Prabhupada’s expert presentation of Gaudiya Vaishnavism

Transcript

This is an AI-generated transcript and may contain some errors.
I was thinking today of speaking on the topic of… You want me to speak on that topic? Yes, basically.
What I will speak on is Prabhupada’s expert presentation on Kaurya Vaishnavism. So last year I was given the service of becoming a member of the Shastric Advisory Council, which is the political body that acts in the advisory capacity for the GDC. So I was interacting with several Sikh Vaishnavas in the GDC village of Ramanuj.
And I had a lot of opportunity to discuss things by name and by reading the material. So I will try to speak on one aspect of this. So actually this was, what I am speaking here today is part of a Yasmuja offering that I wrote this time for Shri Kripa.
It was on a principle science article also, but here I will elaborate that much more. So basically, every teacher of a tradition has this challenge, which is to walk on a tightrope. What is the tightrope? Just like you have seen the tightrope.
You go one step on this side, you fall. You go one step to the other side, you fall. So like that, whenever we have to present time-honoured ancient tradition to a contemporary audience, there has to be a balance of these two things.
The first is fidelity, which connects us with the tradition. And then there is sensitivity, that which connects us to the audience. So if we don’t have, that’s why it’s a tightrope walk.
And we’ll see what happens if either of these is not. So fidelity simply means faithfulness. Fidelity is a more technical or more specific word for faithfulness.
And sensitivity also, of course. It means being aware of the needs, interests, concerns of the audience. So in general, within school, we often talk about how to walk on a tightrope.
My spiritual master never compromised. I never compromised. And you should never compromise.
That is true. But to be sensitive doesn’t necessarily mean to be compromising. And to be uncompromising doesn’t mean that we have to be insensitive.
Compromising means changing our message. Being sensitive means presenting our message according to what will be understandable and intelligible for the audience. The two are different things.
I hope the difference is clear. Compromise means I change what I want to do just because I don’t want to displease the audience. Whereas sensitivity means I present whatever I have to present in a way that doesn’t unnecessarily alienate the audience.
So we’ll discuss examples of this as we come forward. So actually speaking, there has to be this second aspect of sensitivity. And without sensitivity, the teacher cannot connect to the content of the audience.
So now what happens? If a person says, I’ll be faithful to the tradition. When you are uncompromising, if the person just keeps literally repeating. For example, when the first and best line invaders in India.
Then the Europeans came. So basically Europeans brought Christianity with them. So many of the Brahmins in India, they said that any literature, any religion, any thought system that is not in Sanskrit is not even worth repeating.
So under the influence of Christianity, what was called the Bengal Renaissance around 1780-1880 that period. So many Hindus were tremendously influenced by Protestant Christianity. But the Brahmins didn’t care.
They said we will speak only in Sanskrit. If it is not in Sanskrit, we don’t care. So then somebody said, I am faithful.
So what happens to the audience? The audience gets lost. So if a person just has a very naive understanding of fidelity, very literalistic, simplistic understanding, then he falls into the chasm of, chasm means like a big valley, where a point, where a person can’t come. Irrelevance.
Okay, like if you see much of, only modern Hindus today, they may invite some priests to do some marriage rituals or do some other Navaskar, Pooja, Ashtakshanti or something like that. But actually, they don’t feel that these rituals matter in a practical way to their lives. Okay, it’s a part of our religion, let’s continue.
So people come and speak some Sanskrit verses, do some break, some Aryan, some Prasad and go away. So people feel that this doesn’t add any value to our lives. It doesn’t make any tangible difference to our lives.
And ultimately, people, whatever they are going to study, whatever they are going to enquire about, they want to know, okay, how is it going to benefit me? We can dismiss this mentality by calling it negatively, what’s in it for me? But ultimately, everybody has a question. We cannot expect suddenly people to become senseless. So if a person is too literalistically in the zone of fidelity, then what happens? The audience starts thinking, this person is different.
It doesn’t make sense to me. There is a rate of fear. On the other hand, if a person says, oh, I am so sensitive, so if a person becomes compromising, then he will be sensitive.
Then, so again, ghasna means a value. So he falls into the disconnection from the tradition. What does it mean, disconnection from the tradition? He is no longer connected.
So actually, the potency of Krishna comes to the tradition. So when a person just starts picking his own ideas in the name of being sensitive to others, then the person no longer carries Krishna’s potency. So therefore, on one side is insensitivity.
On the other side is infidelity. So the teacher has to form a balance between them. And in general, we within our tradition study our acharyas in a very ahistorical way.
What does ahistorical mean? That means we study our acharyas as how they practise devotional service, how they show humility, tolerance, exemplary qualities. It’s all wonderful. At the same time, if we understand the context in which they spoke, in which they wrote, then we can gain a much deeper appreciation of what the acharyas did and why they did it.
For example, many of us, some of us in the samsara start reading Vishwamitra’s commentaries in the Bhagavatam, His Arhat Darshan, and we switch only to the insights, especially in the 10th Canto and the esoteric aspects of the past. Not which character is thinking. It’s so deep, and we start reading what Vishwamitra did.
Vishwamitra had so much absorption to actually get these kind of realisations and revelations. And we may have an idea that Vishwanath Chitra Thakur was living in Vrindavan in the forest, and he was just peacefully absorbing, meditating on Radha Krishna, and relishing that pastime. He shares those pastimes with everybody.
You know, I have an establishment to do, I have a deadline to meet, I have to raise these funds, I have to follow up these boys. How can I observe myself in the Bhagavatam like that? Actually, if we understand the situation that Vishwanath Chitra Thakur lived in, certainly he was in Vrindavan, certainly he was absorbed in the ecstasy of Vrindavan, but it was not looking so idealistic. Vishwanath Chitra Thakur actually went to Vrindavan just after the period of Aurangazeb.
All that the Goswamis had built. No, Aurangazeb had destroyed everything. And the Goswami and Vishwanath Chitra Thakur… And I am not going to start a debate right now.
It’s an inflammatory subject, but we can discuss it separately. In Jadavapuri temple, I gave a series of classes on Krishna Consciousness and World Religions. There I took one class specifically, I took Krishna Mantra, Krishna Consciousness and Citizen.
So like that I took one class on Islam. Because sometimes we try to… We have a simplistic idea of Islam as… sometimes as very bad, as destroyed temple. On the other hand, we have discussed the subject deeply.
So I am not talking here about Islam per se. I am just talking about the archaic context of it. So, when Chaitanya Mahaprabhu appeared and disappeared? 48 to 6? 48 years.
58 years. So then, after that, after Chaitanya Mahaprabhu’s period was, soon after that was Akbar. And Akbar was a syncretic ruler.
He adopted the religions of Christianity, of Hinduism also. And he wrote some poems appreciating Chaitanya Mahaprabhu also. So during this period, everything flourished.
So, after him. So, that was the time, when Akbar was a ruler, at that time the Goswamis were there. And then after that, actually several of the Goswamis, they were almost equal in age to Chaitanya Mahaprabhu.
Although in terms of spiritual connection, they were disciples, they lived for longer than Chaitanya Mahaprabhu. So, the Goswamis preached, they established Hinduism wonderfully. But then they sent their disciples, you know, their disciples to Bengal.
And everything spread in Bengal after that. And then during that, after Aurangzeb was Shah Jahan, and after Akbar was Shah Jahan, then everything was devastated. And about 150 years later, when Vishwajit Thakur was in Bengal, he got a sort of vision, in which he felt inspired, impelled, instructed to go to Vrindavan and restore Vrindavan to its lost glory.
