Making our outreach relevant

Srimad-Bhagavatam class on 10.84.37-40 at ISKCON, Chowpatty, Mumbai

Transcript

This is an AI-generated transcript and may contain some errors.
Hare Krishna.
So today morning we’re discussing Srimad Bhagavatam in one of its trans chronological chapters. That means this chapter is not in a section of Bhagavatam where things are going on chronologically. This is actually an incident which has happened quite early on in Krishna’s life.
This is an incident which has happened before the Kurukshetra war, before the Pandava’s exile. And although this comes towards the end of the Bhagavatam’s 10th canto, but it has happened much earlier. And Jiva Goswami explains that actually the Bhagavatam is spoken out of spurti, spontaneous recollection.
And that is why whichever pastime, especially as Shukadeva Goswami advances deeper into the 10th canto, he doesn’t stick to a chronology, but he, however his heart directs, he starts recollecting Krishna’s pastimes and narrating them to Parikshit Maharaj. And the Acharya has also explained that this is the section which Arjuna refers to in the Bhagavad Gita, when after reiterating Krishna’s instructions, 10.8 to 11, is Chatur Shloki Bhagavad Gita. Then in 10.12 and 13, Arjuna confirms Krishna’s instructions.
And then he says, 10.12 So he says, what you have said, all these sages have also said. And actually the Acharya explained that this is the occasion when Arjuna has heard all these sages speak about Krishna’s supremacy. Of course, Arjuna also heard about this again in the forest, when they were there at that time, Narada Muni came to meet them, Markandeya Rishi came to meet them.
But this is a specific incident that the Acharya has referred to. So, he has heard Krishna’s supremacy being talked about by the sages over here. Now in this particular section, the exact name of the sages are not referred to.
This is a typical style of the Bhagavatam when it is speaking. If there is a collective group which is speaking, and if one particular member within that group is speaking, if that member is not specially significant in that context, then the Bhagavatam simply uses the collective. So, for example, in the Gopi Gita, it simply uses Gopi Ha Uchhu.
Or in the 6th Canto Ajamil section, it is Yamduta Ha Uchhu or Vishnu Duta Ha Uchhu, which among the particular Yamduta or which among the particular Vishnu Duta is mentioned, that is not mentioned. So, if a person is representing a group and speaking on behalf of that group, then the specific person is sometimes not highlighted in the Bhagavatam. And it is just on behalf of the, it is a collective address that is given.
So, the sages are speaking here to Vasudev primarily. Now, there are many illustrious kings over there. Vasudev is prominent among them.
Not because primarily because he is a great martial Kshatriya, but primarily because he is the father of Krishna. And moreover, he is the person who has first approached the sages over here among the various kings. And all the other kings are also there.
And here it is said, Achyuta Ramayo, that Achyuta and Rama are also present while these instructions are being given. So, the usual theme in the Bhagavatam or for that matter, even in the Ramayana and the Mahabharata, that whenever any people meet sages, especially the householders meet the sages, they seek philosophical instructions. And quite often we see that it is not just philosophical instructions.
It is philosophy meant to guide people about how we should live in this world. How we should we live so that we can ultimately attain life’s success. And life’s success is disentanglement from material existence, liberation ultimately.
So, the theme of receiving instructions or receiving guidance from those who are expert in a particular field, it pervades all human circles. If a cricketer, if a young cricketer is aspiring to become a good cricketer, if he meets a famous cricket coach or if he meets a famous cricketer, he will look for some advice. Now, when it comes to living in general, now there are specific fields where we will go to specific experts to learn from them.
But when it comes to living in general, then at that time whom do we go to? That depends on what is our definition of a successful life. So, if whom will we go to for guidance, those who we think are successful in some way and therefore they have some adhikar, some authority to guide us. So, when there is an overall cultural understanding that this life is temporary and the purpose and perfection of life is to become detached from this world, then those sages who are detached from the world, be they renunciates or be they householders.
There are many sages who are householders also, but they live in simple hermitages in the outskirts of the forest. So, they, those who have in that sense detached themselves from the world for the purpose of cultivating spiritual knowledge, they are considered to be successful. While describing the 20 items of knowledge in the Bhagavad Gita from 13.8 to 12, the last two items Krishna states is So, he says There can be many different kinds of knowledge and all these forms of knowledge have their value, but the only form of knowledge that will have lasting value is spiritual knowledge.
Now if somebody learns physics or mathematics, that knowledge usually is not carried over to a future life. Sometimes if some people are prodigious in some fields, see the knowledge that we learn, we have a gross body, we have a subtle body and we are ourselves the soul. So, the knowledge that we learn, that is primarily the learned knowledge is stored in the brain.
