Prajalpa II (with HG Radheshyam P)

Transcript

This is an AI-generated transcript and may contain some errors.
Thank you.
So, now the third prachalva which we’ll be discussing about is argumentation. So now, there are two aspects to this in the Vedic tradition. Am I better audible now? In the Vedic tradition, there is a path of karma, there is a path of jnana, and there is a path of bhakti.
So, in the path of karma, people are not much concerned about anything spiritual. Anything philosophical also. Only how much religion can give me some material gifts.
In the path of jnana, it is centred heavily on intellectualism. Know that. I will capture the absolute truth with my intellectual analysis and expertise.
In the path of jnana, both karma and the path of bhakti, both karma and jnana are integrated and subordinated to the heart. So, they are integrated together. So roughly, you could say, karma is the path of the hands.
We want to get something with the word. Jnana is the path of the head. And bhakti is not just a part of the heart.
It is a part of the heart which includes the hands and the head. We use our intelligence, we use our hands, everything in Krishna’s service. So, in the path of jnana, debating is considered a great virtue.
And the greatest debater is considered to be the greatest spiritually successful person also. So, on the other hand, in the path of bhakti, intelligence is given its due, but at the same time, it is recognised that by debate and argumentation alone, by logic and counter-logic, one cannot arrive at the absolute truth. So, this is summarised in the Mahabharata Shloka, which Prabhupada frequently quoted.
Tarka is logic. Logic is apratishta. Patishta means foundation.
Logic is foundationless. And that’s why it cannot lead to any conclusion. So, we will see in our tradition, in the Gaudiya tradition, there are two different examples of debating.
We’ll see Chaitanya Mahaprabhu debating with and defeating, say, Prakashananda Saraswati or Sarvabhauma Bhattacharya. But, in both these examples, we’ll see that Chaitanya Mahaprabhu did not directly approach the matter at the level of the head. With Sarvabhauma Bhattacharya, first, seven days he heard from him.
Treated him just like his father. Respected him. And then after he had made a place for himself in his heart, then when he presented the head, he pointed out how the explanation that he was giving was deficient, and the explanation that he himself offered was not having those deficiencies.
Then, actually, it not only made him sway his head, but it turned his heart also. Same way with Prakashananda Saraswati also. And Chaitanya Mahaprabhu met him.
First, I hope all of you know these pastimes. I won’t go into the details of those pastimes. So, he first sat near the washing place.
And he said, you know, all of you exalted sannyasis, I don’t belong there. And that humility touched their heart. So, Chaitanya Mahaprabhu did debate, but he did not directly start with debate or delight in debate.
He actually entered into the heart of the person and by that he transformed when he spoke at the level of the head, it was able to touch and transform the heart of people. So, we have the example of Rupa Goswami chastising Jiva Goswami also. Jiva Goswami, this is a long story, but basically there was a great scholar Vallabha Bhatta who came to Vrindavan and he pointed out some deficiency in Rupa Goswami’s works.
And Jiva Goswami, being the disciple of Rupa Goswami, felt that his spiritual master was being slighted. So, he went and told him how that is actually not a deficiency. And then after that, Vallabha Bhatta came and said, oh, actually, what I said is not a deficiency.
So, then how did you change your mind? And he told, your disciple Jiva told me, actually if your disciple is so scholarly, how scholarly you must be. And then when he heard that, was Rupa Goswami pleased with Jiva Goswami? He said, no. He said, why are you trying to exhibit your learning in front of a senior Vaishnava? And he was angry with him.
Another time, Rupa Goswami debated with another scholar Rupa Kaviraj and he defeated him after a 7 day long marathon debate. And what did Rupa Goswami tell him? You know, why are you wasting your time debating with people like this? Those who are so proud of their intellect cannot enter into the mysteries of the Vrindavan Dham. And therefore, he told him, you can leave Vrindavan.
So, imagine a disciple comes after a great victory to India and to his spiritual master. And the spiritual master, instead of rewarding him, chastises him. It’s completely inconceivable.
Suppose, you know, there is a World Cup somewhere in South Africa and an Indian team comes back after winning and the Indian government says you are not allowed into the country. Get out. It would be simply inconceivable.
So, it was something like that. Rupa Goswami established the glory of the Gaudiya tradition and Rupa Goswami chastised him. So, he said that don’t waste time in debating.
Why? It is not that we are not supposed to intellectually establish the philosophy of Krishna Consciousness. But, we have to do that. That is our duty.