So, actually, the Vishnu was in Bengal, he was a Hindu there, but now he was in Vrindavan. Chaitanya Mahaprabhu’s path went there and restored it. So, it was no easy task.
Of course, at that time, there was no active terror. Because by that time, because of Aurangzeb’s persecution of Shivaji, he practically had to go all around North, East, West India, and all these places after him. So, he lost a lot of his wealth.
And afterwards, the empire disintegrated. So, there was no active threat at that time. But still, everything that Goswami had done was practically destroyed.
So, it was not an idyllic situation. So, actually, I understand it was in this situation that Vishwanath Thakur wrote all his commentaries. Then we understand that it could not have been easy.
It was not that he could so easily absorb himself. Similarly, when we study Shri Prabhupada’s purpose, we know Shri Prabhupada. We can know if we want to.
Shri Prabhupada wrote this canto in this year. Shri Prabhupada wrote this canto in this year. And if you look at his cause history at that time, if you look at the kind of letters that Prabhupada was writing at that time, now actually in the Vedas, we only have the letters that Prabhupada wrote to his disciples.
We don’t have the letters that the disciples wrote to Prabhupada. Everybody is telling their own problems to Prabhupada. We can’t let that be revealed to the whole world.
So, but we get some echoes or shadows of what all problems Shri Prabhupada was actually facing. So, it was with all that happened that Shri Prabhupada was writing this context. So, our historical way is we don’t think so much in the context.
And the historical way is we look at the context first. So, if we look at the historical way, then we understand that there is so much so much need and purpose to what the Acharya spoke about at that particular time. So, therefore, every Acharya speaks according to his time, place and constance.
The message is eternal, but the presentation is contextual. The message is eternal, but the presentation is contextual. So, let’s look at this a little bit.
So, we could talk a lot about Prabhupada’s sensitivity. I’ll focus on the one more point over here. That Prabhupada was the first Acharya to give such a prominent place to social community.
What does social community mean? Now, for example, in newspapers, there is the editorial speech. So, what is the editorial column in the newspaper supposed to do? The editorial column is not supposed to give news. The news are given in the other pages.
The editorial column is supposed to give an expert commentary on the news. Okay, now, say, the taxes have been raised. So, is it good? Is it bad? What are the consequences? What are the precautions? What should the government do? What should the public do? So, this is called a social community.
So, say, for example, newspapers offer us social commentary. Newspaper editors. Now, what is scriptural commentary traditionally? Traditionally, scriptural commentary means, we take the verse and we explain it to us.
So, why explain it? Now, if you look at Vishwanath Chitrakoot’s commentary, in his commentary, nowhere does he talk about the Islamic devastation of India. Although he was living in the shadow of that destruction, I know it must have weighed on his mind heavily. He didn’t talk about it.
The first Acharya who commented on the Bhagavatam is Vishwanath Chitrakoot, the predecessor of Vishwanath Chitrakoot. Vishwanath Chitrakoot, also, he didn’t comment anything on his social context. So, in general, none of the Acharyas give any social commentary.
Social commentary means, talk about the contemporary social issues within the books. Why is that? Because the audience is understood. The audience is those people who are interested in the scripture.
So, they understand, okay, when I come to a Bhagavad Gita class, I want to study Bhagavad Gita. So, then, just explain the Bhagavad Gita. But now, if we see it from our point of view, we say, come to a Bhagavad Gita course.
But actually, first we have to talk about existence of God, existence of soul. These are not topics of Bhagavad Gita. Bhagavad Gita is much, much more advanced.
You know, most of us, we may do dozens of Bhagavad Gita courses, and maybe after that, first time we start, when we start doing Bhakti Shastra, we start understanding what is Bhagavad Gita. Why? That’s not wrong. Because, the point is that the social context requires a significant amount of preparation for the audience before we can understand the Bhagavad Gita.
So, the Bhagavad Gita does not go about proving the existence of God. The Bhagavad Gita doesn’t go about proving the existence of Karma. The Bhagavad Gita doesn’t go about proving the validity of the principle of Yajna.
The Bhagavad Gita doesn’t go about proving the whole universal government, the Catholic system, the branch, nothing of that sort. Bhagavad Gita assumes so much in the heart of the audience. Because Krishna was speaking to Arjuna, Arjuna had that knowledge.
So, similarly, whenever the Acharyas have written commentaries, they have written with the understanding that they are speaking to an audience who is more or less following the culture, and has faith in the Vedic scriptures. So, the first Acharyas in our tradition who start with social commentary, is Bhaktivinoda Thakura. But even Bhaktivinoda Thakura keeps social commentary and scriptural commentary separate.
He is an integrator. He will write some books in social commentary. For example, he has written Prema Prabhu.
Prema Prabhu is a novel type book in which he points out the logical flaw of Brahmoism. He points out the inadequacies of the yoga path. And he establishes the supremacy of all the issues.
So, he does that. Similarly, Bhaktivinoda Thakura, one of the first books he wrote was called Bhangi Samajita, Sociality in the Law. So, in that book, he elaborately analyses how the social standards of India and social standards of the West, why they are different, and what are the values based on which they are evaluated.
So, why from the Western standards, Indians appear primitive and from the Indian standards, the Western people appear backward. So, why is it like that? So, he even systematically analyses that. But in general, he doesn’t do that within the scriptures.
For example, the standard Bhaktivinoda Thakura wrote a multi-volume commentary on the Shiva-Bhagavata. It was called the Gaudiya Bhashya. So, the standard reference for studying Bhagavata, six volumes it is.
Actually, it is not only his commentary, there is Maharaj’s commentary, there is Chakravarti Bhat’s commentary, and then there is, he himself wrote two commentaries. Bhaktivinoda Thakura wrote one, Systematic Words by Chakravarti Bhat’s commentary on each verse. He commented on what verses he felt were important.
So, that’s why you will see that from the 5th Canto onwards, the purpose, Chakravarti Bhat quotes Mahavacharya quite often. Because Chakravarti Bhat was referring to Gaudiya Bhashya and Bhaktisandra Thakura has quoted both Mahavacharya in his commentaries. So, my point here is that, even the Gaudiya Bhashya, Bhaktisandra Thakura doesn’t comment on social function directly.
He is basically explaining the scripture. Bhaktivinoda Thakura in his serious commentaries, what is he doing? For example, in the 1st Canto, there is Kunti Maharaj’s commentary, all his prosperity is because of your glance on us. Actually, what is going on in context is Kunti Maharaj is fearing the country and you depart and you lose everything.
Prabhupada’s commentary is what? Actually, the prosperity of human civilisation doesn’t come just by technological progress, it comes by nature’s arrangement. Nature’s arrangement has to be dependent on Krishna’s smile, Krishna’s glance. He has done great work.
So, the point is that Prabhupada has to keep a broader context because the effect of technology and infatuation because of technology has made many people feel that what leads to progress is just technological advancement. So, Prabhupada’s purports are quite long. And one of the reasons they are long is because he is used to social commentary.
Social commentary, for example, Prabhupada talks about abortion, Prabhupada talks about evolution. The British are jealous who talks on the subject of evolution. Actually, the theory of evolution was proposed in 1859 and Bhaktivinoda Thakur preached prominently in his first book in 1863.
And his preaching peak years were around 1890 to 1905. So, by that time, the theory of evolution was known. And Bhaktivinoda Thakur’s preaching time was 1919-1927.
And then he was reared to sanyas. And he was reared a party. So, that was the time when Gaudiya went literally extinct.
So, from 1905 to 1919, there was a relative lunge. So, in 1905, Bhaktivinoda Thakur retired. And he started living a reclusive life.
And at that time, Bhaktivinoda Thakur had also not come into his own fully. So, he was chanting his prayer. He was planning how to preach.
