Making scripture relevant-Traditional & contemporary examples, Bhaktivedanta Manor, London, Bhag 3.5.44, 18.7.24

To see notes, click here

Transcript

This is an AI-generated transcript and may contain some errors.
Hare Krishna.
So, in this verse, one of the most consistent themes of the Bhagavatam is being stated, or we could say restated. So, what is that theme? Essentially, the Bhagavatam defines spiritual growth in two broad parameters. One is material detachment and the other is spiritual attachment.
And while you could say these are one and two as separate distinct steps, but they are also related. The more there is spiritual attachment, the more there will be material detachment. And the more there is material detachment, the greater is the chance of developing spiritual attachment.
So, the idea is that these are, while you could say they are distinct, but they are also symbiotic. Each helps the other. And so, in the Bhagavatam here it is said that our consciousness, it gets caught in many material things.
And Prabhupada says in the last line of the purport, by any means a person should be attracted to hear Krishna Katha. So, I will focus on this theme of attracting ourselves and others towards Krishna and Krishna Katha. How can that be done? And what does by any means mean? What does it include? What does it not include? So, in any spiritual tradition, or for that matter any tradition, there are always two strands.
There is a strand of continuity and there is a strand of connectivity. Continuity is with the past. Connectivity is with the present.
And both of them are required. So, Srila Prabhupada, in fact, talks about balancing these two connections as the essence of realisation. He says in the first canto, in the fourth, fifth chapter, that realisation means that the original message of scripture needs to be said, but it should be presented in a way that is interesting for the audience.
So, we could put it this way. If this is the message of scripture. So, now the tradition is broadly based on scripture.
From the scripture arises the tradition. And then if we consider these, these are the interests of the audience. Then Prabhupada explains realisation means to present the message of scripture in a way that is interesting to the audience.
So, we may speak, say, today we go to a one-time programme and say, okay, today I will speak about the difference between Achintha Bhedabheda and Vishistha Advaita. And if we speak this in London in a one-time college programme in some college, people say, what are you talking about? Unless it’s a religious studies department where people are specialising in Indian personalist philosophy, most people would find it completely irrelevant. Isn’t it? So, it is not of interest to people.
Now, at the same time, if, say, we start making comments on politics without any connection with Shastra. Now, somebody can comment on politics, somebody can comment about movies, somebody can comment about sports. But if you’re commenting about that only, it may be a lot of interest to people.
But unless that is connected with Shastra, that is not of much use. We are not really sharing the message of scripture. So, we need, so, if we consider a living movement is at the, actually has to be, living movement, the living tradition exists at the intersection between the past and the present.
That’s what makes it living. And the living movement needs to have continuity with the past. But at the same time, it needs to have connectivity with the present.
And when both of these are taken care of, if it’s only connected with the past, then what happens? If we consider the living movement, the theme we are discussing is that what does getting people attracted to Krishna Katha mean? It means that we need to present Krishna Katha, but in a way that is interesting to the audience. So, if you’re only concerned with continuity, then we may end up becoming irrelevant because we are not really connecting with the audience at all. But if you’re only connected, concerned with connectivity, then we will end up becoming at the very least inconsistent.
What we are teaching has got nothing to do with Shastra, or very little to do with Shastra. So, we want to avoid both these extremes. Now, it’s interesting, deviation can come both ways.
Deviation can come when we try too much to connect with the contemporary world. But deviation can come if we have focused too much on continuity with the past. So, basically, there’s too much extremism over here.
We basically become a museum exhibit. Or this is how people at this particular time used to live. It’s like fossils are there, so we become relics, artefacts.
This becomes a museum exhibit. On the other hand, if I’m only concerned with connecting with the people, we’ve just become a fashion fad. Oh, there are so many people doing so many things, we’re also one of those people.
So, actually, the living moment needs to have a balance of both of these. That we want to have connectivity and continuity both. So, having continuity requires us to be faithful.