But when something, when something, one is very attached to it or very interested in it, very absorbed in it, then some impressions of that knowledge percolate down into the subtle body also. And in some exceptional cases, even the material knowledge that a person has learned can go on to a next body. Not necessarily that when a baby comes out of mother’s womb, that baby will be speaking mathematics or physics or anything like that, but that if the impressions are there very deeply in the subtle body, then in the next life, the child learns it much faster.
And that’s how we have what is called as childhood prodigies. Childhood prodigies are people who are phenomenally learned in particular fields. Not just phenomenally learned, they have phenomenal learning capacity.
They are precocious. At the age of 5, a maths prodigy may be able to learn things which even 15-year-old or 20-year-old children have difficulty in understanding. So, sometimes even some material knowledge may be carried over from one life to another life to the extent the impressions of that material knowledge are stored in the subtle body.
Most of the knowledge that we learn, if it is simply information, general knowledge, then that does not get stored in the subtle body. That is just something which is there in the brain, it comes and it goes. So, but spiritual knowledge, so we have the gross body, subtle body and the soul.
Spiritual knowledge is knowledge connected with the soul. And because it is knowledge connected with the soul, our knowledge is actually very situational. Situational means that say if we had been in some place in our childhood, maybe in the vacations we would go to some relative’s place, now we may have some memories of that place.
But if we go to that place, many more memories come to us because the stimuli from there come to us when we are at that place. So, when we talk about material knowledge, when the soul goes from one body to another body, quite often the stimuli change radically. And even if the impressions are there in the subtle body, still if there is no stimuli to arouse those impressions, then they stay lost.
Now, with respect to spiritual knowledge, that knowledge is about the soul. And that is why the knowledge stays at a sustained level because we are ourselves the souls. And when the right stimuli come, so what practise one has done in the past, riyate, riyate means forcefully attracted, helplessly, person just cannot stop, the person has to go towards that kind of spiritual culture, spiritual knowledge, spiritual practise.
The word avasya is very significant because those impressions, they just pull us towards Krishna, pull us towards transcendence. So, the point which I am making over here is that adhyatma gyan ketham. Other gyan can also go on in a fragmental way from one life to another, but spiritual knowledge goes from one life to another.
When we say spiritual knowledge goes, it is not that the literal facts go from one life to another. Now, when it is said about Gajendra, said what he had done, what he had remembered in his previous life, he started speaking that again. Now, again, in this case, it was not that in a previous life, Gajendra had memorised all those verses.
And then he spoke these verses. Because if we look at the content of the verses, the content is very clear that he is talking about his pasha. He is talking about how a crocodile has caught him.
So, it is not that he memorised the verses, the verses came back. But the principles that he internalised, they were there within him and they came out and that time he gave appropriate expression to them according to his this lifetime situation. So, the spiritual knowledge is eternal.
And that is why tattva gyan artha darshanam. Artha darshanam, darshanam is philosophy. So, what should one search for? Tattva gyan, that which is philosophical knowledge of the truth.
One of the great tragedies of philosophy in today’s world, especially in what is called the postmodern world, if you look at the academic branch study of philosophy, it is a serious field of study. But unfortunately, there is so much relativity. Okay, this is this person’s philosophy, this is this person’s philosophy, this is this person’s philosophy.
So, and there is no, there is almost an assumption that there cannot be any conclusive philosophy. So, because of that assumption, there is what is called as metaphysical relativism. Okay, this is your philosophy, this is your philosophy, this is your philosophy, and that is all.
So, there is, even in philosophy departments, there is very little search for tattva gyan. So, philosophy often gets into the philosophy of language, how words have different meanings in different contexts, or philosophy of symbols, and the ultimate search for reality, that is not being done. So, Krishna says that it is such knowledge that is lasting.
And in a society, where it is understood that this world is temporary, and there is some world beyond that, this world, which we are meant to attain, then those who are pursuing that world, they are considered successful. And when they are considered successful, then people are ready to hear from them. Because you have tread a path which we also have to tread, maybe not in this lifetime, maybe in a future lifetime, or maybe in a later phase in this lifetime, or maybe somewhat partially at this stage in my life.
But without that understanding, that those who are renounced, they are, those who have detached themselves from the world, whether they are in the renounced order or not, but those who are pursuing a higher goal in their life, unless a society considers them to be successful in some way, which depends on the society’s definition of success. Without that, the whatever instruction the sages may give, that will fall on blind ears. Because if somebody does not have an authority to speak, or is not considered authoritative in the eyes of the audience, then before giving knowledge, one has to establish one’s authority.