At the same time, we have to look at people carefully and if a person is not really interested in learning, but a person is just interested in debating for debating’s sake, then it is best not to waste time with such a person. So, now this, for our practical life, can apply in two ways. You know, Ishwara Prabhupada, of course, was quite polemic.
He would play the role of the devil’s advocate and he would debate with his disciples and when the guests would come, he would also debate with them. But, there are also occasions in the science of self-realisation. There is a conversation between Ishwara Prabhupada and Professor Stahl.
So, Professor Stahl did not give permission for having a course in one of the universities, saying that it was a course on Vedic spirituality, Indian spirituality. He said, you people, Hare Krishna, are supposed to get a course over there, where we could teach our Krishna conscious philosophy. But he said, you spend too much time chanting to actually have chanting as a part of a course.
And Prabhupada said how chanting is scripturally based. He gave many quotes. And then Professor Stahl gave back several quotes saying, no, actually you said this word means this, but this word also means this.
This word means this, this word means this. And he gave back a refutation. And Prabhupada gave back a counter-refutation of practically everything that he had said.
But then he said, this whole process of argumentation can go on forever. Ultimately, this can be resolved only by accepting an authority. And we accept Lord Krishna and Lord Chaitanya as our authority.
And Lord Krishna has said this, Lord Chaitanya has said this. And then, after that, you know, so Stahl replied saying that, no, but he gave some answers to that. And Prabhupada just stopped the debate after that.
And it was not just Prabhupada stopped the debate, Prabhupada published that exchange as the scriptural basis of Krishna Consciousness. Now, if you just look at it objectively, it might seem as if Prabhupada has not really defeated Professor Stahl over there. But, Prabhupada did not consider that as a failure.
He had a deeper purpose in doing that. One of Prabhupada’s scholar disciples, Ravindra Sona Prabhu, has given a full lecture analysing this conversation of Prabhupada with Stahl, Professor Stahl. And he says that, Prabhupada wanted to show to his disciples that we can have this battle of courts and countercourts.
But at the end, it is unresolvable. Because, as I told the other day, Shabda Jaal Maharanyam, Na Muktaye, Na Muktaye. You know, Shabda Jaal, the ocean of words, is like a trap.
Maharanyam, the whole expanse of words is like a trap in which a person gets lost. Na Muktaye, one cannot enjoy also. Na Muktaye, one cannot get liberated also.
So, enjoyment means when I get a clear understanding at an intellectual level, I enjoy. When I get spiritual realisation, I get liberated. But, if we stay only at the intellectual level, there is no Muktaye, Na Muktaye.
We will neither enjoy nor we will get liberated. So, therefore, actually speaking, the intellectual level is useful for us to increase our conviction in the practise of devotional service. To increase our conviction in the practise of devotional service.
So, Krishna also describes this in the Bhagavad Gita. Shanai Shanai Ruparame Budhya Dhrithi Gruhithaya Atma Samstham Manah Kritva Nakinchidapi Chintaya He says, slowly, gradually, step by step, Budhya Dhrithi Gruhithaya. With intelligence sustained by conviction.
What should you do? Fix the mind on me. Fix the mind on me. So, that is what he said.
This is what we have to use our intelligence for. For increasing our conviction in the process of devotional service and for increasing the conviction of others in the process of devotional service. So, that’s why with this understanding, if somebody is ready to accept in a relative mood of submission, we can’t expect a new person to have a folded hand looking up at us.
But, at least a person is open minded, ready to learn. Then, that person can be given some wisdom. But if a person is not ready to learn, then we have to find out if there is some way we can open the heart of a person.
We can open the heart, create a place in his heart and through that, gradually, we can enter. And if that doesn’t work out, then just keep a distance from that person. And the best we can do to that person is offer our prayers to him.
Offer our prayers for his ultimate elevation. You know, in the Updesha Amrit, it is said that there are four different kinds of people. In the Parpot Prabhupada quotes from the 11th Canto of Bhagavatam.
And accordingly, we have to deal with them. ईश्वरे तदिनेशु बालिशेषु दुष्यत्सु च प्रेममैत्री कृपो भेक्ष यकरोति समध्यमा So, there are four different categories. ईश्वरे is the Supreme Lord.
So what should we do for him? प्रेममैत्री. We love the Supreme Lord. तदिनेशु, His devotees.
What do we do for Him? For them, मैत्री. We develop friendship with them. So, Radheshyam was talking today elaborately about what are the various ways in which we can become friends with devotees.
And then, बालिशेषु. Those who are innocent, कृपा. We offer mercy to them.
