Seeing scripture from different angles – The Monk’s Podcast 142 with Krishna Dharma Prabhu & Cintamani Dhama Mataji

Podcast:

Summary podcast:

Video:

Transcript

This is an AI-generated transcript and may contain some errors.
Hare Krishna, Krishna Dharmaprabhu, welcome back to the Monks Podcast. Hare Krishna Prabhuji. Thank you.
And thank you Chintamani Mataji for joining today. Hare Krishna Prabhuji. Thank you.
I’ve come to London several times, I got to meet Krishna Dharmaprabhu and in most of our meetings, especially when he talked about the recent Bhagavatam book that you’re writing and the satsang programme you’re holding, he always mentions you, but I never had your association. So I’m grateful that I can have the association of both of you today. And thank you very much for joining.
Thank you for having us. We’re very honoured. Thank you.
So it’s been a pleasure. We enjoy your Monks Podcast. I can’t believe we’re actually on the Monks Podcast now.
Yeah, we’ve made it. It’s my honour and pleasure. So today I thought that we could discuss a topic which we have discussed earlier in our private interactions also, and which I think you have developed a lot.
You have made this website Improving Sangha, which is quite comprehensive guidelines of how we can make our association of devotees more effective and more centred on scripture and Krishna. So within that, many of the guidelines which you talked about, some of them are, we could say, oft heard, read systematically and then read regularly and have a learning attitude, have a submissive attitude. But some of them I found that we don’t usually talk about them that often in our normal Bhagavatam classes on the normal understanding of how scripture is to be understood.
So one aspect is that don’t debate and be appreciative of different points of view. So generally the understanding is that there is, we shouldn’t speculate that there is one way to, there is the authority to understanding of scripture and we should hear and understand it. So this idea of, now of course, there is a quote of Prabhupada on appreciating scripture from different points of view, but that is often not so much translated into our level of understanding.
You can say, yes, Vishwanath Chakra Thakur and Baldev Vidyabhushan give different understandings of this verse, but they are Acharyas and their understandings can be different. But to some extent, it’s almost as if our individuality is removed from the process of scriptural understanding. So I thought we could discuss and develop this topic.
So you can start with, this is the starting context for why I felt we could discuss this topic and then I can take it further. But I thought this will be introduction if you want to respond to that. You go first, then I’ll let Chintamani speak, seeing as her, she’s, her first opportunity.
Go ahead. Thank you Swami. So Chaitanya, Sharan Prabhu, I’d like to first reflect back the really good question that you raised, a good point you raised, which is that on our improving our service on the website, you were saying there are many principles which we share, which are undisputed.
You know, everyone, all the senior devotees, all the preachers say we should read regularly, we should read systematically, we should have a submissive attitude. So there’s many principles which are really kind of undisputed and already accepted in itself. But there are some principles which are almost like revolutionary, it’s like we shouldn’t debate, we should accommodate different perspectives.
It’s like we don’t have that attitude in this school, it’s very much my way or the highway. It’s like there’s one sadhanta, one perspective, and everyone has to fall in line with that, otherwise you’re kind of like off the wall. And there are some quotes you acknowledge, and generally devotees would acknowledge, there are some quotes like in the CC where Lord Chaitanya said that every word can be seen from many, many different perspectives.
But our general understanding in ISKCON is that verses like that are not referring to sadhakas of our calibre, they’re referring to great acharyas, that the great acharyas can see from many perspectives. And the general understanding and kind of paradigm in ISKCON is that those of us who have sadhakas, we should see only from one perspective, that’s the perspective that’s handed down to us, and there isn’t really any room for us to use our own intellectual capacity to go beyond, outside of that perspective. So I hope I’ve understood your point, and that’s the point you’d like to discuss, that is there scope for us sadhakas to break ranks and have a different perspective? Yes.
I hope I’ve understood you correctly. Quite a very precise, I would say better articulated than what I articulated also. Thank you.
Thank you. So I would just like to, normally when we discuss Chaitanya Sharma, we always ask the person who raised the question if they have a light, but before we ask for your light on your question, I just would like to establish what Prabhupada has said, because there’s no point us discussing back and forth something unless we first establish what the Acharya has said. So there is this letter to Tribhuvanath Prabhu, there’s many many instructions like this, I have just selected for your convenience two letters, but this is a letter that Srila Prabhupada wrote to Tribhuvanath Prabhu in 1972.
So he writes this, he says, I’m very much stressing nowadays that my students shall increase their reading of my books and try to understand them from different angles of vision. Each shloka can be seen from many many angles of vision, so become practised in seeing things like this. So the Acharya is saying to his students, I want you to practise seeing my books from different angles of vision.
And in the same year, he writes to Satsvarupa Maharaj, who is at the time possibly maybe still at GBC, and he says, your first job should be to make sure that every one of the devotees in your zone of management is reading regularly our literatures and discussing the subject matter seriously from different angles of seeing, and that they are somehow or other absorbing the knowledge of Krishna consciousness philosophy. If they are fully educated in our philosophy, and if they can get all of the knowledge and study it from every viewpoint, then very easily they will perform tapasya or renunciation, and that will be their advancement in Krishna consciousness. So that was the letter to Satsvarupa Maharaj, again in 1972.
In fact, he wrote both the letters in the same day. So at a certain point in this scholar’s development, Prabhu really began stressing this, that we sadhakas have to begin to discuss his books from different angles of seeing, from different viewpoints. He wants us to practise it.
He wants us to practise being more broad-minded, and he promises us that if we do this, we’ll start making spiritual advancement. So that’s what our founder, Acharya, says. So it’s interesting, Prabhupada says, the result of doing this is that everybody will be able to do austerity, and then they can advance, tapasya.
So in one sense, he could say that the conviction to do that austerity, the inner strength to do austerity will come when we, when scripture has become convincing to us, that scripture has become intelligible to us from our perspective. So, because otherwise, I can just accept something as a received truth, but if it is not really registered with me, resonated with me, then it won’t animate me. So that’s an interesting, just a reflection on the quote which you put in that.
So that’s, in one sense, important for our personal application to have the strength of personal application to appreciate from perspective that makes sense to us. Yes. Would you, sorry, you reflect back.
Me, yeah, I was understanding the point to be initially saying that to see from different perspectives, yes, it’s there in our shastra, and Prabhupada did talk about that. Let me just close my window because I’ve got the aircraft, spaceships flying behind me. Sorry.
Yes. But it applies really to the advanced devotees like Prabhupada himself, obviously, and the other acharyas. And then you were saying, well, no, Srila Prabhupada actually asked us to do so, to see things from different angles of vision.
And you gave a couple of quotes, a letter to Tribhuvanath and to Satsvarupa Maharaj. And in that letter to Satsvarupa Maharaj, he’s saying that if we’re educated in the philosophy and can see it from every viewpoint, then we can perform tapasya, or enunciation. And Chaitanya Tranprabhu was saying, he picked up on that point, and how Srila Prabhupada is saying that that will enable us to perform tapasya.
And Chaitanya Tranprabhu was saying that he understands that if it resonates with us, if we’re able to really grasp the shastra and it’s meaningful, then on the strength of that, we can perform our austerity, our penance, so to speak, in Krishna consciousness and make advancement. And that’s what I’ve got so far. Yes, perfect.
Yeah. Yeah. And I like that very much.
I just wanted to add one thing, which is that, to me, it invoked the verse, you know, that verse, that one should not neglect discussions of these points of philosophy, and even if they’re controversial, because they strengthen the mind. So I get the sense that Srila Prabhupada was thinking of that when he wrote this letter and made this comment that, you know, discussion of shastra and seeing it from different points of view strengthens the mind, which I think would be useful in terms of our ability to practise, you know, the tapasya, as Prabhupada’s saying, in Krishna consciousness, increasing our determination. Yeah.
So, going forward, you know, this Prabhupada quote, can you give examples of, based on this, what you quote, you read that, you know, what would be differences of opinion that could be acceptable within our range as sadhakas? This idea that, maybe I can start with the example, which I had, when I was, my early years of my spiritual life, when I would read books, I would like, at that time, there’s no physical, digital books or physical books. I would like to make notes and put some border headlines and things like that. And my spiritual teacher also, my first shiksha guru, he also liked to do that.
But then I had another shiksha guru, who said, this is Bhagavatam, this is pure pristine, don’t write anything on it. Do you think your words can add to the Bhagavatam? So, we asked that to our Guru Maharaj, Swadhanath Maharaj. Maharaj said that, both approaches are fine.
He said that, you can consider the book to be a deity and you feel that nothing should be put on the Bhagavatam, it’s the deity, Bhagavatam is Krishna. Then you can treat the Bhagavatam like a Shaligram Sheela. And you don’t normally decorate the Shaligram Sheela.
But you can also treat the Bhagavatam like a deity of Krishna and the marks that you are having are decorations on Krishna. So, you make sure that you don’t scratch any text when you are marking it. So, it is a very sweet way of reconciling two opposite opinions.
That was the time when it struck me that, oh, there is a possibility for diversity and diversity doesn’t need to have to lead to difference. It just is individual flavour or individual nature. You want to reflect that? Yes.
Would you mind if I went back to what you said to Swami? Oh, no, no, I’ll stick with what Chaitanya Swarampudra was saying. So, Chaitanya Swarampudra… You can reflect back on what he said also, please. Whatever you feel.
We don’t have to go into it. Just go ahead, please. Thank you very much.
So, Swami, you were saying that the idea of diversity, really not debating, seeing things from different perspectives, the quote that it brought to your mind is from the CC. I’m just trying to find it on my text that strengthens the mind. I forget the Sanskrit.
I’ve actually got it on my text somewhere. But one shouldn’t avoid the discussion of controversial texts because by discussing them, one’s mind becomes strengthened. Oh, yes.
That’s right. And unfortunately, my intelligence is not so good to be able to remember it, so I’ve written it down. But the end of that quote in the CC is… Yeah, I got it.