And without establishing one’s authority, if we start giving knowledge, then that simply becomes a debate. Without establishing authority, when there is an attempt to transfer knowledge, then what results is simply a debate. Now, even while sharing spiritual knowledge, sometimes debates, there may be some arguments, there may be some debates, they may be required.
But if there is no, no foundation for deciding what authority is there for debating, then the debates will often end up inconclusive. And that is why if we today, we live in a culture which is significantly different from traditional culture that was there in India. And that’s why when we try to share spiritual knowledge, quite often the big assignment is to establish the authority of the preacher so that the preacher can share knowledge.
So, there are some people who are already pious, who are already spiritually inclined. And in those people, they already have some faith in spirituality. And therefore, those who are serious spiritual seekers or spiritual teachers, they will have some respect for them.
And sharing spiritual knowledge with them, with such people is more of these people have their natural piety. But they have some misconceptions, that is obstructing them in acting on their natural piety. So, they have natural piety, but because of certain misconceptions, they are not acting on it.
They may think of course, spirituality life is escapism, spiritual life is for, you know, maybe in old age, it is to be practised. Or maybe all spiritual nowadays with movies propagating the dark side of religion. Oh, these are all religious teachers are all exploiters or whatever people have certain misconceptions, because of which they don’t practise.
So, our teaching is largely a removal of misconceptions. And to the extent we remove misconceptions, to that extent, people start acting on their natural piety, and they start practising spirituality. Last few years, by Krishna’s mercy and Vaishnava’s instruction, I have been going abroad to Australia and America.
And when I interact with the college students, especially, the biggest difference I noted, there may be many, but what struck me was, in India, basically, our preaching means removing obstacles to faith in people. But when we go to a Western audience, it is we have to create faith. It is there, here people have faith, but there are obstacles to them on acting on their faith.
We remove the obstacles, people will start acting. But in the West, it is more like we have to create faith from the scratch. Now, it’s not that people in the West are completely faithless.
Now, everywhere in the world, there are people in goodness, passion and ignorance. But even if people are pious, even if people are somewhat spiritually inclined, quite often, their piety or their spiritual inclinations, they don’t necessarily make them receptive to devotional spirituality. That doesn’t make them receptive to devotional spirituality.
Broadly speaking, the people who are in goodness, I’m talking about the West, and then I’ll come to Westernised India. And the theme which I’m taking over here is that, you know, the preachers need to present in a way that the philosophy that is being presented is intelligible to the audience. And that depends on what the audience definition of success is.
So, in the West, people who are spiritually inclined are broadly of two kinds. One is those who have been brought up in a Christian background. And those, they are some, they are pious, they are spiritually inclined.
But quite often, their piety and their spirituality may make them open to faith in God and to love of God. But they are very hostile to deity worship. Because their idea is that to make an image of God is to violate one of the 10th commandments.
And that’s why it’s difficult for them. And there are another kind of spiritual people who are all in the yoga group. Those who are interested in Eastern spirituality in general.
And those who are interested in Eastern spirituality, they are more interested in the concept of oneness, in the concept of merging. And because of this, when overtly devotional things are presented to them, they have the idea that, okay, this is good, but this is for less inclined people. The spiritual, the oneness is higher.
And bhakti is accepted as a path, but it’s considered to be for lower people. And that’s why quite often, preaching there means building the faith from scratch. And that’s a huge task.
Now, India is in a very curious stage. According to some surveys, the most religious countries in the world, now there are different ways in which, how do we measure which is the country which is most religious. But based on different surveys that have been done, they said that the most religious countries in India, in the world are actually America, India, and Saudi Arabia.
So, America, we may have an idea of material, America is a very materialistic country. But actually, in the whole Western world, America is the most religious country. Europe is largely atheistic.
Europe is not just atheistic, but much of it is aggressively atheistic. So, America has a significant, what is called the Bible Belt, where people are very religious. But in America, their conception of religion is what is called as prosperity theology.
Prosperity theology is something similar to Karmakand in our tradition. So, prosperity theology is the idea that by being devoted to God, you will become materially prosperous. So, it’s a theology of prosperity.
And this was primarily propagated by the Protestants. Christians are two main groups, Catholics and Protestants, and the Protestants were the main people who went to America. And they had the idea that if we work hard, then God will bless us with prosperity.
Now, there are, I would look at three, three steps in their logic. And then I evaluate it from the bhakti perspective. The first is that if we work hard, God will reward us with prosperity.