Having connectivity requires us to be resourceful. So, faithful and resourceful, both are required. And that’s how the tradition moves forward.
And if we consider, as I said, this applies not just to a spiritual tradition, but universal principles apply for anything that has continued for a long time. So, if you consider the English language itself, within English language, there are two kinds of linguists. There are those who talk about the prescriptivist study of English, and there are other descriptivist study.
Prescriptivist is, this is how English is spoken. This is the right way of speaking. This is the wrong way of speaking.
This word means this. This word does not mean this. So, prescriptivists are more concerned with continuity.
But descriptivists are more concerned with, okay, how is English spoken right now? So, if we consider the meanings of words change, and say, nowadays, if you consider, today, there’s teenagers and young people, the vocabulary that they use, it’s quite different. That was a wicked party. Now, wicked parents or grandparents, why are you so happy about going to a wicked party? But the word wicked just means it’s a great party.
So, the word has become very different. One friend who studies medicine, showed me their medicine book, and he says, when a newborn baby gives a lusty cry after being born, that indicates the vibrant health of the baby. In other words, lusty has nowadays become equated with energetic.
That a batsman hits a few lusty blows and the whole match turns. Now, we use the word lusty in a very different sense, isn’t it? But the meanings of words change. And in language, if we consider English, there are these two schools, there are prescriptivists and there are descriptivists.
So, language, which is too prescriptivist, this is how it is to be done. Those languages become extinct over time. So, Greek, Latin, one reason they became extinct was they were highly prescriptivist.
This is exactly the way it has to be done. And if you change anything, then it’s all wrong. But if that doesn’t reflect the way people are using the language, then the language just becomes unusable for people.
On the other hand, if it’s too descriptivist, if I use the same word to mean one thing and you use the same word to mean something else, and there are no defined meanings of words, then it becomes incoherent. And then also the language doesn’t function. So, for a language to continue, both aspects are required.
How it has been spoken in the past, how it is being spoken now. And there will always be a tussle between the two. If you study any grammar book, there are certain rules, don’t split an infinitive.
But almost all people during their conversations split an infinitive and then what is being spoken becomes a standard with time. And sometimes that does not mean that everything that is conversational will necessarily become written. Different people use things differently.
And some usages are clearly wrong. So, in general, to put this in a more familiar context, the conservatives are concerned primarily with continuity. This is how it was done in the past.
And it worked. You need to continue it. The liberals are concerned more with connectivity.
That this is, we need to connect with people, otherwise, what are we doing over here? So, again, the word is conservatives and liberals are loaded, they mean different things for different people. But I’m using it, not necessarily a political sense, I’m just using it in the broad sense. So, in some circles, the word liberal has a negative connotation.
In some circles, the word conservative has a negative connotation. So, without getting into the political connotations of the words, I’m talking about this is a dynamic and universal principle, staying connected with the past and connecting with the present. So, now, let’s consider how this dynamic has operated in our tradition.
So, let’s talk about Srila Prabhupada himself. Srila Prabhupada did not quote too many pastimes of his spiritual master. Prabhupada was more of a person who taught philosophy and conveyed concepts.
Prabhupada did not tell too many, even Krishna Katha stories he did not tell. His spiritual master’s anecdotes, he told a few, not too many. So, one of the anecdotes he would tell is, how when he was given a, when there was an article to be published in the magazine, Bhakti Sahasran Thakur would sometimes count how many times the word Krishna is there.
And if he saw that the number of times Krishna is there, then he would publish that article. Now, while this is true, if we look at Srila Prabhupada himself, one of the earliest writings that Prabhupada did was Ishopanishad. And if you read the Ishopanishad, Prabhupada hardly ever uses the word Krishna in the Ishopanishad.
Prabhupada uses the word the Lord, God. So, he uses non-specific ways of addressing the absolute truth. Isha, Vasa, Simdham, Sarva.