So, the point is that, by the time Bhaktivinoda Thakur started preaching in 1919, the theory of evolution was quite well known. And both of them referred to it, but they don’t offer it so prominently. Why? Because Srila Prabhupada gave this writing to the audience in his mind.
So, that’s the next point. Prabhupada had a bhakti universalist vision. Bhakti universalist means bhakti is not just meant for all over the Indian culture.
Bhakti is not just meant for Indians. Bhakti is meant for everyone, everywhere. And if it’s meant for everyone, everywhere, then different people will have different kinds of misconceptions.
We should stop them from coming to us. And that’s why, now what was Srila Prabhupada’s challenge? Prabhupada’s audience was culturally, religiously, and intellectually entirely unfathomable, basically they couldn’t sense. They had no idea.
You know, when Brahma, Drupada and Varuna’s mother came to meet Prabhupada, and then she told Prabhupada, why did you take both of my sons? You could at least tell me at once. So, you know, Prabhupada said, you are being extraordinarily generous with both your sons. And then he told us that we offer obeisances.
They offered obeisances, what happened to you? Because she was not at all flattered. She just couldn’t understand what was happening. She couldn’t make any sense out of it.
So the culture was completely unknown. You know, Prabhupada would try to humour people. One time some people came and asked Prabhupada, why are all these people carrying these sticks? So what did Prabhupada say? They said, why are they carrying sticks? To drive away the dogs.
So, you know, the people just casually walk you on the street. And what did they explain? That you are going to be a significant student. Of course, Prabhupada decided to give it up for them actually.
To drive away the dogs of Maya. From our own hearts and heads. The point is, Prabhupada knew where his audience was.
And accordingly, he gave explanations accordingly. So, you know, Prabhupada used the word for the Excellency of Krishna Goswami, stay high forever. Stay high was a typical Hindi phrase.
Stay high. So, Prabhupada was very expert. You know, the first time they the Agulta was produced.
It was published in Akhada. And that time, there was a foreword written by Haldane’s work. There was another famous Christian monk, Thomas Merton.
He also wrote some poems about it. But Thomas Merton had no idea about Agulta. And he felt that how can this book express violence.
So, Allen Ginsberg was very effusively praising Prabhupada. But Allen Ginsberg was a controversial figure. Because he was a hippie leader.
Srila Prabhupada, initially for the sake of gaining credibility, he asked the Macbeths to allow him to publish it. But Prabhupada was very alert. And as his work started outgrowing its hippie roots, you know, Prabhupada did not want his work to be forever identified with the counterculture.
Forever identified with the hippies. So then, B.B.D. published Prabhupada. Now, it is removed.
Allen Ginsberg feels like that. Because he is not a person who will bring credit intellectually respectable So, when Prabhupada was starting off, and Prabhupada’s main audience was the hippies, Prabhupada is Allen Ginsberg. And then when later on it got acquired, Prabhupada decided not to use it.
So, the point which he is making here is that Prabhupada was simply Agulta kind of audience which we are trying to reach. And later on, as the movie started expanding, Prabhupada, there are several letters, Prabhupada writes and decides. Many of you have, still have the sympathies for your past hippie lifestyle.
You should give it up. He said, no. Prabhupada would write that.
In our moment, it has got nothing to do with the hippies. Yes, it can go to the hippies also. It is not meant to be identified with the hippies.
So, Prabhupada was very expert in that. So, as culturally, religiously, intellectually, they were completely different. You probably know, religiously, how different they were.
When Vishnujan Maharaj was, they had their deities. I don’t know if it was Vishnujan Maharaj, it was a travelling bus party. So, they were doing Aarti at one time.
And suddenly, police came over there. They said, what happened? He said, the neighbour reported that in this bus, two small children have been tortured by showing torches to them. So, they had no idea what deity worship was.
They were showing the Diya, to worship the deity, and they thought these are real children and they have been tortured. So, the police came and they didn’t know what to make of it. So, they were religiously so radically different.
They had no idea what deity worship was, what actually religious culture was. And of course, intellectually. Intellectually speaking, the whole concept, although Christianity had the understanding of God as a person, but it has become, because God is not clearly described, so his personality was significantly in the background.
The intellectual conception was very different. You know, 1967 was the year in which the Time magazine published a cover story. And the title was Is God Dead? Is God Dead? 1967 was the year Mr. Prabhupada went and there was a prominent scholar of Christianity from Harvard Divinity School, Harvey Cox.
You know, some of his quotes are renowned. Some of early editions of Prabhupada’s books also. So, Harvey Cox wrote a book called The Secular City.
And he said that if Christianity is to survive, Christianity should get rid of all elements of transcendence from it. Christianity should just represent itself as a humanitarian movement that strengthens the ethical fabric of society. And it was a really influential book at that time.
That means, don’t talk about the Kingdom of God, don’t talk about Jesus’ resurrection, because scientific people do not believe these things. Just show how by Christian values people can become better here and now. And, you know, it was such an ethos.
That’s when Prabhupada went and what he presented was entirely transcendent. That not only there is one God, but God has a girlfriend. Not just one, 16 million girlfriends.
You know, it was just not easy, not understandable for me. And sometimes Prabhupada, which is his purpose, he never uses this word girlfriend for the purpose. But in this early lecture, 61st lecture, when Prabhupada said, Krishna has girlfriends.
You know, but after all, we are writing the history, that is fine. But once you are writing to scholars, you cannot say God has a girlfriend. It should be too jarring for people.
So Prabhupada is an expert in these things. So, actually speaking, in our religiously, intellectually, culturally, the audience is completely different. And to write to an audience like that is extremely difficult.
Actually, Prabhupada spoke to that audience, and that he was able to attract people. Actually, Prabhupada showed them power of mind. He was definitely sensitive.
That’s how when he started, he did not just start giving long lectures. Primarily, he would repeat those. And some lectures were a little bit short lecture.
He found a lot of music, food, and activity. You know, go out and look into this. Go out and make, do this to this.
He engaged people according to their needs. And that’s how he was able to attract people and transform people. So, Prabhupada was sensitive.
So, what is happening is, people are burdened by their misconceptions. And what Prabhupada is doing in this purport is, removing the misconceptions. See, actually, Prabhupada mentions that there is no need for any interpretation of scriptures.
Because scriptures are self-evident. And Chaitanya Mahaprabhu said that, the Vedanta sutra is clear like the sun, but your interpretation, what are they doing? Clouds are covering the sun. So, Prabhupada says that there is no need to interpret the scripture.
But then Sri Prabhupada does no commentary. Every commentary is a nonsensical interpretation. So, why does Sri Prabhupada have to do this commentary? Because, you know, what Prabhupada says is, scriptures are self-evident.
But what is self-evident is not evident for us. Why? Because it is that our own consciousness is covered by so many clouds. We have so many misconceptions ourselves.
The sun is not covered. So, it’s one thing, let me say, the book is here, we are here. So, a misinterpretation covers the book.
A misinterpretation covers the book. But a misconception covers us. It’s the two different dominants.
So, if a scripture is misinterpreted, then the misinterpretation covers the book. But we have preconceptions and misconceptions, those cover us. So, the book is clear, but what is clear is unclear to us, because we are covered by preconceptions and misconceptions.
So, what Sri Prabhupada is doing is, he is not he is not, per se, directly commenting on the scripture. He is commenting on the scripture, but in his commentary on the scripture, what he is primarily doing is removing the misconceptions of the preconceptions that we have. And then, the light of scripture can illuminate there.