Second is prosperity is proof of God’s grace on us. And third is those people who are not prosperous, those who are poor, their poverty is the proof that they have not got God’s grace. So, prosperity theology.
Now, this is not, again, I’m not saying this is the doctrine of all of Christianity. Prosperity theology is one influential doctrine in Christianity. And there are many Christians who are strong critics of prosperity theology.
The Catholic Church is quite strongly opposed to prosperity theology. But many Protestants are quite aggressive about it. So, that means the very prosperity of America, or before that when Britain was prosperous, the very prosperity of Britain, they thought this is the proof of our spirituality, of our devotion and of God’s grace on us.
And those who do not have such prosperity, they do not have God’s grace. In fact, Rudyard Kipling wrote a famous song which is called The White Man’s Burden. And he said, what is the white man’s burden? He says, there are so many people in the world, in India, in Africa, they are all uncivilised.
And it is the white man’s burden to civilise all these uncivilised people. So, when what we Indians saw as the colonising machine of Britishers, when they came and conquered India and plundered India of our wealth, they saw it as a great machine of compassion. All these Indians are so uncivilised.
So, we have to go and civilise them. So, with this conception of religion, where prosperity is seen as a proof of mercy, renunciation in such a school of thought, renunciation becomes an anathema. Renunciation being something which is derided, which is cursed.
In fact, that is why among Catholics have monks, but Protestants do not have any monks, they do not have any monks, they do not have any nuns. And in fact, they say that Martin Luther, Martin Luther, not Martin Luther King, who was an African American activist, Martin Luther, who was a 16th, 17th century, he was a prominent, one of the founders of Protestantism. So, he was a monk, and then he gave up his monkhood and he married a nun.
And then he wrote one of the strongest critiques of monkhood. And based on that, no Protestants can ever dream of becoming monks. So, they say that actually not only monkhood is wrong, or becoming nuns is wrong, they say actually it is a sin against God.
Now, again, here, I am not making generalisations of all of Christianity, but I am just analysing here that what has happened is with this definition of religion, where the success of one’s religious progress is measured in terms of one’s material prosperity. And with such a worldview, when the Indian religion is observed, then it appears as if this Indian religion, what is the religion, these people are in such poverty. So, surely, they have not received any grace.
And that is why they are in such prospect is poverty. So, one of the earliest books that Shri Bhakta Siddhanta Saraswati Thakur wrote was called as Bangale Samajikta, Sociality in Bengal. And in that book, he analyses this western conception of religion and success.
And he says that the human being has two sets of faculties, the karmendriyas and the gyanendriyas. And those who are very interested in material prosperity, they think that expertise in using one’s karmendriyas, that is success. Because the idea is that, okay, you know, somebody can run an athletic, somebody can cycle, somebody can make machines, somebody can do various things materially.
So, when people are able to do a lot of things using their karmendriyas, that is what is considered to be success. And now, this again is based on this prosperity theology that is there. It is based on the idea that the arc of history is linear.
The Vedic understanding is the arc of history is circular. Arc of history circular means that in the material world, ultimately things do not change. Ultimately, things remain the same in the material world.
Some things may improve for some time, some things may go down for some time, but there is nothing new in this world. Ultimately, everybody has to grow old, get diseased and die. And we see this in the cyclicity of nature.
Our time is cyclic. Within time, every second is cyclic, every minute is cyclic, every hour is cyclic, every day is cyclic, every month is cyclic, every year is cyclic, the seasons are cyclic. And if you go to the Vedic conception of time, the yugas are cyclic.
So, we see the cyclicity of time. And in Christianity, their idea is the arc of time is linear. The arc of time is linear means that everything is progressing.
So, before Jesus, it progressed towards the coming of Jesus. And now from Jesus, it is progressing towards the second coming of Jesus, which they say will be the time of judgement. So, when the arc of history is considered to be linear, then the idea is that by the way we act in this world, we will further the arc of history.
That by working hard, by changing things, by improving things, we are furthering the arc of history. We are actually furthering God’s plan for improving things in this world. That is the idea.
And that is why when there is material improvement, there is material prosperity, that is seen as God’s grace. Now, on the other hand, when there is the cyclic conception of time, when we understand the arc of history is cyclic, then one does not get so excited about material improvements. Yes, it is not that in the Vedic culture, people did not strive for material improvements.
There is Ayurveda and there are various other fields of knowledge were also developed. But they were not considered the primary forms of knowledge. The primary knowledge that was passed on carefully by the various traditions was spiritual knowledge.