So, if that is the criteria, Prabhupada doesn’t say Krishna is the controller. God, the Lord. Now, see, Prabhupada was very aware of the context in which he was speaking.
In the broad Indian tradition, the Upanishads are generally considered to be impersonalist books. They have personalist message within them, but the Upanishads are in general considered to be the forte, the playing ground of the impersonalists. And impersonalists tend to dismiss the personalists as less intelligent.
When Prabhupada was commenting on the Upanishads, specifically the Ishopanishad, he was actually venturing into what is considered to be impersonalist editor. And he wanted to appeal to people who were having that kind of mindset. And for those people, if we immediately use the word Krishna, it just puts them off.
Oh, you people are sentimentalists. You people are just less intelligent. So, while Prabhupada was explicit in calling the movement that he established an international society for Krishna consciousness, Prabhupada was also circumspect in using the word Krishna.
Now, if we consider other books, the first two books that Prabhupada wrote, actually, Ishopanishad was not a book that Prabhupada wrote. Ishopanishad was a series of articles that Prabhupada wrote in the early Back to Godhead, and later on that was put together as a book. The first book that Prabhupada wrote was Easy Journey to Other Planets.
And even in that book, Prabhupada does not really focus too much on using the word Krishna. So, normally Prabhupada would dedicate his books to his spiritual master, to Baldevidya Bhushan, to the acharyas in the tradition. But Easy Journey to Other Planets, Prabhupada dedicates to the scientists of the world.
Now, dedication is a very important thing. It is like, in the heart of the person, whom are you writing this book for? So, it’s not just a target audience, but something which is very close to our heart. So, Prabhupada is saying, dedicated to the scientists of the world.
So, we see sometimes, now what happens is, Shila Prabhupada, he emphasised Krishna. He emphasised Krishna as two things, by quoting his Bhakti Sahasrara Sudhakar pastime, as well as, in the name is Korn itself. But then, Prabhupada, in one sense, de-emphasised Krishna.
We discuss this in the Ishopanishad, in the Ishopanishad commentary, and then in the Easy Journey book. So, in the Ishopanishad, it’s much more prominent. So, the idea is, Prabhupada was not like a one-track person.
He didn’t have a one-track mind. Prabhupada had a one-purpose mind. One purpose was to attract everyone towards Krishna.
But how to do that? Prabhupada was resourceful. And if we consider, take this backward, further. If we consider, so the point I’m making is, every Acharya has done this in our tradition.
Because they are addressing their contemporary audiences. And when they have to address their contemporary audiences, they have to consider what are the interests of those audiences. If we consider, Prabhupada said that, I did not change one word, as compared to what my spiritual master said.
I was just like a postman. And that is true. No doubt about it.
At the same time, if we consider, when Prabhupada’s God brothers came here to UK, at that time, they were guided and funded by his spiritual master. So, whatever they did was largely under the guidance of their spiritual master, that is, Bhaktisthanth Thakur. And what was Bhaktisthanth Thakur’s main book for outreach? It was Shri Krishna Chaitanya, which is a book written by one of his disciples, Nishikant Sanyal.
And it was also a book which Bhaktisthanth Thakur himself personally edited. And he wanted this book for western outreach and he felt that, if the book is written by an academically credentialed professor, that will have more credibility than if it is written by a spiritual leader. So, Nishikant Sanyal was a professor in Ravinshaw College at that time.
So, the book was the main course material. Shri Krishna Chaitanya was the book that they would distribute. And for Bhaktisthanth Thakur, the Gita was not very important, neither in his outreach nor in his quoting.
Now, the Gita is important, of course, in the Vedic tradition, but as far as the corpus of his works is concerned, he doesn’t quote the Bhagavad Gita so much. And certainly, the Gita was not by the books that he distributed. The Gita was not even published by the Gaudiya Math.