That’s why Sri Prabhupada is hard at work removing all misconceptions that the audience is likely to have. Many of the misconceptions is there. So, now, I talked about Prabhupada’s sensitivity, let’s talk about his fidelity.
Fidelity is faithfulness. So, now, you know, in India, over I can speak now, Prabhupada emphasised on Abhidheya constituency. So, the absurdity is, you know, elaborate speech.
So, Prabhupada did not go into high, high, russic statements about about Adam-Han states of ecstasy. Whereas, Prabhupada, again, what he did, he removed the obstacles, one pointed and removed the obstacles, three kinds of obstacles. What are they? Impersonal tendencies and Sahajiya tendencies.
So, what is the Sahajiyaism? You know, Buddha was radically, Buddha, what he taught was radically world rejecting and world renouncing. Because the world is false and we have to go towards truth. But that was unsustainable.
So, from the 6th, 7th century onwards, a new kind of literature started appearing in Buddhism. And these were Buddhist teachers who said Buddha came in our dreams, Buddha appeared in our visions. And this Buddha was actually sporting with women and dancing with them and performing pastimes with them, whatever, pastime, whatever you want to call it.
And from these, this vision, this particular vision started a particular deviant tradition within Buddhism called as Vajrayana Buddhism. And this Buddha, original Buddha taught that celibacy is the way to spiritual advancement. And this, this imagined version of Buddha, he said, my original disciples were not so advanced.
That’s why I told them to celibate. Now all of you are more advanced. So, actually, celibacy alone is not the way to advancement.
Sex is also the way to advancement. And, in fact, sex is a faster way to advancement. Because sex is natural.
And when this idea came into Hinduism, that, so that was actually Tantra. Now Tantra is the whole idea that, when that idea came into Hinduism, they had the idea that there is Shiva and there is Shakti. And when a man and a woman unite, then Shiva and Shakti enter into their body and perform pastimes with their body.
It’s a very filthy idea. And this idea came into Vaishnavism, into Gaudiya Vaishnavism. So, into Gaudiya Vaishnavism the idea came in, then there were Sahajiyas who do immoral activities and they would say, actually Krishna is entering into me, Radha is entering into you and we are performing pastimes, Radha and Krishna is entering into me.
Terribly distorted idea. Terribly distorted idea. So, this actually was, so Vajrayana Buddhism to Tantraism, Tantraism to Shaivism, Tantraism has went to, it came into Vaishnavism as Sahajiyas.
So, it is almost like it took 100 years, 1000 years to come in. But by the time it came, it was maybe Bhaktivinoda Thakur’s time, Gaudiya Vaishnavism was considered to be considered to be rationalisation of sexual immorality. That means people just want the sexual immorality and they want some religious rationalisation for it.
That was what it was considered. So, Bhaktivinoda Thakur strongly strongly reacted against. And so, Vishal Prabhupada wanted to advance Bhaktivinoda Thakur.
But unless one is freed from Gaudiya’s complete identification, one cannot go to the advanced stages. Vishal Prabhupada emphasised on the basics. Why the basics? Because that is actually what is one time for the advanced stage.
Without that, our ideas to the advanced stage is going to be very hazy and premature. So, Vishal Prabhupada said his books are his devotional ecstasies. So, what is a devotional ecstasy? You know, often you may think our father is smashed and defeating revolution.
He is defeating Narayana Seva. Actually, what is… I don’t feel ecstasy in reading these things. But actually, there is an act.
Devotional ecstasy is not an activity that give us ecstasy. It is an activity that give Krishna ecstasy. And what gives Krishna ecstasy is to see the conditioned souls obstacles towards coming to Him being removed one by one.
That’s what Vishal Prabhupada used to teach. We are here, Krishna is here. And there are many obstacles that are keeping us from going towards Him.
So, Prabhupada removed the obstacles. So, that’s why in Sambandha, Abhidheya and Vayuja Vishal Prabhupada, what he did was, in Sambandha, he was completely uncompromising. And here, as an offer, Krishna will be promised.
That is strongly condemned Maya. But as far as Abhidheya is concerned, actually, if you see, there is Vaithi Bhakti and there is Radhanuga Bhakti. Vishal Prabhupada treats Radhanuga Bhakti in such an exalted way that when he is contemplating, Radhanuga Bhakti is actually a part of perfection.
Radhanuga Bhakti is Sadhana. It is a part of Sadhana Bhakti. It is not a part of the perfection.
When we say, we practise the rules and regulations out of scriptural instruction, that is Vaithi Bhakti. When we practise the rules and regulations out of Aguna attraction, then it is Radhanuga Bhakti. But Radhanuga Bhakti is also Sadhana Bhakti.
After Sadhana Bhakti is Bhava Bhakti, after that is Prema Bhakti. But the way Vishal Prabhupada treats Radhanuga Bhakti, treats Aguna Bhakti as a part of the goal. It is so lofty upwards.
Why? Vishal Prabhupada did not want us to tamper with advanced ideas prematurely. But the point is that Vishal Prabhupada does not talk too much about Prayojan. But he makes the way towards Prayojan very very accessible for us.
And what is the accessibility that he makes? Vishal Prabhupada was extremely innovative with respect to Abhidheya. What is Abhidheya? Abhidheya is the process by which we practise Krishna Consciousness. So what was Vishal Prabhupada’s innovativeness? Vishal Prabhupada’s innovativeness was that, for example, the whole concept of Buddhist tradition, having competition in the Buddhist tradition, sending devotees all over the world to start centres.
The whole concept of distribution, all the distribution happening to some extent in the Buddhist tradition. The way Vishal Prabhupada emphasised it was extraordinary. And Vishal Prabhupada, the idea of distribution of Prasadam was always there in Gaudiya Vaishnava culture.
But Vishal Prabhupada brought it, expanded it to a new dimension. This is a priest. He is a priest of far and wide.
So Vishal Prabhupada used Prasadam as a machinery to engage devotees to create a complex history. And the most amazing example Vishal Prabhupada utilising Abhidheya is what Calcutta is most famous for. Rath Yatra.
And that was something that is extraordinary. Actually, doing Rath Yatra outside in Puri. Actually, outside Puri Rath Yatras have been done.
But generally, even when Vishal Prabhupada would do Rath Yatra in his childhood, that was not Rath Yatra. That is a tradition. It doesn’t happen in Puri, it happens everywhere.
But Vishal Prabhupada, the first Acharya, he said that this culture is so wonderful that the hippies would like to do outlandish things. Yes, do crazy things. Because their idea was rebel against society.
So, they would really love to do something outlandish like dancing on the streets. Earlier, if they danced on the streets, the police would come and arrest them. But now they were dancing on the streets and the police were escorting them.
The police were escorting them. Because this was an ancient cultural festival from India. So, the idea of Rath Yatra on the streets of countries all over the world, that is Vishal Prabhupada’s innovative genius.
When we say innovative genius, it’s not something new that he has done or wanted. It’s a new way of presenting it. It’s like Chaitanya Mahaprabhu didn’t dance on Kirtan.
Now, if you look at the tradition before Chaitanya Mahaprabhu, the idea of Nagas on Kirtan, going out on the streets and performing on Kirtan, this is not unknown to Vedic culture. But this was not emphasised. Before Chaitanya Mahaprabhu, the Kirtans would generally be in the temples.
And people would come to the temples to participate in the Kirtans. And even now we will see that. Actually speaking, generally, if you go to traditional South Indian temples, we talk about South India because the culture is much more preserved in South India than it is elsewhere.
In South India, they have maybe once a year or twice a year festivals during which the ladies come out and during which there are public Kirtans also. But otherwise, the idea of regularly going out on the streets and doing Kirtan, that is not so common in Vedic culture. But Chaitanya Mahaprabhu saw that the society was becoming more and more alienated from its devotional, essential purpose.