Because it is understood that in the arc of knowledge, in the arc of history is not linear, it is cyclic. So, there is nothing too much to get excited about in the material world. So, Bhaktivedanta Thakur says that for those who have this understanding, that the arc of history is cyclic, they focus, they define success, not in terms of excellence in Karmendriyas.
They define knowledge and success, progress and success in terms of expertise in the Jnanendriyas. We observe and we learn. So, rather than doing things, observe and learn.
The Upanishads broadly document three directions of the human quest for observing and learning. One is upwards, which is cosmological. The other is outward, which is sociological.
And third is inward, which is psychological. So, basically, all three, the cosmological, the sociological and the psychological. So, if we consider these three, they are broadly related with Adi Daivik, Adi Bhavatik and Adi Atmik.
So, we normally think of these three in terms of kleshas. But these three are broadly the shells within which the soul is encased. The soul is encased in the body-mind shell.
Then the soul is encased in the social shell. And the soul is encased in the natural, environmental or cosmological shell. And these three shells can become for the soul the causes of distress.
And that is why when many sacrifices are performed, at that time, it is said at the end of the sacrifice, Om Shanti Shanti Shanti. So, three times Shanti corresponds to these three shells. So, we can become Ashanta because of our body-mind.
We can become Ashanta because of our society. And we can become Ashanta because of our nature, because of nature around us. So, Shanti Shanti Shanti.
So, let all these say Adi Bhavatik klesha Shanti, Adi Atmik klesha Shanti, Adi Daivik klesha Shanti. So, the Upanishads, when they seek knowledge, they acknowledge the existence of these three shells. But through these three shells, by looking inwards, looking outwards and looking upwards, all three direct the thought towards the spiritual.
Now, upward automatically is not necessarily spiritual. Because upwards, normally people talk about it as a heaven. So, heaven is not necessarily spiritual.
The spiritual world is different. So, the Upanishads focus on observing the world around us and based on observation of the world around us, one learns how to learn about nature and learn about the world, learn about the purpose of the world and then pursue that purpose. So, the point which Bhaktisiddhanta Siddhartha Thakur makes in Bangla Samajikta is that if we try to explain the accomplishments of the sages, which are based on excellence in the Jnanendriyas, to people whose conception of excellence is in terms of Karmendriyas, then it is not going to work.
Because the two conceptions of life are themselves different. And what we need to do is change people’s conceptions. So, without changing people’s conceptions, quite often instructions, they just do not make sense.
Even if we give some spiritual wisdom, often people just give their own twist to the whole wisdom and they just do not understand. In fact, they completely misrepresent everything, misunderstand everything because there is no common foundation for discussion. And that is why philosophical education requires changing people’s basic conception of life and their conception of what is success in life.
And much of today’s, so, I was talking about the sociological situation in India. In India, on one side, there is still coming from the traditional culture, the understanding that this world is temporary and we have to renounce the world and we have to achieve something higher in the world. But along with that, in India also, through the missiological, missiological means related with missionary work, through the missiological work of the churches, in India also the idea of prosperity theology has gained very strong ground.
Now, Karmakand was already there in India. But Karmakand was slightly different from prosperity theology. Karmakand was actually one phase in a progressive journey.
So, karma, jnana and bhakti. So, it is a progressive phase that is understood. But in prosperity theology, the prosperity is itself considered the ultimate goal.
So, it is not a, it is not one stage in a progression. It is itself considered the perfection. So, with this understanding of prosperity theology, that is also percolated into in the Indian mind quite a bit.
And that is why we, that is one reason why that Indians are very religious and very materialistic. Now, we see often, if you go to Kumbh Mela or if you go to any holy places, whether they be related with gods who are described in the Vedic scriptures or some other people who are thought of as god, there are demigods and there are semi-gods. Semi-gods means, say me god.
I am god. So, whether there be some holy places associated with demigods or with semi-gods. Now, there is so much crowd quite often at these places.
So, it is that people are religious. There is no denying that. But that religion is not conceived in terms of any higher success beyond this world.
This sort of religion is a means to be successful in this world. Now, this itself is not wrong. But this is incomplete.
It is not that to become spiritually successful, we have to be materially unsuccessful. It is not like that. But the point is, we cannot equate material success with spiritual success.
The two are different. And related with that, what Bhaktisanth Sir talked about Karmendriya and Gyanendriya. Now, it is important for us, when we present spiritual knowledge, that we do not present scripture as a competitor to science.
When we present scripture as a competitor to science, we devalue scripture. We devalue scripture by presenting it as a competitor to science. Why? Because science is basically a tool, a set of some knowledge that is used to function in this world.