And for Shri Prabhupada, the Bhagavad Gita as it is, is the main book that we distribute. Now, why is that? We can’t really know what was going on in Prabhupada’s mind, but we can look at the various contexts, we can look at various statements that Prabhupada has made. By that time, Bhaktisthanth Thakur presented, he told his followers to present themselves as messengers of Shri Chaitanya Mahaprabhu, spreading the message of love of God.
And by the time Prabhupada went to the West, he saw that people were almost so so disconnected that before you could talk with them about God and the personal vision of God as Shri Chaitanya Mahaprabhu. So, it’s like people have a particular conception of God. So, let me explain this diagrammatically, let me see if I can.
During Bhaktisthanth Thakur’s time, the idea of outreach was what? That people had a particular conception of God, people’s conception of God and there is Lord Chaitanya Mahaprabhu. So, the purpose of his outreach was to build a bridge. Now, these are very complicated subjects and I’m just giving a simple illustration to communicate a particular point over here, that now what Bhaktisthanth Thakur wrote is quite vast and many of the different books serve different purposes, but primarily if we see his thrust was that to elevate people towards loving Chaitanya Mahaprabhu, to appreciating Gaudiya Vaishnavism.
So, from whatever conception of God might be there, from there to get them to the conception of Shri Chaitanya Mahaprabhu and Radha Krishna as the divine couple. So, when he, for example, went to South India. So, one of the laments that Bhaktisthanth Thakur expressed is that, oh, Chaitanya Mahaprabhu travelled across South India and he elevated people, thousands and millions to Gaudiya Vaishnavism, but all of them now are again going in the Aishwarya Bhava worship.
We need to get them to the Madhurya Bhava worship. So, every Acharya has a particular concern. If we consider what was Prabhupada’s concern, when Prabhupada started doing his outreach, especially when he came to the West, he noticed that before we could get people to understand the Gaudiya conception of God, it is, you need to explain to them, first of all, why you even need spiritual life? What is the importance of spiritual life? So, broadly speaking, you know, it is like, Prabhupada commented on three books and these three books serve three different purposes.
Okay, not this way. That there is the Gita was like a broad Vedic or spiritual book. That means through the Gita, Prabhupada conveyed the Vedic way of living.
If we move forward, if you went to the Bhagavatam, through the Bhagavatam, Bhagavatam is a Vaishnava book. So, that was Prabhupada’s focus in conveying the principles of bhakti through the various examples given in the Bhagavatam. And then the Chaitanya Charita Amrit is the Gaudiya Vaishnava book.
So, Prabhupada did give an entire corpus, but Prabhupada did not make Chaitanya Charita Amrit or Nectar of Devotion as the main book of distribution. He saw where the people were at and based on that, he explained, he connected. So, rather than elevating people’s conception of God, what Prabhupada saw was the primary need was that, why do we even need anything spiritual in our lives? Prabhupada’s thrust of teaching, although Prabhupada called the society as International Society for Krishna Consciousness, Prabhupada’s thrust of teaching was primarily that we are spiritual beings and that we should not waste our life in the petty pleasures of physical indulgence that is available for everyone.
So, Prabhupada was speaking according to what the Acharya, what was he saw as the need. Now, in our tradition, if we consider, I’ll just give two more examples before we move forward. Now, Vishwanath Chakravidhyakar commented on the Gita and then after that Baldevidya Bhushan commented on the Gita.
And Baldevidya Bhushan is considered to be the disciple of Chakravartipada. And yet, it is remarkable that Baldevidya Bhushan, in his commentary on the Gita, there is no quoting Vishwanath Chakravidhyakar’s commentary. Now, how can a disciple comment on the same book as the Guru and not even quote the Guru? So, there is a reason for that.
The reason is, and this is not just here, if we look at his commentary on the Vedanta Sutra, the Govinda Bhashya, now he doesn’t quote any Gaudiya Vaishnava Acharya over there. He does not quote, any is a very strong word, hardly any. He doesn’t quote Jiva Goswami, he does not quote Rupa Goswami.
