is we start with notes, you know, we premeditate, we try to figure what’s going to be the subject matter of the talk.
But so often, especially with someone as realised and as brilliant as you are, there are many, many other points which are turned out of that discussion. So I can’t wait to listen to this a third or fourth or a fifth time. I intend to break it up into chewable, digestible little tidbits of which there are many.
This to me is like a gold mine, okay? So it’s not over because I think it’s going to reactivate, reappear in the minds and careers and ambitions of many, many generations of future preachers to come. And I know even as myself, I’ve done a lot of preaching, but I’ve learned so much from you this afternoon that I can’t tell you how grateful I am that you took the time out of your busy schedule to join us and benefit us with your vast knowledge and realisations. Thank you, Prabhuji.
Thank you, Prabhu. I’m grateful to be of service and I see your kind words as your blessings and Prabhupada’s blessings. I can continue my small service.
Thank you, Prabhu. I look forward to having your association again in future. Let us offer our respectful obeisances to all the Vaishnava devotees of the Lord who are just like desire-truths who can fulfil the desires of everyone and are full of compassion on the