So, let’s go over in detail. So, what Chaitanya Mahaprabhu started, that which is happening in the temple Kirtan, that can happen outside. Similarly, the Adhyatma that is happening, it can happen on a particular day, it can happen on other days also.
In fact, the success of Jagannath Adhyatma will be there, the Adhyatma on each day of the year throughout different parts of the world. I don’t know whether it is true or not, Chaitanya Mahaprabhu. So, Shri Prabhupada, he actually, his presentation of Vrindavan was very creative.
And Shri Prabhupada writes also, in one letter he says, that his whole Krishna consciousness movement has been practically invented by him. Now, what has been invented? Prabhupada said that he has not concocted anything. But, how to engage devotees from all parts of the world, Krishna says.
That was Shri Prabhupada’s presentation. So, in many ways, the engagement where devotees will stay engaged and will share Krishna consciousness all over the world. So, I will give you a summary of what I discussed.
So, I started by talking about how the teacher has to balance between two things. Fidelity and Sensitivity. Fidelity and Sensitivity.
If he goes too much towards Fidelity, the audience feels that there is no value to it anymore. Nothing is of useful value. If he goes too much towards Sensitivity, then there is no disconnection.
There is no current of spiritual potency available. Then we discussed about Shri Prabhupada’s balance. So, in Sensitivity we discussed, finally, Shri Prabhupada bringing in social commenting.
Before that, I discussed about the historical and non-historical structures. We discussed about the context of the Mughal invasion of India and then non-historical. And then we discussed about social commenting.
There were so many issues. So, the scripture is covered by misinterpretation. We are covered by misconception.
So, Shri Prabhupada is, through his purports, removing our misconceptions. We can see the light of scriptures. And then we discussed about Shri Prabhupada’s fidelity.
Shri Prabhupada’s fidelity. So, he didn’t go too much into the advanced things of the Mughal period. In order to avoid surging misconceptions among us.
But then, he made Abhidheya. And then we discussed about Kshatriya. So, Shri Prabhupada started tackling various other things.
Any questions? Yes. Prabhupada’s action, who was writing the purports, the circumstances was different. Now, the circumstances are different.
How relevant these purports will be till now? So, different things are coming up. So, at Shri Prabhupada’s time, the situation was different. So, how much relevant did Prabhupada’s purports be? The principles will always be relevant.
The specifics will change over time. I’ll give three examples for this. First is, say, Manthra 1 Purport.
Prabhupada talks about the battle between Communism and Capitalism. But now, today, practically, Communism is not there. Now, this will be Communistic officially, politically, but actually, economically, it is almost a Capitalist.
So, there is no battle today between Communism and Capitalism. But the principle of man taking away, man claiming what is God’s property, that principle holds. So, the principles are universal.
The examples are contextual. So, that means the principles will always be relevant. So, that’s the first example.
The second example would be, say, Vishwa Prabhupada talks a lot about Theoretical Religion. Now, who knows, the way things are going, in 30 to 50 years or 100 years, Theoretical Religion may completely be rejected. If it gets rejected, it will have no use.
Now, in that particular principle, what? Any theory, any conception that this truth exists or not has to be refuted. The principle will hold true. But the application will vary.
Now, one third example, which is very relevant for all of us, Vishwa Prabhupada’s books are written with the idea of one spiritual master who should put the whole movement together. We should make the instruction of the spiritual master as a light. But then, we are living today in a scorn where there is no one spiritual master.
And so, basically now, the current challenge for the scorn is that we have two lines of command. One line of command is the spiritual line of command. So, the spiritual master will decide.
And the other is the residency line of command. Like we say, we have GDC, we have the temple president, we have the department, and we have the devotees. So, now, Vishwa Prabhupada’s performs are not written in mind of institutional framework of scorn.
So, what happens is, devotees, by reading Prabhupada’s books, say, yes, I have to follow my spiritual master. But in most scorn, we have no connection with the spiritual master. The spiritual connection is there, but a functional connection is not there.
So, actually speaking, most of the spiritual life and spiritual guidance and spiritual advancement will depend on the sculpture which devotees are wearing. And that will involve interacting with their managerial authorities. So, many devotees are not able to make the link between the managerial authority and the spiritual authority.
So, ideally speaking, the spiritual authority reinforces or takes the managerial authority. And the managerial authority reinforces or takes the spiritual authority. And the two can go in sync, I don’t know.
But, that’s why now we have the Disciples course started recently by Swami Vivekananda. So, actually, how the gurus interact with the spiritual master and how one has to interact with the spiritual master. This is something which we need to be aware of.
So, Srila Prabhupada, he said, actually, my disciples in my manifold life commentaries on my books. So, that is important. And we are a tradition.
We are a tradition. Srila Prabhupada has given us the blueprint. But the blueprint is not the building.
Not the building. The blueprint is not the building. So, you know, yes, Srila Prabhupada has given us the essential principles, but as the context changes, we have to change.
Srila Prabhupada so often uses the word type. The type of step, you know. But none of us will use the word type.
At least we may use if we don’t know. But in the western context, we just cannot use the word type. Type means a group of brainwashed people.
That’s the kind of meaning that is there. So, then, we need to change. That’s why we need to have a living tradition of teachers and writers and realised followers.
So, the essential principles that we learn is we make spiritual advancement by following our thought. Now, how will that principle be applied? There is an evil Prabhupada stance where it is not that all disciples have access to Guru. They also have to follow the mind of Guru.
So, it is not that this is an unforeseen problem that Srila Prabhupada had. But the point is Srila Prabhupada did not address this problem in his books. But in the way he interacted with his disciples, he has set an example.
Yes, most of the devoted disciples of Srila Prabhupada were trained by Srila disciples. So, it won’t be that the spiritual masters were directly trained by the disciples. But that’s what we need.
One of the challenges is that our epistemology is Guru, Sadhu, Shastra. Guru, Sadhu, Shastra. So, for us, this epistemology can be applied in a different way.
For us, the Guru is Srila Prabhupada. Guru, Sadhu, Shastra. So, if you see it this way, for us, this Niskanth, Shastra is Prabhupada’s books.
And actually, for us, Niskanth, Guru, Sadhu, Shastra all came from the Prabhupada. The Shastra is given to us by Prabhupada. The Guru is given to us by Prabhupada.
Our spiritual master is representing Prabhupada. And for us, the Sadhu is the remaining, say, the other spiritual masters, the GBC, the others, they are all Sadhukas. So, actually, for us, this whole tripartite epistemology has been given by Srila Prabhupada.
So, I gave a whole class in Pune at one time. If we accept only Guru, we will think Sadhu, Shastra, what happens. If we accept only Shastra, and we think Guru and Sadhu, what happens.
Or if we accept only Sadhu and Vijay, Guru and Shastra, what happens. All three will need to be used. See, the whole conception of Pratibhutism that has come.
That has come because they accept only Shastra and Vijay, Guru and Shastra. You will study only Prabhupada’s books and nothing else. That is not what Prabhupada did.
He directed Guru, Sadhu, Shastra, all together. So, Srila Prabhupada has given the working world of how things are being done. Any other question? We heard that Prabhupada’s books will go on for 10,000 years.
Is it a life-saving or, as you said, the communities will come now? So now, Srila Prabhupada’s books will go on for 10,000 years. Well, firstly, again, I mean, this might sound a bit controversial, Srila Prabhupada did not write his books. Nowhere in his books has he said that my books will be the law books for 10,000 years.
This is not to say they will not be. But, again, the point is, this is not said by Srila Prabhupada’s books. It was only once in the conversation with his disciples.