How can you comment on the Gaudiya, how can you write the book which is supposed to be the Gaudiya commentary on the Vedanta Sutra and not quote Gaudiya Acharya for that purpose? So, again, it depends on audience. So, his audience, Baldevidya Bhushan, Chakravartipada, he was, he is considered a Rasika Acharya. He wants to give the Rasika meanings, the Rasa of Bhakti, the Rasa of Bhakti in the Bhagavad Gita, the inner meanings of the conversations, the emotions of the heart.
Now, Baldevidya Bhushan’s purpose was to establish the credentials of the Sampradaya. He came at a time when the very authenticity of our Sampradaya was being challenged and he was primarily targeting the audience, which saying, okay, how much are your teachings based on Shastra? And for that Shastra meant the Prasthanatraya. So, he commented on all these three Prasthanatrayas, the Upanishads, the Gita and the Vedanta Sutra.
And so, he was targeting an audience of other Sampradayas primarily, other established traditions. And when he was speaking to other established traditions, when if they are questioning the authenticity of our Sampradaya itself, then quoting our Sampradaya Acharyas is not going to help, isn’t it? Say, if a company has made some products, say, Apple has made some new earbuds and there is some criticism that earbuds is causing ear problems and Apple quotes the scientists who are on their payroll, saying that this doesn’t cause any ear problems. That’s not going to be of much help.
That will have no credibility. So, Baldevidya Bhushan extensively quotes the Shastras. He quotes the Bhagavatam to some extent, primarily the Vedanta Sutra commentary, he quotes the Upanishads.
So, the idea is that we need to speak according to the interests of the audience. So, interests can mean many things. It can also mean simply what is interesting to them.
It can mean what is credible for them. It can mean what is relevant for them. So, it can refer to what is essential for them.
So, it depends on that. So, he actually presented Shastra or Gaudiya message, he presented, he established the Gaudiya Sampradaya’s authenticity, but his purpose required that he quote those authorities that the audience will respect. So, this is an important point that here, see, we have, again, when I talk about Shastra and contemporary audience, so, it’s like we have our sources of authority.
The tradition, these are our sources. And the audience has their sources of authority. And if we are to appeal to our audience, say, if we are going to say that the soul exists, and if we go to an audience of people who are hardcore scientists, and you say, how do you know the soul exists? Bhagavata says so.
Okay, you are just a religious nut. You know, people are not interested in religious nuts. They want spiritual fruits.
And to get spiritual fruits means that, so, that means, when does a person become a religious nut? That is when the person is simply quoting the same thing without considering context. It’s like somebody who discovers, kid discovers a hammer and finds that he can hit a nail and push the nail into the wall. Then, for that kid, with a hammer, with a newly discovered hammer, everything becomes a potential nail.
But everything in the world is not a nail. So, we cannot have a one-size-fits-all formula for outreach. We cannot have one quote for all people.
If we are going to a place where people are hardcore scientists or scientifically inclined, and if you want to convey the idea of soul, then we may have to talk about, say, cases of past life memories, published in scientific journals, reported by, investigated by scientists. We may have to talk about studies of consciousness, which are published by scientists. So, Sri Prabhupada himself, when he established the Bhaktivedanta Institute, he said that our message, he said, we can establish it based on scripture, but we can establish it based on logic also.
And he said that when you are speaking to scientists, speak in their language, that we need to, what is their source of credibility? It could be other scientists. It could be simply logic. Yeah, you know, this child was, this child is born here and has lived here, and this person lived another time, other place, and that person died there.
There’s no connection. But this kid is remembering that person’s life. How is that working? So, one logical explanation is that maybe there is something which has gone on from that person and come to this person.
So, that is one way to give some scientific credibility to the idea of past life memory, of we having had past life memories. We having had past lives, which is illustrated through the presence of past life memories. So, the point here is that when we are trying to share Krishna Katha, so how do we do that? So, we need to, first of all, understand what are the interests of the audience, and then we could simply condemn the interests of the people.