Now, scripture may also give us some knowledge about how to live in this world. But the primary purpose of scripture is to give us knowledge of how to go beyond this world. And even if we are moulding our life according to scripture, for functional purposes, it does not matter whether we use the material knowledge that is given in scripture or whether we use the material knowledge that is acquired through science.
It is not a monumental difference. For example, if we fall sick, Prabhupada personally preferred Ayurveda. But Prabhupada never made a campaign against allopathy.
Once or twice, especially once when he was in London and he was very sick, he had a surgery done through allopathic surgery. So, it is now Ayurveda and allopathy, they come from two very different thought systems. But both are dealing with the body and they are different.
And if we try to look at Ayurveda from the allopathic perspective, we say, what is this concept of heat in the body? Allopathy will tell us the temperature of the body, but there is no such thing as yatradhi. So now, why? Because there is in science, which is something called as the facts are derived from theory. Facts, when you say facts, facts are often derived from theory.
So, Ayurveda has a particular way of looking at the world and allopathy has a particular way of looking at the world. And whichever way functions for us, that is fine. The important thing is that we maintain our body well and we serve Krishna.
So, if somebody prefers Ayurveda, that is fine. Somebody prefers allopathy, that is fine. Somebody prefers homoeopathy, that is also fine.
It does not matter. What is important is, so, scripture is providing us primarily transcendental knowledge. It is not providing us material knowledge.
So, I was just recently talking with some of the scholars in the planetarium team, the planetarium that is being made in Mayapur. So, it is paradoxical that according to the Bhagavatam’s model of the cosmos, or at least Bhagavatam’s model as understood by the devotees now who are making that planetarium, they said that the planets float because of wind. But, to depict the planets which are supposed to float according to Vayu, they are using a structure which is made, designed using the principles of gravity as learned from physics.
So, to depict Vedic cosmology, we have to use modern science. So, to depict Vedic science, we are using modern science because we do not know what kind of architectural principles were there in the past. So, the point which I am making here is, there is knowledge which is, there is material knowledge and there is spiritual knowledge.
Material knowledge is functional. Spiritual knowledge, functional means it is used for functioning in this world. And we do not have to go either this way or that way.
We do not have to be for any particular branch of knowledge, nor against any branch of knowledge. Whatever is functionally useful, we use that and move towards spiritual growth, move towards Krishna. So, it is same with language.
Some devotees say English is a demoniac language. Well, it is, in English, demoniac things have been written. But actually speaking, if you look at, how do we decide what is the language? Is it based on who, what is it that is spoken in that language? Well, in English, spiritual things have been spoken.
Most of us learned spiritual knowledge through English. And if it is simply the content of a particular language, from the 5th century BC to 5th century AD. Now, in Sanskrit, more books propagating atheism were written than used in any other classical language, whether it is Greek or Roman or any other language at that time.
Why? Because that was the time when India was ruled by Buddhists and Jains. And they initially wrote in Pali and Prakrit. But afterwards, they wrote in Sanskrit.
So, it is not that any language itself is holy or any language itself is demoniac. Sanskrit is definitely holy, because it is originally used in their Bhasha. But we do not, Prabhupada never made a mission that everyone has to learn Sanskrit.
Ultimately, whether it is Sanskrit or English or Hindi or whatever, we have to learn about Krishna and learn to love Krishna. So, scripture is giving us knowledge about beyond the world. And for getting knowledge in this world, if we can use scripture and function effectively, fine.
If you want to use science and function effectively, that is also fine. The important thing is, we pursue the ultimate goal that is given in scripture. And that is where to get people.
So, much of our preaching when we do, it is not just to give information. It is actually to change the fundamental conception of life. So, as long as people have the conception that this world’s prosperity is the barometer of religious success, then renunciation does not make any sense.
But when one understands that this world, whether we are prosperous or not, what is important is to succeed in going beyond this world. Then the whole philosophy of Krishna consciousness starts not just making sense, but it starts making supreme sense. I will conclude with one last point that people say that, oh, you know, this ritual does not make sense.
You know, there are often movies, which nowadays, which depict, you know, this ritual, it does not make sense, that ritual does not make sense. These people are so foolish. They believe in these blind rituals.
Okay, from your worldview, these rituals may not make sense. But then if we move forward with the materialistic worldview, then nothing makes sense. Ultimately, we all grow old, get deceased and die.
And many of us die without even growing old and getting deceased. So, what is the point of life? Now, we are just living and we are going along the road, one day a bomb explodes, and there are 1000 people who are dead. So, materialism reduces the whole of life to meaninglessness.