It’s the CC Adhimila 2, verse 117. So, the end of that is that one’s mind becomes attached to Sri Krishna. So, it’s developing on the point that Chaitanya Swarampudra, that you developed, Chaitanya Swarampudra, that we have to understand from Shastra why we’re performing austerity in order to cultivate the determination, the vrata, to perform that austerity.
And then you cited this verse. So, just the one addition I wanted to put onto that, which for me is very important at least, is that one’s mind becomes attached to Krishna. It’s this attachment to Krishna that makes it easier to perform austerity.
And I would like to cite a Shastric verse to support that perspective, which is 11.3.30. Prabhupada says that by discussing, learning how to discuss with devotees, one’s loving relationships become developed and one experiences mutual happiness and satisfaction. And by such discussions, one is able to perform tapasya. Because we’re atmaram, we’re pleasure-seeking.
If we don’t begin to get a Ramanticha, what’s that 10.9 is, a Ramanticha, Tishanticha, Ramanticha. If we’re not getting our pleasure from Sadhu Sangha, and what do Sadhus do when they come to give Sangha? They discuss Shastra. So, if we’re not developing, cultivating our loving friendships and our mutual satisfaction and happiness, it’s really hard to give up the inclination to get our pleasure from Asat Sangha and activities which are not spiritual practises.
So, I think as well as determination, our Sadhu Sangha should be done in such a way that’s giving us pleasure. Our mind becomes attached to that Sadhu Sangha because Bhagavatam and Krishna are non-different. If our attachment for discussing Bhagavatam is developing, our mind is becoming attached to Krishna.
And it’s that higher taste which really makes it easier to perform tapasya as well as the conviction of its necessity. So, I just wanted to round up that part of the discussion. Okay, Krishna, do you want to add something to that? Yeah, just a little bit.
First, I’ll understand that what my wife’s saying is that that verse concludes by saying, thus the mind becomes attached to Krishna. That Siddhanta Valiya verse concludes that. And that in particular is what enables us to perform tapasya because how can we give up the lower taste? What does tapasya mean? In Krishna consciousness, it means always thinking of Krishna, always engaging in Krishna’s service.
Withdrawing our senses from matter doesn’t mean suspending ourselves in midair and doing nothing. It means engaging in Krishna’s service always. And that’s tapasya because we’re not attracted to that as conditioned souls.
We’d much rather engage ourselves in watching the football or talking nonsense or going to the movies or something than to read the Krishna book and discuss that with each other. But we have to get that taste, that rati, for hearing about Krishna. And if we don’t, then we’re going to just be attracted to the material energy.
So, it’s this discussion. The only thing I wanted to add that gives us that taste is that Satang Prasangam Mamavirya Samviddho Bhavanti Hrit Karna, Rasayana Katha. From the third canto, Lord Kapila is telling us that by that discussion, we get that taste for the Rasayana Katha and gradually Tatyoshna Ashapavagrabha Manu Shraddha Rati Bhakti Manukramishiti, step by step, everything comes.
So, that’s the value of these discussions. It’s very potent in awakening that taste, in developing that taste. And that’s the only way we’re going to get free of the material energy.
Yes. And thank you, this idea of taste. So, it’s not just like an exercise of will to stay away from the worldly ratification, but it’s more the power of the attraction to Krishna and Krishna Katha that will take us up.
So, this is an important point. I’m just not clear how this connects with appreciating scripture from different perspectives. Because the normal devotional understanding is that as we become purified, then we will develop the taste for Krishna.
And quite often, the idea is one aspect of purification is giving up your independent mentality. So, but what you are saying is that discussions are important, no doubt. But are you saying that when we are discussing, it’s we are bringing our perspectives.
And when those perspectives are heard and they are appreciated and not dismissed as deviant, that’s when the Krishna Katha will become relishable for us. Is that the connection between the taste and multiple perspectives? Would you like to, you have to tell us who you are to go first. So, Shetan Sharma, very nice point.
You’re saying that, okay, you’re still not seeing, initially you started off by saying you’re not seeing the connection between getting a taste, but you’re getting it now. We have to get a taste in order to give up our lower taste, but to get the higher taste. But what’s the connection between getting a taste and seeing from multiple perspectives? Because very much the training in this contemplates is stick to the sedanta, don’t deviate, don’t be over-intelligent, don’t think you know more than your authority.
So, what’s the connection between being allowed to see things differently and getting a taste? And then even as you were asking your question, you were giving your light and your light was that, well, it’s just so much nicer when we’re not put down all the time, when our perspective is validated and heard and we feel appreciated for our contribution. It’s just so much nicer to talk to someone who doesn’t keep telling us everything you think is wrong, just think what I think. You know, it’s just so much nicer to be accepted as a person and then now to contribute and have our contribution validated.
So, that was your, as far as I could hear, you were giving your light that it’s just nicer to talk to someone who accepts us and validates us than it is to someone who tries to control us and doesn’t allow us to think. Did I understand you correctly, Prabhu? Yes, yes. Perfectly.
Thank you. Do you want to respond? Well, I think Prabhu responded. I would like to add something, unless Chaitanya Sharma would have more he wanted to say, I would like to add something to what he said.
Okay. Yeah, please, you can add, definitely. Okay.
So, what I wanted to add is this, that there are many places when, you know, right in the beginning sentences of Bhagavad Gita, the first two lines of Prabhu’s opening report, Prabhu says, one should try to understand. So, and there’s this other really lovely quote I’ve got up for you, I’d like to read. Krishna says, simply by trying to know him, one becomes liberated.
Simply by trying, not perfectly, even imperfectly, because he’s endeavouring to understand Krishna, that very activity will make him liberated. So, you know, we may get details wrong, but that’s not what really attracts or repels the Lord. What attracts him is the sweet way we try to understand and the kindnesses and the effort we put to trying to study Shastra and trying to cite Shastra.
I would like to say a little bit more, but, you know, getting everything 100% right is not necessarily going to make us lovers of God, but learning to associate with each other right, that’s what’s going to make us lovers of God. There is a few more things I’d like to add to the soundbite, but I will pause in case. It’s beautiful.
I don’t know, we really think about this way that, I don’t know, just trying to understand Krishna will help us grow spiritually. In one sense, Krishna also says that in 1817, the Gita that studying this message is worshipping me. So, in one sense, just the worship purifies us.
The worship doesn’t have to be perfect to be purifies. Of course, as we practise, the worship will become better. But even if somebody is not moving the arati plate in the perfect circle, still the fact that they’re doing worship, they are growing.
So, that’s a beautiful understanding. Thank you. Yes, Krishna.
Would you mind? Yeah, please. Yeah, yeah, I’ll just, yes, you’re saying that, you know, that it’s only that what pleases Krishna is that we come together and we discuss, you know, he says, I’m present when my devotees are discussing my glory. So, you know, we’re trying our best.
Obviously, we’re never going to properly understand Krishna’s glories, you know, and we’re always going to be struggling, even with the philosophy, and we may not get it right. But the Lord is pleased when he sees the endeavour, and especially if we’re doing that in a loving way. I mean, in the Bhagavatam, it also shows when he spoke to the Vrachetas how much he appreciates our cooperating together, you know, that you’ve cooperated.
He’s very pleased just by that move that we’re able to do that, which we also struggle to do. But, you know, then we do that in our discussions, and we serve each other. We assist each other in trying to understand Krishna, and he’s pleased by that.
And that’s how we develop our love for him. You know, it’s not about becoming big jnanis and assimilating and being able to, you know, recite verses and chunks of philosophy and things like that. You know, it’s just that we actually associate nicely, and we discuss the glories of the Lord.
And I really like that. I just wanted to add that, you know, in this connection that when we are, it’s the process of shravanam kirtanam. You know, we’re not learning.
I mean, we are learning. We do want revelation of Krishna and the Dharmi, Buddha, Yogam. He’ll give us that.
But, you know, but really it’s the process of sankirtan when we come together and discuss the Shastra, and that’s the Angas of Bhakti. You know, the result may or may not come. We may learn something.
We may not. You know, we may understand, or we may still struggle, but we’re still doing the process of shravanam kirtanam, Vishnu samaranam. You know, so that’s what’s important.
That’s so nice. So now here, if Madhani, you want to reflect something on this, or I can go ahead. Would you mind if I added a couple of things to what my husband, sorry.
Well, in two places, Krishna says that in Bhagavad Gita 10.10, 10.10, he speaks right after 10.9, and 10.9 is to Shanticha Ramanticha, is to these devotees, is to these devotees that Krishna, from within their hearts, gives them the understanding they need to come to Him. And a similar point is made in 11.3.31. 11.3.30, I’ve already cited, is where he says that the devotees of Lord should learn how to associate so they can discuss Shastra in a way that builds their loving friendships, and in a way which gives them mutual loving satisfaction, and this will help them to perform tapasya. And then in 11.3.31, this is what Shukadeva Goswami says, he says, the devotees of the Lord, let me just make sure I’ve got the right verse here.
The devotees of the Lord constantly discuss the glories of the personality of Godhead among themselves, thus they constantly remember the Lord and remind one another of His qualities and pastimes. In this way, by their devotion to the principles of Bhakti Yoga, the devotees please the personality of Godhead, who takes away from them everything inauspicious. So the most, like my husband was saying, we’re not jnanis, it’s not about getting more knowledge, it’s about learning how to discuss Shastra in a loving way which builds our mutual loving friendships and our mutual happiness and satisfaction.
That pleases Krishna, just like he was pleased with the Prachetas, he becomes, he doesn’t become pleased when we call each other demons and, you know, and faithless, he doesn’t become pleased when we, you know, attack each other, he becomes pleased when he sees us encouraging each other, you know, validating each other, building on each other. When he’s pleased, he, from within our hearts, takes away our misconceptions and in the varieties and attachments that gives us the taste. So the process of Bhakti is not about becoming the biggest jnani, it’s about pleasing Krishna and he becomes pleased when we discuss correctly.