These are Tamasik, these are Rajasik, these are ignorant, and that’s one way to do it. But, okay, even among the interests of people, what is it that is connectable to Krishna? The idea of novels, so I was going to give one more example, I’ll just quickly mention that. The idea of novels is something which is a novel idea in the history of literature.
Now, novels are very common, but a few hundred years ago, there were plays that were written, but novels are relatively not so common, and when novels started becoming very prevalent, then Bhaktivinoda Thakur presented Gaurav Vaishnava message in the format of a novel. Now, there’s been something similar done in the tradition, but actually books like Gopal Champu are significantly different. There are dramas written in the past, but what Bhaktivinoda Thakur wrote was novels, which is a different genre of literature.
So, the point I’m making is that Bhaktivinoda Thakur also did this in terms of dramas. So, connecting with the audience. So, what does this mean for all of us? That means when we are trying to share the message, what it’s like scripture is a vast message, and the contemporary interests are also vast.
So, we as speakers, we need to be acting as a bridge, as a link, and find out what are the contemporary interests today. So, for example, yoga. Yoga is a very big interest and concern in today’s world.
Now, we could look at it negatively and say, oh, these people are just concerned about their physical fitness and physical looks and there’s nothing spiritual in it. And there’s a large amount of truth in that. But at the same time, even if we agree or grant that people’s interests are Rajasic, they just want to look better, but they could be pumping chemicals into their body, they could be using Botox for looking better.
They are doing yoga. So, in one sense, they are using a sattvic means for a Rajasic end. They could be using a Rajasic means, they could be using a Tamasic means.
So, they’re using a sattvic means. So, that much interest in sattva is there. So, now, can that be capitalised? Can that be utilised? So, when is people’s interest in yoga taking them away from bhakti? And when is it taking them toward bhakti? That is something which we have to carefully evaluate.
So, is yoga, can it be a competitor to bhakti? Yes, it can be. Can it be a pointer to bhakti? Yes, it can be. So, it depends on context, which is happening.
For Baldevidya Bhushan, when he wrote the commentary on the Vedanta Sutra, at that time, he wanted to establish the Vedanta philosophy as the highest. And therefore, there’s a whole section in the Vedanta Sutra itself, which he elaborates on, where he critiques yoga, that the philosophy of yoga is different from the philosophy of bhakti. And his whole focus is on highlighting the difference between the two.
But in today’s world, when people are interested in yoga, they’re not interested in the philosophy of yoga primarily. They’re interested in the practical benefits of yoga. And for them, the difference between say Vedanta and yoga, all these are just terms, they don’t even know what they mean.
So, their interest in yoga can be very nicely utilised to bring them towards bhakti. So, now the challenge, so basically, as I said that, if something starts becoming competitor, then we have to highlight the differences between the two. So, if it’s a competitor, then emphasise the bhed.
This is the difference. Yoga is a different philosophy, bhakti is a different philosophy. But if somebody, something is a pointer, then we need to emphasise the abhed, the non-difference.
If somebody is just new and is interested in spirituality. I was in Los Angeles and I had gone to one yoga studio and so many people, they said Om Namah Shivaya. And the western people are really Om Namah Shivaya.
But what had happened, so apparently they had a whole group of people who had gone to India on a trip, Rishikesh and other places and they had gone to the Himalayas and they had learned Om Namah Shivaya. So, now we may say, oh we don’t chant Om Namah Shivaya, we chant Hare Krishna. But the fact that they are chanting, they are greeting each other by using the name of some Indian deity, that is a step forward for them, that shows their Indian cultural interest.
Now does that necessarily mean that they consider Shiva to be the supreme personality of God? Maybe, maybe not. So, the problem is when it is a pointer towards something higher and we emphasise the abhed. If somebody says Om Namah Shivaya, hey, anybody who worships demigod is less intelligent.