Srila Prabhupada, if you see the hierarchy, there are his books, there are his lectures, there are his conversations, and there are his letters. In the database, front matter, J. J. Maharaj writes this because his reports are universal. His lectures are more specific to the audience.
His conversations are more specific to the people who are assembled. So, Srila Prabhupada’s book is only in a conversation. It’s not in a, it’s not from a lecture or in a certain or in a particular.
This is not to minimise the hierarchy, but just to point out that we should not overemphasise what Srila Prabhupada did not overemphasise. We should not overemphasise what Srila Prabhupada did not overemphasise. Srila Prabhupada did not go about saying that my books are the law books for the next 1000 years.
Srila Prabhupada said, I am repeating the lecture of the spiritual master, and it’s the eternal message of parampara, and that’s what he did that. So now, okay, now that’s the first point. Second point is, even if we say that Srila Prabhupada’s books are law books, actually, even the law books change.
Isn’t it? And what do I mean by change? For example, we have the Indian Constitution, which was written in 1915. But then, there are so many amendments to that. Isn’t it? And what happens is, there are certain principles that are universal.
But there are certain things which will change. So what will change? The applications will change. The representations will change.
The essence will not change. I’ll give a simple example of this. The Bhaktiswami Swamigal in Bhagavad Gita, he never used photographs in his books.
If you see any of the books printed by Gauri Ambedkar, there are no photographs. There are no pictures of Radha Krishna. And certainly, no pictures of Krishna on the cover.
No pictures of Krishna on the cover. The idea is that people may keep the book on the ground, or people may throw away the book, and a picture of Krishna is a picture of Krishna. Then you’ll be offended.
Srila Prabhupada didn’t use pictures. In fact, he had artists who used pictures. Now, why is that? He always used pictures.
You know, Bhaktiswami Swamigal’s books are primarily written for Indian authors. He did have a vision of reaching the next. But primarily, much of his work he wrote in Bengali itself.
Some in English. So, you know, it’s not that these people who were introduced to Krishna had this vision. We all know about Krishna.
The book is primarily to teach the philosophy. Srila Prabhupada felt that his book, his pictures, were the windows to this tradition. Windows to this tradition.
So, now, if Srila Prabhupada did something different, is that wrong? No. Prabhupada is carrying on the same tradition. The essence is there.
The context should have to be changed a bit. So, actually we know that when the Satsangstha disciples went to Europe, they were more self-made. And they were preaching.
But actually, that was by the institute. Even Dattajal himself was there. He was in the institute.
But instead of Prabhupada going to America, he did not go there. In fact, half of the month, one and a half months after he was there, he met Swami Nithyananda Ramakrishna and Swami Nithyananda told him that you cannot preach in America unless you wear an American dress. Prabhupada didn’t agree.
And actually, that worked to Prabhupada’s advantage. The hippies wanted to do bar-out things and this Prabhupada’s dress was the most bar-out they could think of. You know, wearing a carpet around your legs.
Even in Halloween, nobody would wear this kind of dress. Halloween is a festival where people wear all kinds of strange dresses. So, that worked to Prabhupada’s advantage.
In Prabhupada, if you look at books on Tathagatan in Prabhupada’s life, there are certain things that Prabhupada, at the location, could be different. And he did that. So, we shouldn’t think that parampara is like a frozen word that is simply repeated over and over.
Every Acharya is a different person. And with that Acharya he uses Dr. Krishnamurti’s intelligence to most effectively present the situation. So, certainly, there will be discussion and different devotees, depending on the different places, they come up with different ways of how to present Prabhupada’s message.
So, Prabhupada’s books, essential principles will surely go on. Essential principles will always go on. But, there will be certain things which will change.
For example, today, you know, now, in any age, I just concluded this example, that the gender-specific pronoun is not used in any respective communication. That means, for referring to humanity, you cannot refer to humanity as he. You cannot refer to humanity as man.
So, they say 50% of humanity is female. How can you make that? So, whenever you use the word he or she, man and woman, we cannot use the word mankind in writing. If I write an article, then I am saying that mankind, even without reading the article, is not a human being.
Let’s say that this person is so old-fashioned that he is not even sensitive to the current way of writing. So, why do you need word he or she? That is the way it is. This is gone.
This is gone. Actually, this is a very simple concept. The way most writers use it is they use we.
We is he or she, everything is included. So, whatever it is. But, Prabhupada’s writing is very gender-specific.
Because that was the way it was in his time. But the reason he rejects writing is because it is gender-specific. So, what do you do? How will he reach those people? Or just because those people are expecting gender-neutral writing, are they to be permanently alienated from Krishna consciousness? No.
Somebody will have to write gender-neutral language. It will present language and message accordingly. Then they will come to Prabhupada’s writing where they will not be repelled or shocked by gender-specific language.
But they will be able to see the essence. So, that doesn’t mean that Prabhupada’s books will become sidelined or minimised. But their mandate will have to be expanded by contextual presentation.
So, that is something which is required for every generation. Thank you very much. The Shastra will also be the books that Prabhupada has not commented on.
Mahabharata, Ramayana, Vedanta Sutra, these will also be Shastra. And similarly, so the point is this is an addition, this is not a substitute. But this is somewhat specific application for us.
So, in general, we cannot expect a spiritual master to live our life for us. We have to live our life. A spiritual master cannot live our life for us.
It is we who have to live our life. What does that mean? That means, we have to see which of the teachings that we are getting from Guru, Sadhu, Shastra are relevant, it is beneficial for us, right? Not that we reject the other teachings. This is not what we can apply right now.
For example, different Sadhus, different devotees are different beings. Sometimes some devotees, they spend 30 years doing Bodhisattva Vishnu. And they can think of nothing except Bodhisattva Vishnu.
And they will come and say, I have been doing Bodhisattva Vishnu. I mean, how can this be valid? Is that relevant for me? So, that is study and following Prabhupada. But that’s not relevant for me.
So, that’s why, ultimately, Prabhupada wanted each one of us to independently follow. Not independently. It means that, I will hear something from Guru, I will hear something from Sadhu, I will hear something from Shastra.
So then, which of it and how of it will I apply in my life? Which of those teachings and whichever of those teachings have just been applied, how do I apply them in my life? That is ultimately for me to decide. Now, for us, to some extent, it has become easier because we have a council. But, as we grow more and more in spiritual life, how much will we be able to access our council? We may not be able to access our council as much.
So, for example, now, Sanjay Dhan Guru Ashwagandha, we may not be able to access Radhe Shankar forever. Radhe Shankar cannot access Aadhaar Maharaj, or Vishnu, or whatever. So, that way, over a period of time, we can hear a lot of things, but what I can apply, what can benefit me, what is practical for me, that is, I can answer.
So, this is not to substitute the instruction that I have got specifically from Aadhaar Maharaj. We are talking of supplementary teachings. That means, we all have our services, we all have our sadhanas.
But, along with that, some specific emphasis, some specific application. So, what we should apply? Sometimes, each of us has to decide ourselves. So, that’s why, we would have to, over a period of time, develop our units.
Tamalakshinara Sarvatas are one. They are basically centred around Prabhupada’s letters to Tamalakshinaraja. So, one thing that comes repeatedly in several Sarvatas, Prabhupada will again and again quote in this verse.
Tehshaam Sathya Nithyananam Nithyananam Nithyananam. Prabhupada is telling Tamalakshinaraja that because you are so sincerely trying to serve Krishna, Krishna is giving you intelligence about how to expand. So, Narayana would come when he was in charge of Los Angeles temple.