Within that you may say, oh, I have got a nice family, I have got a nice career, I have got this degree, all that is like what somebody is drowning in an ocean of meaninglessness. And then they find some small small rocks. So, materialism basically reduces us to looking for small islets of meaning while drowning in an ocean of meaninglessness.
Whole of life is meaningless. But within that, you know, this equation makes great sense. This movie was very good.
You know, I achieved this, I achieved that. Ultimately, life becomes meaningless. So, if we consider this life to be the barometer of success, then death and destruction that come at the end of this life, they make all of life meaningless, ultimately.
But only when we understand life as having a purpose of taking us beyond this life, then we understand that this life is like a preparation, this universe is like a university. And the lesson that we learn from this university is not that we seek material prosperity, and not that we seek material adversity, but rather that we seek spiritual connectivity, that we connect ourselves with Krishna and we strive to serve Krishna. And while serving Krishna, if we get material prosperity, that is wonderful.
If we do not get material prosperity, it is not so consequential. We will move onwards steadily towards Krishna. And that instruction is what the sages give to Vasudeva over here.
When they explain that one has to perform work in this world, but the best way to perform work is to do it in a mood of service to Vishnu. And that is what Srila Prabhupada has given us in the contemporary Bhakti Yoga tradition, wherein whatever we are doing, we do it for the service of Krishna. So, I will summarise.
I started by talking about how whenever any knowledge is to be given, the recipient of that knowledge need to have some respect for the givers of those knowledge. And whether they have respect or not depends on their conception of success. So, in India, there was an understanding of detachment because the reality of the world beyond, that was quite prominent in people’s psyche.
And that is why people, when they would meet sages, who had focused on pursuing the other world, people would hear from them. But in today’s world, that is quite often not the case. So, rather than just removing some obstacles for people to act on their piety, for many people in the world, they have to start cultivating their spirituality from scratch, cultivating their faith from scratch.
In that, I talked elaborately about prosperity theology, where prosperity is seen as a fruit of God’s mercy. And conversely, poverty is seen as evidence that those who are poor lack God’s mercy. And with this worldview, Bhakti Sansthakur says that, for those who are looking with karmendriya, those who think of success in terms of expertise in karmendriyas, they cannot appreciate the Vedic knowledge, which focusses on expertise in jnanendriyas.
Jnanendriyas means observe. So, observe the cosmos, observe people, observe one’s own mind and senses, adhyatmik, adhipautik, ahitayik and learn about the spiritual, learn about the ultimate purpose of life. So, if we want to present spiritual knowledge, it is not just about giving facts, it is not just making arguments, it is about changing people’s fundamental conception of life.
And that connection, science and spirituality, or rather scripture and science, are not to be seen as competitors. Scripture is giving us much higher knowledge. For functioning in this world, we may use scriptural knowledge or knowledge derived from things associated with scripture, or we may use scientific knowledge.
The two are giving us different quality of knowledge. And when we try to share Krishna consciousness, to the extent we focus on changing people’s worldviews, people’s basic conception of what is the ultimate purpose of life, by proper systematic spiritual education, then spiritual knowledge will start making sense. Otherwise, from an outsider perspective, many of the religious rituals, many of the spiritual practises, the whole idea of renunciation, all that will not make sense.
And to counter this, we can always argue that, okay, even if some specific things do not make sense within the materialistic worldview, actually in the ultimate sense, the materialistic worldview itself does not make sense. Because all that we have is just some islets of meaning in an ocean of meaninglessness. Whereas in spirituality, we get an understanding of this world and the next world in a coherent, cogent framework.
So, thank you very much. Is there any one quick question or comment? Yes, please. Thank you.
Very nice talks. You were mentioning about this theology of pastoralism. You said America, India and Saudi Arabia are the most religious countries.
According to one survey. Okay. It is not necessarily the third, yeah.
Okay. So, I was curious to know, like you explained about India very nicely. How materialism is also very high and religious thing is also very high.
And the truth is there are so many demigods and semi-gods. Very nicely you explained. And American theology also you explained, the theology of pastoralism.
I am wondering what is the theology of Saudi Arabia? Okay. So, what is the theology of Saudi Arabia? Do they also have some version of prospective theology? Yes. Actually, if we look at the life of Muhammad, in general, in India, there was this division of power between the Brahmanas and the Kshatriyas.
So, the Brahmanas had intellectual and spiritual power. The Kshatriyas had martial and political power. And whichever culture or whichever religion, whichever ideology has spread very fast, they have always had to have these two coming together.
So, Buddha, Buddhism was almost like a isolated religion till Ashoka took it up. So, that is again Brahmana and Kshatriya coming together. Similarly, Christianity was a perceived religion.