If we speak that, we are simply going to antagonise and alienate people, isn’t it? So, for them, it’s an indicator of interest and just, it’s a pointer toward Krishna. So, yeah, wonderful. How did you learn this mantra? How did you learn about the Vedic tradition? How did you learn about your connection with India? So, focus on the abhed part.
Now, there are times when we also need to focus on the bhed part. Say, if some devotee starts saying that, oh, you know, yoga is so good for health. So, in our morning sadhana programme, let us have one hour for japa and one hour for yoga.
Well, we will not do that in our temples. Now, is yoga good for health? Yes, there are so many things good for health. But our morning sadhana is for developing love for Krishna.
If some devotees specifically need that and do that exercise, that’s individual. But we won’t institutionalise that as a part of our programme. So, we are bhakti yogis.
We are not yogis. So, there are times when the bhed aspect also has to be emphasised. So, by understanding the context, who is at what level, we need to decide whether to emphasise the bhed or the abhed.
So, I’ll summarise what we discussed today. I talked about how to get people interested in Krishna katha. That was the broad topic.
The Bhagavatam is, this is a theme that we need to become detached from matter and attached to Krishna. So, I talked about the concept of tradition. So, tradition, if it is to be living, it has these two aspects, continuity and connectivity.
So, connectivity is the concern of liberals, continuity is the connection of conservatives. So, continuity, when it is not there, then we just become a fashion fad. And if the connectivity is not there, then we just become a museum exhibit.
So, we need both. So, I give the example of the English language and the prescriptivist and the descriptivist. Then we discussed the continuity and connectivity balance in our tradition with several examples.
So, first I started with Srila Prabhupada, in one sense, emphasising Krishna and less emphasis on Krishna in the issue of Nishad. Then I talked about Bhakti Saans Thakur and Srila Prabhupada. Bhakti Saans Thakur focused on Chaitanya Mahaprabhu and Sri Krishna Chaitanya as the book.
Prabhupada focused on Gita as the book, depending on what was the need of the audience. Then I talked about Baldevidya Bhushan and Chakravarti Paad. Baldevidya Bhushan quotes Shastra, not Gaudiya Acharyas, because his focus was, what is the need and the interest of the audience, that is to connect with the people whom he is trying to reach to, which is those who establish Shastra, but not necessarily establish our Sampradaya and its Acharyas.
Then I discussed the example of Bhaktivinoda Thakur and how he wrote novels. We discussed also Srila Prabhupada and with respect to B.I., he said, we have to present the message of scripture, but present it using logic, that use their sources of authority. And for us, what is the criteria we discussed? We need to look at, say, if I am a speaker over here and the audience is over here, and say, if this is their interest and this is the scripture message.
So, if something falls in this, then we focus on the Abhedya. This is a good interest. This is also taught in scripture.
But if something goes over here, that’s where we emphasise the Bhed. So, when some interest of the audience is a pointer, then it’s focused on the non-difference. When it is a competitor, then we have to emphasise the difference.
And I give the example of how yoga tradition could be used in today’s world. Thank you very much. Hare Krishna.
Are there any comments or questions? We have a few minutes. Yes, you can speak. I’ll repeat it.
It depends on the kind of audience that we are reaching out to. So, both are required, reading and speaking. Reading gives us the knowledge, but speaking, especially if interacting with the audience, then we also understand where the audience is at.
So, there is speaking at people, there is speaking to people, and there is speaking with people. The three very different things. Speaking at people means, I treat the audience to be just like an impersonal object.
I’m just sending some vibrations at them. I don’t even care how they responded. Speaking to people means we are a little more concerned about them.
Speaking with means we hear from them also. We get some feedback from them. We try to, okay, this point landed, this point didn’t land, this point agitated the people.
So, generally, both are required. And the more non-traditional the audience is, non-traditional doesn’t necessarily mean that they don’t have spiritual inclination, but it is non-typical of the audience that we are trying to reach or we have conventionally reached as a movement, then the more we may need to study to understand the audience. Say, if somebody is already coming to the temple and we have regular, say, Gita courses going on, then we can continue that only.