He would come with so many different ideas about how to make Sandeities more attractive, how to get more people, how to expand. And so many times Prabhupada quoted. Actually, you know, in Prabhupada’s letters, the words that he quoted, as far as I could make out, I don’t have a statistical comparison, but the words on which Prabhupada gives the lecture the most is 10.5. Hanuman Siddha Manapad.
But the words which Prabhupada quotes the most often in his letters, as far as I have seen, it is Tehshaam Sathya Nithyananam Nithyananam. So, 10.5. So, actually, if we are doing a sadhana proper, we are following whatever instructions we have in it, then beyond that, there are very nice words. Krishna says, Mahabharata says, There is not a rule for everything.
It’s not that for everything, you can expect to have a rule. You can’t have, you know. Should I wake up at 4 o’clock or 3.30 or 3 o’clock? Should I eat three chapatis or two chapatis? You can’t have a rule for everything.
Nahi Sarvatra Vijaya Dehi. So, there are many things each of us will have to decide according to our own things. So, Krishna says, But what is Jyutta for each of us? Who can decide that for us? Nobody can.
This is what you should do. So, it will depend on individually. Therefore, actually, it will depend on our personal situation.
So, certain sincerity is required, right? And over time, maturity will come. And if we have counsel on how we can reconcile, that is very valuable. And of course, even if we don’t have counsel, we can always consult each other.
In this case, when we talk of the Guru, the Guru will generally like to give information. And he is speaking in the lecture, in the afternoon. So, you still find some emphasis.
Let me say, you are sitting in the audience and the Guru is speaking. There are some principles which need to be emphasised. Like, we understand the disciples would like to invite them more.
So then, in that way, it becomes specific on them also. So, we know that when we get one spiritual master, the spiritual master will emphasise certain things. So, how much should the disciples try to emphasise that? Is that something which they will choose individually or not? So, again, the spiritual master also gives an overall view.
But you will look at, say, Prabhupada had a missionary view. But even then, if you look at Prabhupada’s different disciples, they all have their individual missions. They have certain qualities of their own missions.
So, same will happen when the disciples will go and the disciples also. So, generally speaking, all the small devotees will have a missionary view. Some may express it by writing books.
Some may express it by travelling a lot in the city. Some may express it by staying at one place and building a congregation over there. Some may express it by, you know, say, by preaching to the hearing.
Some may express it by creating systems for education. So, the same missionary spirit is there. But then the exposure is different.
So, like that, we cannot deny our downfall of individuality and goodness. You know that famous pastor. I spoke on this earlier also.
Early days of our movement. Not early days. 1968-69, good institutions were started.
And there were some devotees who were very good at the institution. So, Prabhupada would exchange his views with them. And then Prabhupada developed certain lines.
When we are distributing books, certain statements that we speak people immediately take notes. So, can we go to temple, temple and read books with these lines, want to speak so that we can distribute books in a big quantity. This is how Prabhupada used.
Prabhupada used this. And Prabhupada said that devotional service is individual, voluntary and spontaneous. It’s individual, voluntary and spontaneous.
When a soul is inspired to serve Krishna, then devotional service is performed. Then devotional service is performed. When a soul is inspired to serve Krishna, then devotional service is performed.
So, it’s individual. Everyone of us has individual relationship with Krishna. It’s voluntary, we cannot force it.
And it’s spontaneous. We can talk about Aramda Bhakti, but it is that we have a particular nature. And we will serve Krishna in a particular way.
So, as a matter of surrender, if another way of serving is required, that is also fine, we’ll do it. But, that is not what is the Arma Niksha. Arma Niksha, we call it governance.
And over a period of time, that is what will bring longevity and stability to the So, now, Srila Prabhupada recommends individual. There is a very famous letter of Srila Prabhupada. This is a solid history of this one.
At one time, what happened when GDC, they felt that we are getting so much funds. And how do we keep account of all those funds? He said, we’ll centralise everything. So, we’ll centralise all the funds from all the temples.
And then we’ll allocate the funds to the different temples. So, when Srila Prabhupada got the news, Prabhupada was so angry, Srila Prabhupada suspended the whole GDC. He said, the letter to Dr. President, GDC has made certain decisions against my will.
Therefore, he is like, don’t make an institution of GDC. And then, Srila Prabhupada told the GDC that, he said, all your centralising bureaucracy will not work. He said that, actually speaking, the purpose of the management is to inspire the devotees to perform their services.
It’s to inspire the devotees to perform their services. So, the idea is, yes, certainly we need some amount of central authorities, central management. It’s required.
But the point is, Srila Prabhupada did not want to get too much bureaucracy in his office. His focus was, he says, the leaders of the unit, they should, everybody has a spirit of service. The leaders should facilitate that spirit of service.
And that is essentially the question. Because if you try to centralise everything, you know, the leaders will go mad and subordinates will go mad on you. Leaders, how much can they manage? And the subordinates, you know, how long, they will not grow like that.
So Srila Prabhupada wanted it. Now, when that sort of freedom will be given, that will really depend on the Srila Prabhupada. Because some leaders will want to train their disciples more and then give them freedom.
Some leaders will look at it in a different dimension. So we should go along with Srila Prabhupada. But the principle is that Srila Prabhupada really gave a substantial amount of freedom for how to preach to his disciples.
That’s the question. Yeah. … … … … … … … … So, is the school changing Prabhupada’s books? Actually speaking, not really.
You know, Srila Prabhupada himself told the devotees, his editors, that his books should be edited. So the editors only did that. So, that is something which Prabhupada wanted.
So, when Hyderabad was in which Professor Howard did that, and there was an inscription, so he was typing Prabhupada’s books and there was an inscription, O the King. So then he thought, even O the name of the King, in the form of O not the name of the King, the name of the King is something like Shukadev. So then he came back and said, Prabhupada, Prabhupada’s changing, take it for that.
And Prabhupada himself in the words of the 5th chapter of the 1st Canto, … he says that our attempts to present this great literature in the English language will certainly fail. Prabhupada says, certainly fail, but still this is a science of technical language. And Prabhupada is an example of when there is 5th chapter, it is completely difficult.
So Prabhupada is himself aware of the frailties of this English presentation. And Prabhupada wanted to decide this one. So, Jaidrath Maharaj was the main editor.
He told me, I have a friend, you know, whose hobby was to purchase books by famous authors, find out faults in those books, and mail those, find the address of that author and mail the books. See, all these faults are there in your book. So then when he got Prabhupada’s books, you know, he read 21 books, he couldn’t find a single fault in any one of the books.
Now he’s become a devoted student of Chaitanya. So he read Prabhupada’s books, he couldn’t find any grammatical mistakes, he couldn’t find any mistakes. So Jaidrath Maharaj told me that you know, because he’s inspired and stuff in writing.
So I asked him, how many times should we proofread before we publish? Maharaj said, not more than 50 times. Not more than 50 times. So he said, for every volume of the Bhagavatam that is printed, you know, we had one sack full of proofread paper.
One sack full, they would proofread 20-25 times. And that time, you know, even the computers were not so common. So actually, when you proofread, you take a printout, correct it, type it again, again take a printout, again proofread.
So this is the painstaking labour that they have done to bring Prabhupada’s books to a high level of perfection. So the perfection is grammatical. And to say, call that as cheating Prabhupada’s books is actually, is actually, you know, it’s an offence to the great labour that the editors have done to bring Prabhupada’s books.
To make Prabhupada’s books. Otherwise, Prabhupada’s message is transmitted. But from the point of view of grammar, there are flakies in it.
We just cannot publish Prabhupada’s books. There are dictations. And even the best English speaker, when he is speaking, cannot be grammatically correct.