Okay, that’s beautiful. I think this whole dynamic of, you’ve made two very striking points. One is that it’s about pleasing Krishna and just the attempt pleases Krishna.
Earlier you meant that point, now this point. So now, this raises two questions, which I’ll mention one by one. First is that, are there models of such discussion in scripture itself? Because mostly, although the word discussion might be used in scripture, what we have more is discourse rather than discussion.
Where, if either it’s Chaitanya Mahaprabhu with Ramananda Raya, where the normal idea of discourse is inverted, Ramananda Raya is speaking and Chaitanya Mahaprabhu is hearing. And whether it is Shukadeva Goswami and Parikshit Maharaj, where one is questioning, there is a clear chain that this is the person in authority who is instructing, this is the person who is learning. And so, are there examples firstly of discussions in scripture and within those discussions, are there different points of view that are accepted that say Parikshit Maharaj asked a particular question and Shukadeva Goswami gives a different answer.
Okay, this is not the right understanding, this is the right understanding, something like that. But I don’t see this, maybe it’s my lack of perception. But in principle, we do understand Bodhayanta Parasparam is discussing and that is talking about equals more or less, both of them are interlinked, both of them are devoted to Krishna, Machitta, Madhgata, Prana.
So, are there models of this kind of discussion or is it because those models are, that is talked about, but that is not modelled in the scripture. That’s why there is the idea that it’s more of a hearing rather than discussing that is to be emphasised. Very nice.
Yeah, yeah, I understand you saying, yeah, that we’re talking about discussion among equals and we share our perspectives and lights. But is there any example of this in Shastra? Because what we generally see is more of the, you know, the Sambadha where the authority is there. Shukadeva is there telling Parikrit.
Maitreya is there telling Vidura. There’s questions, Parikrit raises his questions and Vidura raises questions. Ramananda Roy was instructing so-called the Lord who raised questions.
But, you know, is there any evidence, any examples of what we’re talking about where we’re not just trying to learn because that’s become the model in ISKCON, that really it’s kind of didactic where it comes down from above and we’re receiving knowledge and we don’t have much to contribute unless we happen to be the person who’s the, you know, the pure devotee who’s giving that knowledge. So, you know, you haven’t seen this kind of thing evidenced in scripture, but you’re thinking, well, maybe I missed it. Maybe it’s there, you know, and you’re interested to know if there’s any examples.
Yes, precisely. And I mean, in response to that, you know, when we do our discussions, we do them as equals. But there’s the element also of the authority is central, and we are trying to learn from the authority.
And of course, for us, that’s Srila Prabhupada. It’s not that we’ll just sit down and start, you know, shooting the breeze together. Well, I think, you know, about this and that, you know, and I remember hearing this and something.
And, you know, what do you think about that? And then the other person is, well, my idea is this and that. And it really just goes back and forth with each of us sharing our opinions. We’re not doing that.
What we’re trying to do is make Prabhupada central. And our discussions, and you mentioned the website, and of course, we’ve got the 16 principles there. And the first one is to hear from the pure devotee.
And that has to be central always in this business of katha and, you know, of hearing. And what we’re doing with our process of discussion is trying to facilitate that hearing from the pure devotee. That’s critical.
You know, Shastra is telling us that how will we actually make advancement in Krishna consciousness? By hearing, by hearing from the pure devotee, you know, with rapt attention. So that’s all we’re really trying to accomplish here. We’re not saying that, well, I’ve got something really important to share that you should hear.
And this is really going to help you. You know, it may be that Krishna speaks through each of us. He can do that.
Of course, he can. You know, but what we really want to do is hear from the pure devotee. So our discussion really is about that.
It’s, you know, we begin with a deep understanding of Prabhupada’s words on the page, in the purport. We read it and we reflect back what we think Srila Prabhupada is saying. And the other person assists us in that, reflecting that back to us, enabling us to think more, you know, get psychological air that enables us to go deeper into what Prabhupada’s saying.
And then we do the same for our discussion partner, enable them to go deeply into what Prabhupada’s saying. And it may be that my understanding is a little different from my partner’s, because we’re in different modes of nature. There’s different reasons why we may see things differently.
Who knows? Krishna may be revealing something to me that he’s not revealing to the other person. So we benefit from each other’s lights or perspectives in that way. But it’s always based on the words of the pure devotee.
So we are honouring that tradition, if you like, of hearing from the authority. But we’re using Prabhupada’s books as that authority. Okay.
So in one sense, you could say… Mother, you want to add something to this? No, no, I loved what my husband said. It was very much… I agree with everything he said, everything. I just wanted to pick up on one thing he said.
Swamiji, you brought in the concept of samvada. So samvada is the authority. Most of the discussions in Shastra are samvada.
There is the person whom the student acknowledges as being the self-realised soul, and that he’s accepting himself as the student. So that’s how, you know, Prabhupada is our founder chariot. Prabhupada is our link to Krishna, you know.
So we accept him as the samvada, as that authority on who’s speaking on Krishna’s behalf. But when you and I sit and speak together, why should you accept a conversation with me in the mood of samvada? On what basis should I accept a conversation with you in the same mood as I would from Prabhupada? Our discussion is vada. We’re still on the ladder trying to attain Krishna, you know.
He’s coming from Krishna. So our discussion, we’re discussing the worth, the pure devotee, but our discussion is vada. It’s often not today, but it should be vada.
And that’s the distinction between samvada, which my husband brought up, and vada, which is between equals. But the equals are trying to understand the teachings of the established authority. That’s brilliant.
Yeah, please go ahead. Sorry, I’ll just add quickly that we are very much like Arjuna, or like Parikhit, or like Vidura. Raising doubts, as we discuss and we hear from Prabhupada, it churns the heart, and doubts come up, and we raise them.
So there is a parallel between what we do and what you see in shastra, except that the authority may not be personally present as much as they were at that time. Those are discussions that we’re seeing in shastra, and they’re raising their doubts. And confusions, and they’re having them cleared.
So we don’t have that, unfortunately, the opportunity to do that with Prabhupada in person. But we find that when we discuss together and assist each other to connect with Prabhupada, to hear from him, then it works in the same way. That we’re able to clarify doubts and clear our confusions through this process of discussion.
Although I don’t think you’re going to find an evidence of a group of neophytes like us sitting together and trying our best to comprehend the words of the pure devotee, you do see that taking place with the individuals. Arjuna raises plenty of doubts. Vidura raises doubts.
They all raise doubts. It is happening, but in a slightly different format. Here we’re saying, let’s come together and assist each other in that process.
Okay, that’s very, in one sense, clear now. So it’s like, first of all, what you mentioned about the difference between samvada and vada, that’s an interesting distinction which we had not thought of. At least I had not heard of before.
That what you are saying is that this is a next stage. What scripture depicts is one stage, is one prominent stage in the process of Krishna katha that we hear from authority. And then after we hear from authority, it’s, yes, the sages of Navisharanya heard from Sona Krishi, from Suta Goswami.
And we could say that after that day, when they went about their lives, they would have discussed what they had, what they did. So that may not be depicted in the scripture. But that’s just a natural, natural next step.
After shravanam comes kirtanam and smaranam. So in that sense, it’s a natural next step. And that is the bhakti culture.
So that makes sense perfectly. Now, you want to add something to this, Mataji? Thank you so much. First of all, I really appreciated the way you summed that up.
You put it very nicely, how the natural next step after the sages heard is when they sit together, what are they going to talk about? The sages politics? No, they’re going to talk about what they just heard. And that’s what we should be doing. That’s the bhakti culture.
So I really love the way that you put that and encapsulated it. It kind of made it more firm in my own mind too. And there is just one thing I would like to add, because at one point earlier on in the discussion, you said, so what is the boundaries? So is there any kind of like boundaries within which our discussions should stay in so that they don’t become too speculative? And in 1715, Prabhupada very clearly gives the boundaries.
So 1715, Krishna speaks about austerity of speech. And in the purport, this is what Srila Prabhupada writes. He says, the process of speaking in spiritual circles is to say something upheld by the scriptures.
One should at once quote from scriptural authority to back up what he is saying. At the same time, such talk should be very pleasurable to the ear. By such discussions, one may derive the highest benefit and elevate human society.
So for example, when we sit and discuss at home, we have a light. We don’t just say Prabhupada says or it says in Bhagavatam. We take some time to then go to the database or go to our books and bring the verse up or bring the section up, and both of us look at what the other person is citing, look at the evidence.
This is the boundaries that can you find shastric evidence or evidence from the teachings of the Acharyas, from Prabhupada and the Acharyas that he cites as being reputable? And if we can find shastric statements to support our lives and our perspective, then Prabhupada is saying that’s the limit. You know, we’re not speculating. It’s not I think, but it’s I heard, and let’s bring the evidence up now, and let’s both of us look at the evidence.
Then we’re keeping within the boundaries of bona fide discussions in spiritual circles. This is the method. And pleasing, not attacking each other, not calling each other names because we have a different perspective.
That’s the second boundaries. As soon as we start insulting each other, we’re not speaking as Vaishnavas. We’ve crossed the line that’s not accepted in the Bhakti culture.
Okay. Yes, and this is Krishna, you want to add something to this? I can take this. No, you go ahead.
Yeah. Okay. So, two things.
One is that what you said, that because we are basing our discussions on Prabhupada’s words, so there is already a boundary set over there. These are the words that we are trying to understand. And when we do that, at that time, if somebody comes up with a different understanding, we don’t, we address it devotionally, not in a hostile way or dismissive or we don’t assault each other.
So, now here this is, I will have two questions. But let me start with the first one that when we went back to the earlier example of me trying to understand what is said over there, like a child trying to understand something or even our attempt to understand pleases. So, there is this point that there is a correct understanding and we are trying to approach it.