And दुशत्सु, the envy is उपेक्ष. We just neglect them. So, we will find, now with debating, where all can it happen for us? It can happen in two ways.
When we are meeting outsiders, and sometimes debating might happen about devotees also sometimes. So, we’ll look at both of these briefly. When it happens with outsiders? When you find that there are some other people who also claim to have some scriptural knowledge, and who also feel that they also know a lot, and then we present something, and they present something, and it just goes on and on and on.
And over a period of time, if a person finds that, if we find that this person is just not ready to learn, then, it might be best to leave it at that. If in the process of argumentation, debating, if we lose our temper, become angry, then, that anger will further alienate that person. Either it will make him feel victorious, or I have defeated this person, or it will alienate the person saying that, yeah, these people, you know, they’re so arrogant, they’re so narrow-minded, they’re so self-righteous about their ideas.
On the other hand, if we find that things don’t work out, that it’s not resolvable, then just end on a cordial note. End on a cordial note, you can say that, we can just tell them, see, you have certain ideas, and I have from my spiritual literature learned something else, and this is what my spiritual literature taught me, this conclusion of the scriptures. Now, ultimately, you are a free soul.
This is what you want to believe? My best wishes are there for you. And we ended at that. So, at the very least, what has happened? He has felt that this person, these devotees are gentlemanly people.
They don’t agree. In English, they say, agree to disagree. Sometimes you have to do it, leave it at that.
So, if we can end at a cordial note, then the advantage of that is, see, material life teaches us in two ways. One is the spiritual master’s way, he gives gently, warmly, he gives instructions. And the other is the school of hard knocks.
The school of hard knocks, you know. Maya beats down a person. So, eventually, everybody has to come to Krishna.
So, later on, when they learn the school of hard knocks, when they realise that their own intellect is not solving their problems, it is still keeping them in illusion, then at that time, if they still have a positive appreciation for devotees, they will come to devotees. They will come to Krishna’s lotus feet. So, that’s why if we can’t change a person intellectually, try to enter into a heart and change that person that way.
And if that doesn’t work, just keep a cordial relationship and end the discussion without getting into an argument. So, why an argument is called a question? … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … So, one devotee said that the only difference between the two is that, based on the scriptures, Krishna is darkish in complexion and Balramji is white. So, this was the position of, I think, who was that? Shamsundar Ruh.
And then Yamuna Mataji said that, no, but Krishna alone is the lord of Radharani. Balramji is not the lord of Radharani. There is also a difference.
So, when they both had a debate, the leader over there was Tamal Krishna Maharaj. They both went to Tamal Krishna Maharaj. And Tamal Krishna Maharaj said, this is a very high level debate.
We will go to Prabhupada only. So, they went to Prabhupada. And Tamal Krishna Maharaj told Prabhupada.
Prabhupada, he said, you know, Shamsundar Ruh is saying that the only difference between Krishna and Balram is their complexion. Prabhupada says, that’s right. And then he said, but Yamuna Mataji is saying that a difference between them is also that Krishna is the only lord of Radharani and Balramji is not.
That’s right. But Prabhupada, both of them can’t be right. That’s right.
But then who’s right? You decide. So, now what does this mean? We can just laugh at this. But actually, Prabhupada was indicating through this that there are certain issues of discussion and debate that are actually beyond our Adhikar.
That we don’t have. These are very exalted subjects. And we really can’t discuss them at our level.
And we have to understand that there is, in the spiritual realm, some things which are inconceivable. So, like Radhe Shampo was telling today, that the fall of the Jiva, how actually it happened, we have certain explanations. But if one just goes too much into the issue, it can lead to a needless debate.
So, actually, there are philosophical issues and it is important to get a clear understanding of them. But there are some issues which are difficult, which are beyond our scope to understand. And if they are beyond our scope to understand, then it is best not to debate over them.
But best to let them stay in abeyance till we become purified. Till we become purified, and if we become purified, then gradually understanding will awaken in our heart. Understanding will awaken in our heart.
It can come through realisation. It can come through some revelation. It can come through association to some senior devotees.
In general, the knowledge that we get in Krishna Consciousness, it can fall in four broad categories. First thing is something which we hear for the first time, it makes sense. We hear for the first time, we hear, suppose, actually, all the parts of my body are changing, but I remain the same, therefore I can’t be my body.
Yeah, this makes sense. First time I hear it, then it makes sense. Another is, second is, that we hear, we discuss, we ponder over it, and then after discussing and asking further questions, then we understand it.