So if Prabhupada’s books were presented as he had dictated them, no university library would have taken Prabhupada’s books. No scholar would have taken Prabhupada’s books. Actually, you do not have got any respect on any Prabhupada’s books.
So, it’s a very distorted idea. So, yes, it has been a particular kind of criticism, but Jaydev Maharaj has got full seminars. He has given examples.
You know, some of you might have attended the seminars also. I mean, examples. What has the editing been about? Firstly, it’s this grammatical view which has been corrected.
Secondly, which is essential. Secondly, it is actually Prabhupada dictated something. Some disciples, when they were transcribing, they couldn’t transcribe properly.
But then, in the earlier, in 1925, yanti devavata devam, pitrun yanti gudravata. So, there is pitraloka. So devotees do not understand what is pitraloka.
So, now, where in our Vedic cosmography is pitraloka? So, do we keep pitraloka and brahupadas because that’s what was there when the first Bhagavad Gita was written? Something like that. Then the second level of editing. That means what had come as a mistake is the transcription.
And apart from that, they have not done any substantial editing. So, there are basically two kinds of editing. There is technical editing and substantive editing.
Substantive editing is when the content is changed. And technical editing is when only the grammar and the overall presentation is made proper. So, most of the editing that the editors have done is only technical editing, not substantive.
That’s why it’s basically something like that. Suppose you have some problem. See, I have been there.
Jaidev Maharaj and Gowrit have written a full book called Responsible Cognition. So, they have exhausted quite a good number of examples of how they have done that. Yes, sir.
Shambhala, you can ask questions. Thank you very much. Bye.
You can ask more questions. We see you mentioned fidelity and sensitivity. So, as the generations will come up, devotees, realised souls, devotees will come out.
And they will have fidelity because of heart-to-heart connection and realisation. And they will use sensitivity according to people, situation, understanding, giving them. So, how do we reconcile the unity in spiritual proclamation? Means, because it will be more and more wider.
And it will be authentic. And how do we reconcile the unity together? Because people will look for materialisation also because not everybody will realise. Now also struggle is happening.
There will be. Because we are a movement. And a movement is a movement of various individuals.
There will always be irreducible diversity of opinion. Isn’t it? Irreducible diversity of opinion. Diversity of opinion which is irreducible.
Irreducible because different individuals come from different backgrounds. They have different upbringings. They have different traits within Krishna Consciousness.
So, based on all these, it will be natural that they will pursue Krishna Consciousness. So, ultimately, it will depend on a broad understanding that we are a dedicated Krishna group. Dedicated Krishna Prabhupada.
How we present Prabhupada will vary according to person to person. So, one of the greatest dangers to our movement will come if some leaders start thinking that they have a monopoly on Prabhupada. They alone know Prabhupada and others don’t know him.
Then it will lead to problems. But if there is an understanding, this is the way Prabhupada, actually Prabhupada himself reached in different ways at different times. So, Prabhupada had different strategies for his speech.
So, that’s why even before Prabhupada, what to speak of comparing Prabhupada’s life with previous Acharyas. So, Prabhupada’s speech and strategies, previous Acharyas. So, there will be different leaders will adopt different ways of speech.
So, we can’t avoid it. And we don’t have to avoid it. So, whether sometimes some conflict will come, but we shouldn’t have an idealistic idea that during Prabhupada’s time there were no monopolies.
And during Prabhupada’s time also, we should devote ourselves. We are Roti Gutta and priest, we should devote in their shirt by now. It is a conflict.
And now, of course, Prabhupada was there, we should resolve it. But is it that just by Prabhupada’s statement everything got resolved? Not always. Sometimes the problems kept going on.
Even when Prabhupada said something, some devotees accepted of Prabhupada, some devotees didn’t accept of Prabhupada. They may still want to follow Prabhupada, but they felt, okay, maybe this case was not represented properly to Prabhupada. So, it is not, it is never, this material world is never ideal.
So, even if Prabhupada’s time there were differences, we should move it right on. Even after Prabhupada’s time, there will be differences, movement will go on. So, in general, we can’t avoid conflict.
What we can do is build bridges. Let me say, if leaders discuss with each other, Kanishtas and Madhyamajis, Kanishtas talk about each other, and Madhyamajis talk with each other. You are doing this, why are you doing this? Why can’t you do this? Talk about each other and talk with each other.
It’s possible, at least there is some mutual level of understanding. That’s how it will go on. If they don’t, then it’s expected.
It’s not that we shouldn’t expect ideal situation when we are together. Please take it that way. There will always be conflicts, but then movement will go on because ultimately Kshatriya Mahaprabhu will be there.
And they will be sincere so they will be attracted to Kshatriya Mahaprabhu movement no matter what form it is. So, in general, we have to be clear that we can’t expect ideal situation even within a small community. Yes I was giving the example of Constitution.
So, in 1947-50 they made the Constitution. Later, whenever the problem came up, government did something and then the court smashed that order. Then they made the law to suit that.
So, then many times comes the Constitution deadlock. So, they are telling now that the court has given the order and there are certain basic principles which cannot be changed in the Constitution. So, they are fighting with that whatever the Constitution is for or not.
But as far as proper books are concerned, those who have been in the movement for 30-40 years, those who have read all the proper books So, from the GVC point of view, can we have certain one book, etc. How to make advancements in spiritual and what are the proper principles said. And then the details can be as per the spiritual master.
Somebody is good distributor, somebody is a spiritual master. So, overall understanding from all proper books what proper actually is trying to convey. Is there something like that? Isn’t that sufficiently clear? Means to make it for as the talk always keeps going, to clarify for all time to come.
GVC can give what are the basic principles, how to make it under Sadhana, Vagya, always people keep talking and there are confusions. So, as the institution, the topmost authority, they can give certain guidelines, these are the things. This is what Propath says.
The principles, not the details that everybody should be used to know. Some details are clear, chanting, this has to be there. What are the general, how one person, how individual is supposed to make advancement? Some people jump directly, some people outside.
See, one general problem with legislation is implementation. Even if you make a rule, how will you ensure that it is implemented? How will you ensure that everybody… But if you don’t have the rule, nobody will know what to do. There is always a balance between two things.
First is, you make a rule then you have to see how to implement it. And if you don’t make a rule, people don’t know how, people may not have a clear idea of what to do. But one big advantage of Propath’s books as compared to say, books of many other spiritual teachers, Propath is quite emphatic and repetitive about his basic teachings.
So, in general, what is needed? Somebody who chants Hare Krishna says Krishna has to keep a standard quality. And assist in the mission, assist in the overall mission, because he is showing spiritual advancement. How to make spiritual advancement is not really a secret.
Especially if you read Propath’s books. I don’t think there is any secret that needs to be made specific. There is not really much confusion in Propath’s books about how we should make spiritual advancement.
In general, it’s a good issue, maybe I’ll talk about it some other day. But at least, from the point of view of what might be required is not how to make spiritual advancement, but how to make spiritual advancement in the context of an institution. That’s what might be required.
And that is being done by the disciples. How to make spiritual advancement in the context of an institution, while living in an institution where we are dealing with multiple religions. So, that is not a philosophical question.
That is more of an institutional question. So, that will again, you know, it’s not that the institution is standard everywhere. You know, in America, you don’t have much of a promissory card system.
So, how do you make rules for how to make spiritual advancement? Do they have TV in their house or not have TV in their house? You can’t tell them such things like that. Maybe when they are dedicated, that’s different. But most of us cannot, so it’s difficult.
Ultimately, this is something which Propath has given to go to three different groups, and then move forward. And depending on the sincerity of Krishna, that’s a good influence.