So, that is itself something which we could have a discussion about. So, we read a sentence of Prabhupada, we read a passage of Prabhupada. So, is there one correct understanding that we are imperfectly approaching and say, I am, I am, say, if it’s a 10-step journey to that understanding, I am at a third step and somebody else is the fifth step and we appreciate that somebody is the third step, but eventually they have to come to the fifth step and that means they have, as they evolve, they will come to my understanding if I presume I am at the fifth step.
Or is it something like, if we put it as a metaphor, like what Prabhupada has spoken is like a mountain peak and there could be different ways to approach the mountain peak. And in one sense, I am approaching it from this way, I am approaching it from this way and it’s not necessary that we will all see this, we will all see the same thing the same way. Prabhupada, I think, used the example of the Vaiduryamani, Krishna is like the Vaiduryamani, who can be seen from different perspectives and different things are seen.
So, when we talk about, because different perspectives is different from different levels of understanding. So, the idea of trying to understand and encouraging others, that is more indicative of levels and we appreciate somebody at lower level. But perspectives, which we talk about equals, it’s like not that your understanding is better than my understanding or my understanding is better than your understanding.
So, can we have a little more, first of all, an understanding and maybe a concrete example of how some aspect of scripture can be seen from different perspectives, where it’s not that one is less valid and the other is more valid or not that one has to give way to the one is a preliminary understanding, which will give way to the second understanding later. Okay. So, you’re saying that, is there a sedanta that we’re aspiring to understand? First thing, we’re keeping Prabhupada in the centre and we’re not speculating our own ideas and just throwing those backwards and forwards.
We’re actually trying to understand Srila Prabhupada. So, understanding Prabhupada implies that there is an understanding to which we should aspire. And it could be that some of us have a better understanding of that than the others.
So, is that a possibility that when we’re sitting together, I’ve understood something properly and profoundly and the other person is still really hasn’t got to that level yet. They’re still trying to comprehend it. Or could it be also that you said like Prabhupada’s teachings are like a mountain top.
We know the example of the mountain can be seen differently from different distances. From a long way off, it looks like a cloud. As you get closer, you see it’s a mountain.
You get right close up, you see there’s lots of people. There’s a village there and so many things are happening. So, each of us has our different perspectives according to where we’re situated.
Or there may be different lights. Like Krishna is like a Vaidurya gem and he reveals himself differently to different devotees according to their mood and desires and so many things. So, it could also be like that.
As we know, the Acharyas have different, going back to them, how Krishna opened his eyes, why he opened or closed his eyes. And in the Gita, there’s the Bhima Bhirapsitam, Vishwanath Chakravarti Thakur and Baladeva Vidyabhusa have exactly opposite interpretations of the same phrase. You know, so different things like that.
So, there’s all these different possibilities. So, can we give a concrete example of where there may be different perspectives which are equally valid, but, you know, different devotees may see it differently like that. So, we have examples of different equally valid perspectives among the Acharyas.
But can we as Sadhakas have different equally valid perspectives? Yeah. Any examples? Can I give, I can just make one response or, you know, one or two quick ideas that could bear upon this. One thing I’d like to say is that not all Shastra is applicable to all persons at all times.
You know, what’s applicable to a Brahmin may not be applicable to a Shudra. And as an example, Prabhupada writes, you know, that sannyas, one must take sannyas, even if it’s very painstaking. Nevertheless, he’ll do it if he’s serious about advancing in spiritual life.
Elsewhere in the Gita, he says that, you know, if your family are favourable for Krishna consciousness and everything, there is no need to change to the renounced order of life. So, here’s two entirely different things said by Prabhupada in the Gita. And, you know, it can be understood differently depending on who you are, how you’re situated in Bhakti.
If I’m a Brahmin and I’m, you know, I’ve made some advancement, serious advancement, and I’m actually capable of renunciation, then yes, sannyas, you’ve got to take it. It may be a little daunting and difficult to you, but here he’s telling you, you must do it. But what if I’m not? What if I’m a Shudra and I’m, you know, I’m married and I’m not even like, you know, not everyone should even be taking Brahmin.
Prabhupada made that very clear in his instructions that it isn’t necessary that everyone accepts the Brahminical initiation. If you haven’t accepted Brahminical initiation, then sannyas is not appropriate for you, you know. So, that’s just one example that different parts of Shastra are applicable to different devotees according to their different circumstances and possibly their levels of advancement also.
So, you know, we must be able to understand that and respect that. It’s not that, well, everyone has to be exactly like me and understand it like me and do the same as me, because it may not be appropriate for every devotee. Okay, yes, thank you.
Mataji, do you want to add something? If you wanted to speak, please do. Did you want to speak first? Yeah, if you want to add something, you can speak. If you want to make additions.
No, no, I’d like to just… Yeah, go ahead, please. Please go ahead. So, on your point, I’ll just go back to your point in my husband’s answer.
Your point was that, okay, there’s two different kinds of seeing things differently from different levels and different perspectives. Different levels means your understanding is better than mine. I didn’t get as much understanding as yours.
Different perspectives means we’re coming from two different angles of the mountaintop. You’re seeing a lake and I’m seeing forest because they’re both there on the mountaintop, which is coming in from different directions. They’re not one is better or one is inferior.
So, you’re saying different levels? That’s kind of accepted in Islam. You know, I may have a near-fight understanding and you have a more advanced understanding, but that still kind of requires that I simulate your understanding if I’m going to make any advancement. Different perspectives? That’s more revolutionary for sadhikas.
You know, we accept that the acharyas allow different perspectives. They’re allowed to see a tree or a forest or whatever. Is that appropriate for us? And then my husband gave a really nice light, in my view at least.
His light was, of course, it’s appropriate for us because as sadhikas, we’re different. You know, some of us are shudras, some of us are very brahminical and very renounced, you know. So, what we hear will be appropriate for us and if I try to shove my understanding and practise down your throat, it’s just not appropriate for you.
That’s why Krishna gives me the light. He gives me. So, you know, and he gave the example of, let’s say, taking sannyas.
There are statements in Bhagavad Gita, of course, where Prabhupada says if you’re serious about spiritual life, you will take sannyas, even if it’s pain-taking. If you don’t take sannyas, you’re not serious. And then there’s, in the Bhagavad Gita, 13, 8 to 12, he says if you do these four things with your family and they’re willing to do it with you, he lists four things, he says there’s not even any need for sannyas and you will make all spiritual advancement.
So, you know, it’s not appropriate for you as an austere brahmin to impose your understanding on me as a shudra who’s also trying to make advancement. But Krishna will give us the appropriate instructions, which is appropriate for us. And they’re both equally right.
It’s not one’s less advanced, they’re equally appropriate. So, that’s what I understood from my husband. And to that point, I would like to add something, if I may, on this question.
I think one of the problems we have, if I may be so daring as to say, is that in our culture currently we use shastra to beat other people over the head with. It becomes almost like, you know, who’s the most learned? Who’s right? And, you know, who dominates? Just like the Nanda Buddhis, who’s got the more money or who’s got the most women? We have, like, who’s most right about shastra? We dominate each other. But that’s not what shastra is about.
It’s about how we apply it for our own journey on the spiritual path, in which case there’s no need to dominate each other. Krishna’s revealing to each of us what is appropriate for us. If we discuss the shastra correctly, there is that proviso in Bhagavad Gita 3, Canto 3, Chapter 3, Text 6, Purport.
Prabhupada says, unless and until one is trained in the culture of good association, one cannot become good. So, if we discuss shastra according to the principles of Japa and Vitanda, even if we may be so learned, Japa and Vitanda, they’re very hostile. They’re very one-upmanship.
If we discuss shastra like that, even though we’re very learned, we’re not going to progress towards Krishna. We have to learn the culture of father discussion, which is very sweet, very shastric, very non-speculative. But as long as we discuss like that, Krishna is revealing to us what we need.
He’s not revealing to me what I need to beat you over the head with. He’s helping. He’s revealing to me what I need to take the next step.
That’s what shastra discussion is about. It’s not about one-upmanship. It’s about personal development and personal transformation.
And as soon as we start discussing from that perspective, I think we’ll shed this need to try to prove ourselves better than somebody else would encourage them on what they need. So, I really appreciate that point that we use scripture to almost beat people on their head into submission. That is so unfortunate, but so true.
And just taking the sannyas example, it’s a very good example. Still within that, there are still levels. So, it’s like renouncing the world is a higher level.
And if you’re not at that level, you can be at this level. So, one of the preachers who preached to me, he said that actually grahastha ashram is like the consolation prize. Now, I never found that directly in Prabhupada or anywhere else as far as I have read.
But it’s so self, it sounds so condescending at one level. But he actually said that in a way was, he thought of console a person. Okay, you can’t be a brahmachari, be a grahastha.
And it’s you’re participating as a participant, you get a consolation prize. You’re not won anything, but you’re there in the game. Something like that.
So, now at that time. Would you mind if we stayed on this point a little bit longer and reflected that back to Prabhu and just discuss this? It’s raising a really nice point. Yeah, I’ll come back to it.
I thought actually this topic of grahastha and sannyasa life. Now, that itself we have, I feel that that understanding itself needs a lot of revision. So, we could discuss that as a separate podcast also in future.
But you can, we can discuss this topic also. But the point I’m making over here is that without going to the merits of that particular statement, we are still higher and lower, which is according to the level of application, applicability for a person. So, that’s still the point of hierarchy is not addressed over there.
It is that, yeah, go ahead, please. It’s this point, it’s this point, not the whether we should have not take sannyasa, it’s this idea about higher and lower understanding. Yes.
That I’d like to, okay, that point. And then you gave the example of sannyasa that we can, and lower understanding is to accept what Prabhupada says in 13, 8 to 12, that if you train your family members to discuss Gita and Bhagavatam, to chant together, worship your deity and take this up, you don’t need to. That’s a lower understanding.
It’s a consolation paragraph Prabhupada puts in there, like how to stay in the game. But a higher understanding is take sannyasa by hook or by crook, do it. And that’s where you’re going to win the prizes.