So for example, God is good, why is there suffering in this world? Then we say, oh, it is because of our own past life karma. Then why past life karma, life doesn’t come in that life itself, why does it come in this life? And we ask further questions, and gradually we get to understand. So first is, first hearing it strikes us as true.
Second is, by contemplation and discussion we understand it to be true. Third, it may take years of service and realisation to actually understand it. For example, how the love of Krishna and the gopis is not material but transcendental.
We hear it and accept it, but how it is actually so, it may take time. It may take sometimes a lifetime of service to actually understand that. In principle we accept it, but to actually understand it.
Because it sounds like material love sometimes, but it is transcendental and pure and selfless. So this is the third category. So this will require service, realisation, and deeper understanding, which comes over years.
And the fourth is, there are some things which we may never understand. Because we are finite, and ultimately the scriptures are given by God who is infinite. So we may understand some things, we just not understand some things.
And this not understanding some things is not necessarily a disqualification on the spiritual path. Jiva Goswami says that, our very inability to understand the absolute truth completely, is evidence of the supremacy of the absolute truth. Our very inability to understand the absolute truth completely, is evidence of the supremacy of the absolute truth.
Because if we could understand the absolute truth completely, that means our intelligence would become greater than the absolute truth. Which would mean that the absolute truth is not supreme, our intelligence is supreme. So therefore, now generally speaking, generally among devotee circles, the debate that happens is often over the third issue.
Things which take realisation and revelation, service to understand. And if at all there have to be debates, the debates should never be in public. The debates should never be in the presence of devotees.
I have myself been guilty over this many times, because of my intellectual passion. But in any traditional culture, in any cultured family, if the mother and father are to have a quarrel, they will not have it in front of their children. Why? Because that creates tremendous scars.
So similarly, if somehow we have to confront a devotee or something, it is best to do it in closed doors. At a right time, and then we can discuss it. And if we have to have some fierce discussion also, if it is necessary, if it is unavoidable, then we can do that, but it has to be in closed doors.
A public debate among devotees, there are very few things as disheartening for the devotee community as that. So debates, this is how we can tackle with them, that as much as possible, recognise that certain things are inconceivable and leave it at that. And if they cannot be left, if they have to be dealt with, then deal with them in private, not in public.
And in general, if you recognise this principle, that most often, the debates on intellectual issues are motivated not so much by the concerns for the faithfulness to parampara, they are often motivated by our ego, with the desire to prove the correctness of our understanding. That I understand better, I am correct. And you are wrong.
So when that is there, then, actually the words that come from our false ego, they stimulate the other person’s false ego also. And then, Jyotiradhana Maharaj says that, any two objects, when they collide in this world, both of them break apart. They collide fiercely.
But when two false egos collide, both become bigger. Both become bigger. So, neither breaks, neither collides.
Size increases. Yeah, their size increases and their confrontation becomes more severe. So therefore, it’s always good if we can avoid these sort of debates.
And even in the devotee community, we have to understand that Shila Prabhupada has given a big, we could call a mega umbrella, a massive vision Shila Prabhupada has given. And within that massive vision, different devotees can have different definitions of success. Some devotee may think, Oh, I want to distribute Shila Prabhupada’s books.
And the most important service is that. Nothing else is important. And some other devotee may feel, No, no, no, actually, we have to train devotees, cultivate devotees, we have to develop a culture of Vaishnava Seva.
And that devotee may give emphasis on that. Some other devotee says, Oh, we have to build big temples. And that is the most important part.
Now, all these are valid definitions of success. But sometimes, the conflict between devotees is because different devotees have different definitions of success within devotional service. So if the definition of success is valid, it is given by Shila Prabhupada, then leave it at that.
That devotee will go and serve Shila Prabhupada in that way. We will serve Shila Prabhupada in the way that our spiritual guides have guided us. And which we feel inspired to go along.
So that way, so first I talked about differences among devotees over philosophical subjects and how they can be resolved. And if it’s our practical issues of management and things like that, then it’s best to best to understand that different devotees can have different definitions of success and then leave it at that. So okay, this devotee wants to work it this way.
And then that’s fine. So now this devotee is leading the project. Let him do it this way.
In the future, if I get the opportunity to serve Krishna, I’ll do it in another way. But ultimately, what is important is that we have to serve Krishna. So, debates, actually among the other forms, we just discussed about gossip and what was the other thing? Gossip and? Useless talks.