But if you are going to go to yoga studio and do a course, then what the way we speak in the temple may not be the same way we speak over there. So, it depends on the audience, but both are required. Thank you very much for a very systematically presented class.
Just something that is very appealing to me. Thank you. I wanted to ask if you could elaborate, please, more on this attachment to Krishna and detachment from the material world.
The dynamics of these two, well, apparently two lines, but we understand that by Bhakti Yoga automatically knowledge and development and detachment is there. So, to what extent we actually make more emphasis, like, what is the somehow or other become attracted to the Bhakti Yoga, to Krishna, automatically everything will fall into place. So, that balance, being relevant and also understanding that ultimately the attraction to Krishna is there.
Yeah. Actually, that is a whole part I could not get to because I wanted to give a lot of examples to illustrate on the tradition, but it’s an important question. I’ll make two quick points about this.
The first is that both attachment and detachment can be individual. See, what do you mean by an example? Yesterday was Ekadashi. We fast.
Now, for some people, even fasting from water might be very easy. For some people, fasting from even food till noon might be very difficult. Now, we have to decide individually based on the kind of body-mind machine that we have, okay, what level of detachment is conducive for my Bhakti.
If I am fasting, there could be two extremes, you know. I may be fasting, but I am just craving for food. And I will be chanting Hare Krishna, Hare Krishna, Hare Krishna, Hare Krishna, Prasad, Prasad, Prasad, Hare Krishna, Hare Krishna, Prasad, Prasad, Prasad.
My mind is thinking about Prasad, food, food, food, food. Well, better take some food and then focus on Krishna. But the other could be that we are craving fame.
That means I am fasting, but my thoughts are not about, oh, focus on Krishna. I am fasting, but I am constantly going to the kitchen to see who is eating what. Such an attached person, such a sense gratifier, such a hopeless person.
So, our body may be fasting, but our ego is feasting. So, what will happen is, either of these, if the point is that here we are having gross, gross desires, and here we have subtle desires, subtle desires of fame. So, if either way, through our attempts for detachment, if our focus is becoming too much on anything other than Krishna, then that is not healthy.
So, fasting, it should basically lead to increased focus on Krishna. So, same applies to any other form of detachment. So, if we sit, if we sleep, do we sleep on a soft bed, a hard bed, do we sleep on the floor, do we sleep on an elevated place? We live in our homes, what level of comfort do we need in our homes? So, it all depends.
So, the detachment has to be individual, in the sense that the endeavour for detachment should not consume our mind so much, that there is no place in our mind for Krishna. So, if we say, we try to follow a particular standard, and we can either become, here we become proud, because we are following the standard, here we become guilty, because we are not following the standard. And both pride and guilt can distract us from Krishna.
So, okay, I accept, this is the level I can follow and move forward from there. So, that’s with respect to detachment. Detachment is individual.
And similarly, attachment is also individual. Each one of us has a personal relationship with Krishna. So, some devotees, they may want to chant more rounds, some devotees may want to do more kirtans, some devotees may want to read shastra more, and some devotees may want to read one particular shastra more, somebody else may want to read another shastra more.
Some devotees may like to do deity worship. So, the point is, how Krishna will attract us, is something between us and Krishna. So, is some devotee who chants 64 rounds or 128 rounds an advanced devotee? Yes, quite likely, we respect them.
But does that mean that a devotee who doesn’t chant 128 rounds, but maybe does, maybe likes to read shastra for a long time. Is that person not an advanced devotee? Is it that somebody who does chanting or kirtan is more of a bhakta and one who reads shastra is a jnani? It’s not that simple. So, yena kena prakarena.
So, individualisation that, okay, which aspect should I be detached from or can I be detached from in a way that increases my focus on Krishna, and which aspect of Krishna should I cultivate attachment for, so that it helps me become more absorbed in Krishna. So, that way we can move forward in