So, that’s just an example you gave. We’re not going to get stuck on. But the point you’re making is there is a higher and a lower understanding.
Did I understand you correctly? Yes, yes, definitely. Thank you. Would you mind if I responded to that point? Yeah.
I opened Pandora’s box, so feel free. Don’t hold yourself back. I see it not as a Pandora’s box.
I see it as a bliss box. You’re allowing us to churn and go more deep. You know, it’s very kind of you.
So, I’m sure there is higher and lower understanding. The more one has studied Shastra, the more one will bring in lights that someone who hasn’t studied Shastra at all is not going to be able to bring in. You know, they’re going to have less depth because they’ve studied less Shastra.
So, I’m not disputing higher and lower. But amongst two people who are really studying Shastra, but Krishna speaks to them differently, when is it higher or lower? I think we can’t make an assumption based on externals. There were many grihasthas in Lord Chaitanya’s pastimes.
Lord Chaitanya, like Ramananda Roy, was a grihastha. Lord Chaitanya said, you have the highest understanding. So, what does it mean higher and lower? It means, am I getting Vraj Bhakti or am I getting impersonal liberation? Am I getting impersonal liberation or am I going to the heavenly planets? That is not determined by whether I accept sannyas or not accept sannyas, or whether I have this perspective on Shastra.
I may have a different perspective, but I may still, I don’t think I’m getting it yet, but it’s possible to get Vraj Bhakti if we please Krishna. It’s Krishna who gives the Vraj Bhakti. It’s not our austerity.
It’s not our rank or our position that gives us Vraj Bhakti. I just, to try to make my point, I’ll just give one more example of the Brahmin and the Kabbalah. The Brahmin from the point of view of rank and Shastric knowledge was much senior to the Kabbalah.
But from the point of faith and humility, the Kabbalah got the real prize. And the Brahmin had to take the consolation prize. Krishna said about the Kabbalah, he’s coming back to me in this life.
And the Brahmin had to hang around for a little while. So, we can’t always judge externally who’s getting a consolation prize and who’s not. And why should we even say that to somebody to discourage them, to make them artificially try to pretend that it’s something they’re not, even if they’re getting a consolation prize.
As long as they’re being progressive, why make them feel inferior? Why not encourage people? You know, I just feel sometimes our culture is very much of superiority and inferiority. But actually, the Bhakti cult is about encouraging. Beautiful.
So nice. I mean, I love this point that ultimately, we have to encourage people. And focussing too much on the hierarchy is not going to be encouraging.
Krishna also, I think, says in the Gita that don’t disturb the minds of people if they’re ignorant or they’re attached. So, even when he’s acknowledging the hierarchy, he says, don’t use the hierarchy in a way that deflates or disheartens people. That is so true.
So, actually, also your point that, yes, we could say there is a cultural social hierarchy. But the Bhakti tradition and the Bhagavatam both show how the presence of devotion inverts that hierarchy repeatedly. In a sense that the Gopis are household, they’re household women, cowherd girls, but then the greatest sages are hearing about their glories.
And so many past times, there was somebody Ambarish Maharaj. Yes. So, in one sense, it’s saying that if we consider scripture is meant for elevation, then ultimately, the understanding that matters is not what is higher and lower.
The understanding of matter is what helps a person to rise. Yes. So, that’s what we should focus on.
Yes. I fully agree with this point. Krishnadevaraya, you want to add something? Yeah, I mean, to me, it comes back again to, you know, we’re just we’re trying to serve each other.
And obviously, we’re not all going to be on the same level of advancement. I mean, Krishna himself says, four kinds of people approach me, you know, so according to where we are, then we’re going to be requiring different things, looking for different things, which are going to be appropriate to us. So, in our discussions like that, we’re just trying to assist each other to take the next step that’s appropriate for us.
And not, I think my wife made a really important point there, which needs to be picked up on that, that when we emphasise the necessity to be something we’re not, then we just start to become pretenders. You know, we want to be, oh, I’ve got to be like that, you know, and I’m not like that. So, you know, fake it till you make it.
You know, this kind of thing comes. And then we’re just, we’re being untrue, you know, to ourselves and to everyone. And that’s the worst possible thing.
The Mithra to become a pretender in spiritual life is really disastrous. So, I think it’s very important that we are encouraging and always accepting of each other’s different lights, different perspectives. And not necessarily insisting that you’ve got to see it this way.
I think we can accept that there may be different understandings. I mean, I’ve seen myself in the history of ISKCON, so many huge controversies, where each side is at loggerheads with each other, determined that they’re going to get their point of view accepted. I mean, going back to when did we fall from the spiritual world? Did we come from the Brahmajyoti or whatever? Mahavishnu, that kind of thing.
And it’s okay. I mean, you know, why can we not live with each other if we have different perspectives on Shastra? You know, it’s like, it’s not such a big deal. And we should be focussing on our own advancement, on what’s appropriate for us, and how we can make progress, and we can assist each other to make, you know, progress together by this process of discussion, and bringing out the understandings of Shastra appropriate to our own situation.
Ms Mataji, do you want to add something to this? I would have just understood my husband, because I really liked what he said. I’ll just quickly pick up on a couple of things he said, that I just want to kind of like amplify in my own mind. One is that our discussion should be based on assisting each other, not, if I was to put it in my own words, not winning brownie points over each other.
You know, we’re not trying to win brownie points. We’re trying to assist each other. If the person has a life which is in line with Shastra, why try to kind of undermine it? We just reflect it back and help them to come to their own conclusions.
As long as it’s in line with Shastra, why do we have to win brownie points over each other? We’re meant to be helping each other. So that was a key point you made. You did make other points, but that was a key point that really deeply resonated with me.
True. Yeah, we’re not trying to crush each other and, you know, get the upper hand. The exact opposite.
We’re just trying to serve each other to the best of our ability. Yes, it’s true entirely. I would say that our purpose is not to crush each other.
And generally, when devotees do have differences of opinion, at that time, most people who are, say, aggressively pushing one opinion, they would deny that they are doing it out of ego. There is another motive which they say that it is protecting the boundaries of the Sampradaya, protecting the Siddhantic boundaries. This understanding is wrong and I have to protect it.
In fact, I know one senior Vaishnava who is quite polemical and very, I would say, very learned Vaishnava and I would say very dedicated also. In fact, his argument was entirely different. He said that, we talk about Vaishnava etiquette and how we should deal with each other lovingly.
He said that, yes, maintaining Vaishnava etiquette is important. But protecting Vaishnava Siddhanta is even more important. And he says there are only a few devotees who are empowered by Krishna to protect Vaishnava Siddhanta.
And he gave the example of the past time of the Bengali Brahmin, the Bengali Vaishnava who came to Chaitanya Mahaprabhu and spoke a verse which is apparently glorificatory but which had Mayavada in it and he said that all the associates of Lord Chaitanya are exalted devotees. You can say they are all pure devotees. And yet they all fell for that verse.
They thought this is just a beautiful verse glorifying Krishna and they wanted it to be heard by Lord Chaitanya Mahaprabhu. But Swarup Damodar was Swami, was the person who detected the Mayavada and that’s how he educated and corrected that person. So, his point was that, yes, Vaishnava Sadaacha or Vaishnava etiquette has to be maintained.
But Vaishnava Siddhanta has to be protected also. And since he was saying that, he didn’t say put in that many words and I hope I’m not misrepresenting him here. But the implication was that I am empowered to spot philosophical differences, philosophical deviations.
So, in fact, one senior devotee told me that I see my service to Prabhupada as being the intellectual watchdog of ISKCON. I have to protect Prabhupada’s movement from deviations. So, I would say that there is the possibility of the egoistic motive of crushing other people’s opinions.
But there is also a possibility that a person’s motivation may be entirely devotional or at least they think it is completely devotional. And they may feel that certain differences of opinion are unacceptable or certain different opinions are unacceptable. So, I’m a bit playing a bit of a devil’s advocate over here.
If you’d like to respond. That’s wonderful. I’ll understand you.
You’re saying, you know, there is sometimes a correct understanding when there’s obviously there are the right siddhanta and there’s upper siddhanta. And we don’t want upper siddhanta to prevail in ISKCON. And this devotee you’re talking about was making that point.
And he was saying, you know, that instance where that devotee came and wrote that poem glorifying Lord Jagannath, you know, he’s the body and Lord Chaitanya is the soul. And it was completely off. But it was very flowery and poetic.
And the devotees were like, oh, this is beautiful. You know, they liked it. So, Damodar was like, oh, hold on a second.
This is completely wrong, you know, and he pointed it out. And then all the other devotees thought, oh, yes, he’s spoken very well. This is actually a bit off the wall, you know.
So, this devotee you’re talking about sees himself in that role, you know, that I must I’m the intellectual guardian of ISKCON and ensuring that there’s no upper siddhanta being promulgated among devotees. So, is there not scope for that? You know, because we’re suggesting there may be different lights and someone may not, you know, grasp it completely, but we respect them and we don’t crush them. So, is there a contradiction there between what this devotee is saying, which sounds perfectly correct, and what we’re suggesting, which also sounds nice? I think that’s the point.
Yeah, I mean, I agree that there’s siddhanta and there’s upper siddhanta. And really, in our discussions, we’re trying to get to the truth. Vada means conclusive truth.
That’s where we’re trying to go. We’re trying to get there. And we’re just saying, let’s just do that in a nice way.
And it may be that someone doesn’t get it or they have a different light to us. Now, we can assume that our understanding is correct. He’s doing that, obviously.
He’s making that assumption. I’ve actually understood it and they haven’t. Okay, you can take that position if you like.
But, you know, our position is Prabhupada is the authority. He’s understood it. All we’re really trying to do is to understand him and assist each other in understanding him.
Now, we have to allow for the possibility that our understanding of Prabhupada may not be perfect or, you know, and it may or may not be. Really, it’s as he rightly said, there’s a few devotees that are empowered and they are the acharyas to continue the line, the parampara, the sampradaya. Now, if he thinks he’s an acharya, well, okay, I’m not going to argue with that.