Jesus was primarily more like a Brahmana. Paul was more like a Kshatriya. And then afterwards, later on, of course, the Byzantine Emperor took it up.
Now, in the case, so like that we can look at various thought systems. They spread by the combination of Brahmana and Kshatriya. Now, in Muhammad, in Islam, Muhammad in one person is seen as both a Brahmana and a Kshatriya.
He gave spiritual knowledge. He gave the Quran. And he was supposed to be like a spiritual or intellectual teacher.
But he was also a warrior. He himself fought wars. And when it comes to wars, quite often, sometimes some ethical principles have to are compromised in the real politic of war.
So, now, in the subsequent history of Islam, most Muslim leaders have followed the martial example of Muhammad much more than his intellectual example. So, although they may quote the Quran, and they may say that we have great faith in the Quran, but quite often, their focus has been on the martial example of Muhammad, how he fought, how he won, and whatever he did, the means justify the ends. So, the end justify the means, that ideology that was there.
So, that was being adopted quite a bit. Now, on an average level, there are many Muslims who are pious. And an exceptional level, there have been many Muslims who have been very advanced saints also.
But as a society, the leaders within Islam who have been influential are the leaders who have followed more the martial example of Muhammad than the intellectual or spiritual example. And that is why, individually, there are Muslims who have seen the practise of Islam as a means towards spiritual growth. But collectively, Islam has been much more political search for power than a spiritual search for truth.
So, if the Brahmanical example is followed more, then there can be a spiritual search for truth. And there have been Muslims who have done that. But at a collective level, where the leaders are concerned, so, this separation of the Kshatriya and the Brahmana, that is not there at all in Islam.
Although they have their intellectuals, but quite often, the intellectuals are the people, only those intellectuals become prominent, who support the radical political leaders. And that is how the intellectual aspect is subordinated to pursue the political aspect. So, there is a significant amount of religiosity within Islam.
In fact, Prabhupada, on many occasions, appreciated the religiosity of Muslims. He said that, for example, that many Muslims, since their childhood, they teach their children Quran. And they know the verses from the Quran.
But unfortunately, in India, many Hindus, they do not teach the Bhagavad Gita like that to their children. So, he said that many Muslims, Prabhupada lived most of the time in Bengal and sometime in Varanasi. So, that is where he had, and Mumbai also.
But mostly, his childhood was in Bengal. That is where he observed. He said, he would say that whenever a Muslim gets a substantial amount of money, the first thing that he does is, he builds a mosque or he contributes to building a mosque.
But he says, not many Hindus do that. So, Prabhupada appreciated the individual cultural practises that Islam fostered among its followers. Now, Prabhupada did not get involved too much in, he kept his presentation quite transcendental.
So, he did not get involved in the Hindu-Muslim politics that was there. And so, he just documents as a fact. He does not deny that many of the Hindu temples were destroyed during Chaitanya Mahapuram and other places.
And all this is a result of the radical ideology. I am not going to go into the ideology per se. But the point is, there is at an individual level, Muslims do practise their religion quite diligently.
But at a collective level, the influence of the radical leaders is often quite more than that of the moderate leaders, whoever they are. And that is why the religiosity is there. But that religiosity can very easily be shifted to radicalism, where often the ends justify the means.
So, if we see the terrorism, some critics try to equate. Actually, you say Islam is violent. But actually, every religion is violent.
The Christians fought the Crusades. And even they tried to quote some incidents from the Hindu religion also, where people, kings were violent. But if we see the whole idea of terrorism, that is the exact opposite of Kshatriya warfare.
See, Kshatriya warfare means two people will fight, who are both equal, equipped and alert. Now, a horse rider will fight with a horse rider, a chariot warrior will fight with a chariot warrior. Terrorism is the opposite.
Now, they attack people who are not equal, who are not equipped, who are not alert. So, there are trained warriors who attack civilians who do not have weapons, and who are just going around their normal way of life. So, in that sense, terrorism, we cannot even say that it is a draw, it is a derivation from the Kshatriya example of Mohammed.
It is a complete perversion of the Kshatriya principles. Completely, it is the closest example that we can get in the Vedic literature, is Ashwatthama’s killing of the Pandava warriors at night, when they were sleeping. And that is condemned totally in the scriptures.
So, the radicalisation of Islam is because the prominent leaders of Islam have followed more the martial example. And even within the martial example, they have this idea of the end justify the means. And that has been misappropriated quite a bit.
And that is how the although at an individual level, there is adherence to religiosity, but at a collective level, there is a high level of susceptibility to radicalisation. Does that address your question? So, thank you very much.