Okay, arguments. So you know, gossip doesn’t actually the way we are going, these are all increasingly more bad. The gossip, it just distracts our mind away from Krishna.
But this debate, actually often, it creates if it happens between devotees, it not only just takes our mind away from Krishna, it creates an aversion towards devotees. And that is even more harmful. So one is just we are allured away from Krishna, another is we are repelled away from Krishna.
So that is actually more dangerous. That’s why as much as possible, we can try to avoid debates. So I’ll summarise what I spoke.
I started by speaking about how in our tradition, the karma is a part of the hands, jnana is a part of the head, bhakti is a part of the heart, but it subordinates and integrates the hand and the head. So we use the intelligence to increase our conviction in the path of devotional service. But we understand that devotional service, that absolute truth cannot be understood just by the head.
That’s why a logic is considered inconclusive. And debates are useful only if they are helping people develop their conviction. So discuss examples of Rupa Goswami, Jiva Goswami, and then Chaitanya Mahaprabhu.
And Avaradhi Shampo said that we can open the heart of people with humility. And then I discussed about Srila Prabhupada debating fiercely with disciples to prove his point. At that time, when things were inconclusive, Srila Prabhupada left an open book at that, made his points and left it at that.
So when we are dealing with outsiders, if we can intellectually convince them, if they are submissive, if not, then try to open their hearts so that they can become more open-minded to understand the philosophy. Otherwise, end it with a congenial note so that later when they are in trouble, they will come to Krishna. If it’s among devotees, then we understand that there are certain things which are inconceivable, and therefore it’s best not to debate over them if they are matters of philosophical truth.
And if they are matters of practical issues, then we just understand that different devotees may have different definitions of success. And let the leading devotee do the way things are to be done. And when we later get the opportunity, we can do things in the way that we feel inspired to do, as long as it is under the shelter of Srila Prabhupada’s vision.
And in Jantam, if at all there has to be debate, it should, as much as possible, be avoided in public. See, one time, four fellows were watching a tall fruit falling from a tree, a tall tree. So they all had a debate also.
One of them said, the tall fruit fell because wind was blowing heavily. Second fellow said, no, no, no, did you see a crow sat? As soon as the crow sat on the branch of the tall tree, immediately the tall fruit fell, due to the weight of the crow. So they did.
Third fellow said, my dear friend, don’t argue like this. See, the tall had become very light. And because it had become light, it fell down, neither because of the wind, nor because of the crow.
But because of how it had become light, it automatically fell on a node. The fourth fellow didn’t argue. He took the tall fruit, and it had went away.
Instead of getting into argument, I went and sat there. Similarly, devotees who have come to this movement should eat the fruit of Krishna Prem and go back to Godhead. That goal should be the goal.
Otherwise, if you are debating in this world, you will get stuck in this world. And I said, you know, two scientists were arguing, this sheet can be cut with a scissor one side, and another one said, it should be cut with a knife. With a knife, maybe with a scissor, scissor, knife, knife, scissor, scissor.
And they were going like this. At last, one scientist, knife-wearing scientist, became angry. He picked up the scissor-wearing scientist and threw him in the river.
And the fellow was drowning. While drowning, he was saying, scissor, scissor, he was saying. A person convinced against his will, he got the same opinion still.
You know the saying in English? A person convinced against his will, he got the same opinion still. So, debate has to be useless. Because people, ultimately, they say, I go my way, you go your way.
The theologians will die with their theories. I heard it, such a meaningful statement. The theologians will die with their theories.
You can’t change them. They are what they are, they are like rocks. So, there was, there was a beautiful conversation with Gopal, one theologian.
He was asking, one theologian, western theologian, he was presenting to Gopal, Gopal, what do you think, Gopal? Gopal, that theologian says that everything is absurd in this world. So, there is no meaning to good or bad or anything, everything is absurd. And then the argument goes, very interesting argument that goes on in Gopal.
And then, Gopal, Gopal says, Gopal says, nothing makes sense in life to you. Why do you think? If I kill you now, what will happen? And then the devotee says, that’s what happened to him. The theologian was driving his car on a rocky mountain.
And suddenly he thought, anyway life doesn’t make any sense, so he drove it off the cliff, and he never did do that. So, he’s one of the western theologians. Gopal says, just see what a fool he is.
He is simply gambling with his life. So, there are many absurd theories like that in the west, if you see. And these are all debaters, useless debaters, good for nothing, I’ll tell you, I’ll give you many examples today.
Now we will see one beautiful small sketch, to have a taste. That’s all. Stay close.