Maybe he is. But, you know, as far as I’m concerned, at this point in time, Prabhupada is the acharya. And I’m really just trying to understand him to the best of my ability.
And I’m going to assist other devotees who are like-minded, like me, who are, you know, prepared to discuss in a nice way, in a vada style. And each of us are going to do our best to understand Srila Prabhupada. And, you know, maybe I’ll go away and I still haven’t properly understood it.
But why should that be a problem for anyone else? I’m not the guardian of the… You know, it’s not like my understanding, which happens to be wrong, is going to create some great deviation in the parampara or the sampradaya. It’s my problem. You know, I may have to get to the right understanding at some point.
But it’s not your problem. You know, if you think you’ve understood it better than me, then fine. But really, you know, we’re not swarjati.
We’re not like-minded. So we can’t discuss together. So there’s really no point in us coming together and knocking our heads together.
You beating me over the head that you haven’t understood this. This is the right understanding. I’ve understood it.
You’ve got it wrong. This is exactly what we’re saying. Don’t do, you know.
Yeah, OK, I can see that you perhaps misunderstood something. But, you know, that’s OK. In time, you know, maybe you’ll get the right understanding.
It’s not a big problem. Not for me. It’s not.
Not for ISKCON. Why should it be a problem for ISKCON? You know, I mean, I don’t want to get into the whole ISKCON politics thing here that, well, wait a minute, GBC have got the wrong idea. And that is a problem.
That’s another discussion. But we’re just saying, let’s conduct things in a nice Vaishnavi way and assist each other to understand the real authority, which is Srila Prabhupada. Beautiful.
So two points I think you made is that first is while there is a role, most of being an intellectual guardian, most of us are not in that role. And also in our particular spheres, when we understand, even if our understanding is slightly off, it’s not going to be, it’s not going to have huge consequences. So why make a big fuss and why create conflict when the likely consequences of some misunderstanding are also likely to be inconsequential? Did I get you right, more or less? You did.
Yes. I mean, you know, all of us hold so many misconceptions, so many misunderstandings. You know, maybe this devotee was thinking about a specific issue, which he’s completely convinced he’s right about.
But, you know, it’s likely that he has some misconceptions. I mean, unless he happens to be an Acharya, fair enough. But all of us, you know, are harbouring doubts and confusions.
If we did not, and misgivings and misapprehensions, if we did not have those, we’d all be fully surrendered to Krishna. You know, the fact that we’re not, and we’re still struggling, means that we have misunderstandings, we have misgivings, we have doubts. That’s to be expected.
So, you know, and it’s not the end of the world. It’s like, you know, you’ve understood me in that respect. It’s not very consequential.
Okay, it makes sense. Aditya, you want to add something? So let me just connect with what’s been said, if that’s okay. So you started by saying that, you know, okay, egotistical debates and arguments, we all agree that’s wrong.
But is there a possibility of not egotistical, but empowered devotees who have that service of being able to differentiate between siddhanta and apasiddhanta? Surely those who are empowered, senior devotees, can tell us when our understanding is wrong. Because there are devotees who feel that they are so empowered, and that that’s their service to Prabhupada. And the justification for that is that Surabh Damodar was such an empowered devotee, so much so that he made sure that the other devotees never veered even a millimetre from the siddhanta.
There’s a Brahmin who composed a verse glorifying Lord Jagannath and Lord Chaitanya, and everything was nice. He was trying to glorify the Lord. But in his understanding, there was a little millimetre of a misunderstanding, and Surabh Damodar came heavy on him and corrected all of the devotees’ misconceptions and misplaced appreciation of this Brahmin’s poetry.
So there is need for that. A devotee could argue there is a need for that. And then my husband made some very nice points.
He was saying, well, do you need to smash me every time? Do you have no misunderstandings? I’m trying to understand Shastra. Rather than coming down every time I get something wrong, or every time I misunderstand something or have a doubt about something, do you have to smash me every single time? Can’t you give me room for growing gradually? How is it hurting you if I’ve misunderstood something? Why can’t there be some encouragement and support as I try to improve? So I think that was the ill. So to that, I would just like to, if I may, add some points, as long as I’ve understood both you and my husband correctly.
Have I understood you Swami? Yes, perfect. Yeah, I said Swarajati as well. So you’re saying we’re not like-minded.
So when you said we’re not Swarajati, because Prabhupada says in the Bhagavatam that we should be Swarajati, like-minded, to discuss nicely. And when you said we’re not Swarajati, what came to my mind, how I understood you, is that you may think you’re an acharya, but I accept Prabhupada as the acharya. So I’m not like-minded with you.
I’m not going to accept you as the samvada. So it’s no point you banging me over the head. I’m not going to change, because I don’t think the same way as you.
You think yourself as the empowered acharya, but in my heart of hearts, I don’t see you as the empowered acharya. So why force that down my throat? Because I’m not going to accept it. I’m not ready to accept that.
You know, with Sarup Damodara, they were Swarajati. They all accepted him as the intimate associate of Lord Caitanya. And they all accepted that Lord Caitanya wouldn’t hear anything unless Sarup Damodara had first.
So they were all Swarajati. They all accepted Sarup Damodara. And you’re trying to make me accept you as if you’re in a power with Sarup Damodara.
But I’m not Swarajati. I don’t have the same opinion of you as you do. So it’s not going to work between us.
I’ll discuss with someone who, we should discuss with someone who sees you in that light, because I don’t. So that’s what you’re saying about Sarup Damodara. Yeah, the common assumptions.
Yeah, the common assumptions. I’m not making that assumption about you. And so there’s no point us discussing further.
So that was the point you were saying. Yeah. Yes, ma’am.
You want to add something? That’s quite a very clear summary, what you said, a clear articulation. And yes, Swarajat, maybe we could, if you have something to add, you can go, I had a couple of points about Swarajati, and we could elaborate a little bit on that. Yeah.
Would you like to add something first, or do you want to go to Swarajati? Please, you can add something first, please. Okay, so, you know, Chaitanya Sharma Prabhu, I am no one to be able to judge if someone else is an acharya or not. But I have seen that those who’ve assumed themselves very great have often come, um, have had the biggest falls.
You know, pride comes before the fall. And I’m not saying that about this particular devotee, because I’m not able to see other people’s hearts. But I just want to balance the Surupt Damodar example, where Lord Chaitanya had actually placed him in that position, with something that the Bhagavatam says in Canto 3, Chapter 29, Canto 3, Chapter 29, verses 8 to 10.
So, in those verses, Śukadeva Goswami talks about doing the nine Angas in the three modes of nature, and he gives the symptoms of those modes. So, the symptom in the mode of ignorance is very harsh, very envious, very angry. You know, so someone in the mode of ignorance will read the Shastra, and they’ll read it through the lens, through the filter of the mode of ignorance.
So, they’ll read statements, let’s say, about women, and then they’ll become really harsh about women. Women are less intelligent. Women cannot go back to Godhead.
It says that in Shastra. You know, they’ll say nasty things about blacks, you know, because they’re reading Shastra and filtering it through the mode of ignorance. This is Canto 3, Chapter 29, text 8, mode of ignorance.
Then text 9 talks about the mode of passion. So, mode of passion means I consider myself, you know, I want position, I want respect, I want followers, and I think I deserve that. So, then we read Shastra through the mode of passion, and we begin to filter Shastra.
I remember when I was a young devotee, one of the kind of Maha-Uvachas that was very current at the time was, Harry’s men should have the best. There’s so much about Sanyasis living very simply. Lord Chaitanya wouldn’t even accept a mattress which had a thin film of leaves inside it, you know.
But the big Maha-Mantra at the time, the Maha-Uvacha, was that Harry’s men should have the best. So, all the Sanyasis had Rolex watches. So, Harry’s men means the devotees of Lord Harry, Harry’s men, because Bhaktasiddhanta Sarasvati had once got a Rolls Royce, and he said Harry’s men should have the best.
So, that had become, back in 1980s, I’m sure ISKCON’s moved on since then, back in the 1980s, that was the Maha-Uvacha. That was, you know, Harry’s men should have the best. The Harry’s men are equated with Sanyasis.
Yes, it was there. So, that was, that’s mode of passion. Anyway, that was, what I’m trying to explain is how the Bhagavatam says that we filter the Bhagavatam and the teachings of the Shastra and the Charis through our modes.
Mode of goodness is still not perfect. Mode of goodness, when you study Shastra, you’re thinking about how you can get rid of your own impurities. We have to come at least to the mode of goodness.
You’re not looking how to put others down. You’re not looking how to get position and power. You’re looking to think, what are the faults in me that I need to get rid of, and Shastra’s helping me of seeing that.
So, that’s text 10. Then text 3, 29, 11, and 12, they talk about pure devotion, you know, doing devotional service in Shuddha Sattva. In Shuddha Sattva, when one studies Shastra, you’re not looking to put others down.
You’re not looking to get position. You’re not filtering messages like that. Nor are you filtering messages to see how can I rectify myself, which is mode of goodness.
You’re just relishing, and your heart is running towards Krishna like the Ganges runs towards the ocean. You know, it’s just relishing. So, I think it takes real individual honesty, and it’s not my position to judge someone else’s honesty or dishonesty.
I’m only responsible for myself, and for myself, I know I am not at the point of mode of Shuddha Sattva. I’m not above the modes. My attraction is not flowing towards Krishna like the Ganges is rushing towards the ocean.
So, let me at least avoid the pitfalls of mode of ignorance and mode of passion, and let me try to discuss Shastra in the mode of goodness, looking for my own faults. What others do is not my problem. If someone else is an Acharya and not an Acharya, that’s not my problem.
I have my Acharya, the founder Acharya, and I am looking for like-minded devotees, like-minded devotees who will discuss with me in a way that develops our mutual loving friendships. It’s 11th Canto 11, Chapter 3, Text 30, who will develop our mutual loving friendships and our mutual taste and satisfaction, which will enable both me and the other devotees I’m discussing with to gradually give up our attraction for sense gratification and become Krishna conscious. What others do, that’s not my problem, but I would love to see a culture developing in where those of us who are not Acharyas begin to associate with each other in an honest way, at least just from the mode of goodness.
If we can’t get to Shuddha Sattva, we can’t artificially get to it, but at least we put aside the pitfalls of mode of ignorance and passion, and the pitfalls of ignorance and passion. Ignorance is envy and violence and hatred towards others, and passion is trying to elevate myself, elevate myself. So, at least avoid that.
And if someone’s an Acharya, all glories to them. I have no quarrel with them, but I know I’m not. And if you know you’re not, then please let’s discuss together in a way that elevates both of us.
True, beautifully put. Actually, in one sense, we could say many of us presume, I don’t think any devotee would call themselves an Acharya directly, but many of us presume that we have a service which we don’t have. That is, as you can say, protecting the Siddhanta or being like an intellectual guardian or the protector of the, that’s not our service.
So, I think this also brings us back to the, why are we here? Ultimately, we are here to connect with Krishna. So, if we keep our position in mind, and as you said, most of us, for most of us, if we are not Acharyas and we are not, so it doesn’t matter that much. So, and I personally try to stay completely clear from judging others, because it’s not my position to judge anybody.
I know what’s in my heart. I know there’s an artist I struggle with. The only person I have to, only person’s an artist I have to fear are my an artist.
No one else’s an artist can stand between me and Krishna. I wasn’t there that, Nanda Gopal actually spoke, Prabhupada told him directly that, and isn’t it there, isn’t there something in the Veda base that all the Shastras are meant, you should be using them to judge yourself, not others. Nandakumar, I think, Nandakumar.
Not Nandakumar, yeah, Nandakumar, sorry. Yeah, he said that, didn’t he, in an anecdote, when he was discussing, he started, you know, comparing other devotees, judging others, and Prabhupada turned to him and said, no, you should judge yourself. The scriptures are meant for you to shine a light on your heart, not on others.
That’s not your business to be concerned about others, you know. So, we shouldn’t be doing that. My God, I had not heard of this particular, it is logical, and I have spoken on this also, that it is better that we evaluate ourselves than others.
But I didn’t know there’s a quote of Prabhupada that, maybe if you can find it, please send it to me, we will. It’s in the Prabhupada memories. Nandakumar was one of Prabhupada’s servants.
And once he was with Prabhupada, when they went to visit a temple in India, and the temple wasn’t very clean, the altar wasn’t very clean. So, Nandakumar, when they left, said to Prabhupada, Prabhupada, was Krishna even there? Because it’s not very clean, you still have to be clean. And Prabhupada said, he said, I understood the pujari’s heart, Krishna was there.
And everything I’ve told you about us, don’t use that for judging others, use that for yourself. You know, what I’ve told you is not for you to use to judge others, it’s for you to use on yourself. But it’s in the Prabhupada memory.
I’m not sure if the memory is on the database. Siddhanta must be knowing where it is, I could probably find it for you there. That’s very important.
This is one of the key differences that I have found that in among certain groups of devotees, that in general, in today’s world, being non-judgemental is considered to be a very important thing. And if somebody is judgemental, just who do you think you are to be judgemental like that? It’s considered unfavourable. But there is another way of looking at it is that the difference between a kanishta and a madhyama is the ability to make judgments.
A kanishta sees that the God is only here in the temple, in the deity and nowhere else. But a madhyama understands this is a, this is a envious person, I have to keep away from this person. This is an innocent person.
Let me try to share Krishna Bhakti with you. This is a devotee. So, let me be friendly with them.
So, in one sense, I’ve heard this argument that being judge, that making judgments is the essence of being a madhyamadhikari. Then I said, okay. So, in fact, I had this, I had given a series of talks once in Australia on being non-judgemental and then talk about being non-judgemental with other devotees, being non-judgemental with people who are following other spiritual paths and even being non-judgemental with mayavadis.
So, when I gave that talk, I got a lot of criticism of that talk from various people. And one of them was that I didn’t find, one of them, this devotee said that, this Vaishnava said that I searched in the entire Veda base, not once has Prabhupada used the word non-judgemental. So, you are giving a class in Prabhupada’s movement and you are giving it on a series of classes on a topic that Prabhupada has never once raised also, never once spoken about it.
Then I was a little shaken by that, but I did a certain research and then I wrote back with all respects, Prabhupada has not even used the word judgemental once in his purpose. So, it seems that both these words were not in his vocabulary. But then there are other perspectives, we have in the Bhakti Rasaam, in the Updesha Amrit that a devotee is free from the desire to criticise others.
Anyaninda, Adishunidham, Ipsitangalabdhya. Then even there are many references for this perspective also, that a godly person is averse to finding faults with others. So, we could, if you want to go for references, we can go, but Madhyamadhikari is one thing, that Madhyamadhikari makes judgments, but being judgemental is something which is not recommended, not, I don’t, not only not recommended, but I don’t think it’s supported in scriptures.
But that was my response and I mean, I don’t think we realise that it’s, you know, can’t move forward here. So, would you mind if I reflected back what you said, Prabhu? I just, would you mind, because I found it very interesting. I just like to capture it.
So, you’re saying, we seem to be emphasising a lot this non-judgmentalism, using Shastra for your own purification, not for judging others, and we cited the exchange between Prabhupada and Nanda Kumar, Prabhu says, use the Shastra for your own purification and not for judging others. And you’re saying that you once gave a whole series of classes about not being judgemental, because that makes sense to you, that resonates with you. And you were heavily criticised, heavily criticised by devotees who are saying that the whole, the key characteristic of a Mahajan is that he’s judgemental.
He’s able to make judgments, whereas the Kanishka can’t. And it makes a small difference between being judgemental and making judgments. So, but yeah, Kanishka makes judgments.
Okay, he makes judgments, and that’s different from being judgemental, but he makes judgments. And you’re saying, so they were heavily criticising you. And you wrote back and said, Prabhu, with all respect, there’s no place where Prabhupada uses, there’s no place where he uses the word non-judgemental, but there’s no place where he uses the word judgement either.
But he does talk about being judgemental. There’s no place where he talks about being judgemental. So, neither thing is recommended or disavowed by Prabhupada.
But there are quotes where it says that a devotee is naturally averse to criticising others. So, you know, that, I think you’ve come down on that side, but there is that controversy in Iskcon, you’re raising that controversy between, can we make judgments and state our judgments? Or is that wrong to overtly express our judgments? Are we allowed to make judgments? Did I understand you correctly? Yes, yes, definitely. Would you mind if I made a comment on that point? I think making a judgement is what I would call being discerning, and a devotee is very discerning.
And one of the things he’s very discerning about is swarjati, because I may realise that for so many reasons I may discern. I may discern for so many reasons. Like, for example, there are devotees I love who have taken more shelter than Narayan Maharaj, whom I have the utmost respect for.
I know devotees will probably condemn me, but he’s a Vaishnava. I’m not going to criticise any Vaishnava. I couldn’t discuss with those devotees, though, not because I think they’re demons and they’re all going to go to hell, but because my bhava, I’m not spiritually advanced enough to be able to accept and accommodate two perspectives.
I accept Prabhupada’s perspective. If Narayan Maharaj was to say anything slightly different to Prabhupada, I don’t have the spiritual maturity to be able to deal with that emotionally. So it’s not that I’m judging them as being demons, but I’m discerning that they’re not swarjati.
I cannot discuss with them. I love them, I respect them, and they’re probably going to go back home to Godhead faster than I am, but I make that discernment they’re not the right sangha for me. That’s very different from judging them to be fallen or to be off.
I make the discernment as a madhyam, at least I don’t need to know I’m a madhyam, but if I was a madhyam, to me, I take that, I discern what association is going to help me and what association I should stay away from, who will help me if I take shelter of them, and who is going to discourage me and hurt me in my spiritual resolve, in my resolve, and that’s nothing to do with that person. That’s my using discernment of what I need, what association is helpful to me, what association I can manage, what association supports me. It’s not about that person.
It’s about what I need. That kind of discernment we need to use to advance. Judging where other people are at, to me, that’s not my business.
I don’t know their hearts. The Brahmin may have looked at that Kabbalah and judged him. That’s not the way Krishna judged him.
Krishna didn’t judge him the same. How can I assume that I know somebody else’s heart and someone else’s relationship with Krishna? I can’t. I can only discern what is going to help me and what’s not going to help me.
That a madhyam must do. Whereas a Kanishka can’t make that discernment. Beautiful.
So, it’s, you could say, it’s more from a position of humility. Judgement itself conveys the idea that like a judge sits above everybody else and hears what they are speaking. That is a traditional way.
Whereas discerning is more of what is anukul for me and what is pratikul for me. What is favourable, what is unfavourable. It’s from a position of humility.
That’s beautiful about it. So, you’re saying, going back to the point of madhyama. So, we could say that, okay, this particular understanding, if we are in a particular social circle, then we find a particular understanding.
If we are interacting with a particular devotee, we find that their understanding is, it doesn’t gel with us. We can’t, it challenges too many of our concept, our understandings of Krishna Bhakti and our foundations of Krishna Bhakti. Then we may decide that, maybe that I will keep away from this devotee.
I can’t have an intimate close discussions with them, but I can respect them from a distance. So, is that what you are overall saying that? Maybe this brings us to the point of, this is what Sajati and Vijati will be? Yes, absolutely. There has to be neutral respect.
If we’re going to enter into discussions with other devotees, then we have to at least respect them as being capable of, that Krishna can speak through them. If we come to a discussion and we’re looking at the other person and we’re thinking they’ve got completely the wrong idea. My business, my job as the intellectual guardian or whatever it may be, is to change their point of view.
Then there’s no scope for any discussion there. But if we come to the other person and think, well, maybe they’ve got something of value that I could learn. It does require humility.
You’re right. The initial humility is, I don’t know everything. I’m not perfect.
It’s like, I think it was Socrates said, if there’s one thing I know, it’s that I don’t know anything. To start like that. Prabhupada really valued that point of view that I’m picking up stones on the beach of knowledge.
That’s all. I just have a little bit of understanding of something. I’m not perfect.
So, if we approach the discussion like that with the initial humility that maybe I’ve got things wrong. Maybe I haven’t fully understood everything. Then we can learn.
Otherwise, we’re never going to learn anything. We’re never going to make any progress in these discussions at all. If we’re not open to the possibility that I may not be right.
It’s best that I respect this other person. I show that respect by empathically hearing them, reflecting back what they’re saying, and really trying to enter into the paradigm of what they’re saying. When we do that, quite often we reach our own conclusions.
I know myself in discussions with my wife that I’ve shifted my ideas, shifted my paradigm. I’ve realised that I didn’t quite get that right. I’d misunderstood a point, or I’d heard something.
Because we’ve picked up things over the years we’ve been in ISKCON. We’ve heard classes and so many things, and we may have taken things on board which are not entirely correct, perhaps. But we’ve got to be open to that possibility when we are entering a discussion with another person that we have respect, that Krishna can speak through them, that there’s some value in this discussion.
I can learn something, perhaps. It’s not that I’m learning from that person, because it’s Krishna entering into the discussion. As we were saying earlier, I am present when my devotees are glorifying me.
I’m not present in Vaikuntha. I’m present when my devotees are discussing my glory. He can enter the Dharmi-Buddhi-Yogam.
That’s swadjati. That’s what we’re talking about, that we have that respect for each other when we come together to have this discussion. And not that one person there has got all the right opinions and all the right perspectives, and we have to learn from him.
It’s a bit pointless, really, discussing together in that mood. I love this point that in discussion, when the understanding emerges, it is not just from that person I’m learning. It is Krishna entering into that discussion and learning, helping me learn.
And we could say Prabhupada had that humility that when a postman told him, Swamiji, you are writing magazines, people will throw them away. That why don’t you read, why don’t you write books, people will preserve them. And Prabhupada felt, this is Krishna, this is my Guru speaking through this.
So, if a pure devotee can, you could say, can learn even from a non-devotee, then why can we as Sadhaka devotees not learn from other Sadhaka devotees? It’s actually Krishna speaking through them. It’s a beautiful point. Thank you.
I don’t know how long you want to go on Prabhupada. It’s kind of like. Maybe there’s a couple of more questions.
If you have prepared some points, you cannot address, you could just address them directly. No, no, we’re happy to follow your direction. There’s nothing else.
You say what you want. So, now this could be a big discussion that we talk about Sajati Sangha, like-minded association. And in one sense, it’s natural.
It’s that we naturally go associate with those who are like-minded. But then in today’s world, this itself is leading to a certain level of polarisation. That means people who are liberals, they will naturally gravitate towards those who are liberals.
And in social media, they call it the echo chamber. That you hear only your voice being echoed. And in that way, what happens is, the more I associate with those who only reinforce my views, then I start seeing that my views are correct.
And then the other opposite side, they get demonised. Or they at least, it’s one thing to say that we have different views. But the way the polarisation is today in the world, you can see in American politics, I can see it in Indian politics.
And I presume it’s there in UK politics also to some extent. It’s not just the other person has a different opinion. It’s not even that the other person is wrong.
It’s that other person is evil, is downright evil. That’s how it is portrayed. So, in one sense, isn’t that likely to happen? Because if we associate only Sajati people, aren’t we inhabiting our own echo chamber? Any thoughts on this? Do you want to respond first? I’d love to first understand you, Tanit Shah, because it’s really helping us to turn it.
So, you’re saying that we brought up the idea that Prophet actually brings up in his purports that discuss amongst the Sajati, like-minded. And you say this happens naturally. Those who are very orthodox, very traditional will gravitate towards those who hold similar views and those who are liberal and broad-minded will gravitate towards them.
And, you know, we now have the West versus India divide in ISKCON, the West being the liberal-minded, you know, the Indians being mostly, I’m not saying, being more like, you know, keep the culture that was supportive of Vaishnavism. Don’t mess with that supporting culture. And then it becomes, because you said social media causes the echo chamber, because we’re associating just with like-minded, but it’s all we’re hearing is our own views, like-minded views.
And we end up actually demonising those who hold a different view. We just keep reinforcing our own view. And anyone else who has an opposing view or slightly different view is not just wrong.
They’re evil, you said. So we’re demonising them. And that’s actually happening now.
You know, I’ve heard of terrible things, devotees cursing each other, you know. I think, wow. So you’re saying, isn’t that the problem, the downside of associating just with Sajati? Shouldn’t we mix it up a little bit? You know, liberals have discussed with orthodox and just mix it up a little bit so we don’t start demonising each other.
But I said you’re correctly proving. Yes, yes, definitely. Thank you.
Do you have a light or would you like us to share a light? Do you have a light on your end point? Oh, you’re asking me? Okay. Yeah, in case you have a light. Yeah, to some extent.
We’re here to learn, you see. We’re here to learn, to tell you everything. To some extent, I was introduced to Krishna Consciousness in probably one of the most conservative Brahmachari ashrams in India and the world.
And then that’s how I lived for more than 10 years. And the last five years I have spent, I could say, most before the pandemic started, nine months I was outside India, six months in America, three months in other countries. And I had to radically re-conceptualise my understanding of what Krishna Consciousness was when I started going abroad because so many things which I would normally not consider a devotee to be doing.
I could see devotees doing that and I could still not deny that they were devotees. They were serious devotees. They had deep realisations.
They had deep commitment to the movement. They had deep devotion to Prabhupada and Krishna. So, my understanding is that interaction is vital.
It’s only because of interaction that I started appreciating that there can be many different ways in which Krishna Consciousness can be practised. And so, the way I see it is that it’s like, I try to put it like a comfortable way out of the comfort zone. If I would put it that way, that if I associate with somebody who has a completely radically opposite view and not only that they have an opposite view to mine, but it’s also that they consider me wrong and wrong headed and evil, whatever.
Then associating with them is going to be a very great strain on me. So, better maybe I’ll keep a distance from those devotees. But those devotees with whom I have at least some agreement, some understanding, I knew them, their views are different from mine.
But there is at least a basic level of appreciation, respect for each other. Then it’s not that by interacting with them, my views will change or their views will change. But we will come to, you could say that even if some view is not acceptable to me, at least it’s understandable to me, that is intelligible to me.
Okay, that’s why you think like this. So, the point I was making is that, yes, maybe we all need to go out of the comfort zone of Sangha. But maybe instead of going completely to somebody who is opposed to us, we go to somebody who is, who there are some differences, even some oppositions also, but not a complete aversion, not complete hostility or antipathy.
Ideally, there should not be hostility or antipathy among devotees. But sometimes it is there. So, that’s how I try to avoid being in my echo chamber.
That’s my small thought. Thank you for asking. Yeah, you’re saying, your initial point was that if we’re talking Swadjati and then we simply seek out the association of people who think like us, who are like, I’m a left-winger, they’re also left-wingers and, you know, I’m a right-winger.
So, I look for them and I avoid like the plague, the other side, because they don’t want to hear what they’ve got to say, because it’s all rubbish and I don’t like it or whatever, you know. So, is there that danger, you know, that we won’t grow, that we just, the echo chamber, we just, you know, we’re comfortable reinforcing confirmation bias. What we already believe to be true, we just, you know, constantly confirm that.
And, you know, is that not a problem? Actually, LaBishma said that the king who surrounds himself with yes-men, people who always agree with him, very quickly meets with destruction. So, it is important that we are open to hearing other points of view in order to stretch our own perspectives, our own paradigms and, you know, grow and learn things like that. So, then you were saying that you had to do that, you know, when you went from India, you went from very conservative ashram, where you were indoctrinated in a certain kind of thinking and you went off with that and you went to America and, oh, everything’s different, people are different, but you could see that although they were, you know, that their approach was very different to what you’ve been used to, they were serious devotees, dedicated to Prabhupada and the mission and everything.
So, you had to adjust a bit in your mind, you know, and change and realise that perhaps there are other ways of seeing things and doing things. And then you suggested, well, in that case, maybe we should find a comfortable way out of our comfort zone. In other words, don’t try to discuss and mix with someone who’s radically opposed to what we think and is really going to cause us a lot of stress and vex our brain, you know.
So, let’s find someone who maybe is a little bit different and hold some views, like a little different from ours or is a little bit a different part of the spectrum and discuss with them because that’s going to be more tolerable and possible and maybe then we can gradually expand our own perspectives. That’s what I understood you to be saying, Prabhuji. Yes, thank you.
I’m a little aware that you’re spending time in repeating whatever I’m saying. Please elaborate on your insights. Try and model what we’re saying.
Yeah, well, my insight is that when we say swadjati, we’re not, you know, saying that we’re looking for someone who is in the same kind of mindset exactly as me. Just what I was saying earlier, that they’re prepared to, they respect me and I respect them and I’m prepared to sit down and discuss with them and they with me empathically hearing that person’s point of view. Even I may not agree, I’m prepared to do that because I respect them as Vaishnavs.
I have respect for their integrity and it doesn’t mean that we’re always going to agree. My wife and I, you know, we often have totally different lights or see things differently and that’s fine. That comes up naturally.
We’re all different people, different individuals and we are going to have different perspectives. But I think where it doesn’t work is where that respect is not there, that initial respect where the other person doesn’t really think that I have anything of any value to say and is really just, as I was saying earlier, is really just entering that discussion with the, you know, fixed in their idea that they’ve got the absolute understanding and I’m wrong and I need to be changed, you know, because I am prepared to do that. You have to be open-minded when you enter a discussion to the possibility that the other person may have a better perspective and when we empathically hear them, as you said, you then realise, oh, that’s why they see it that way and maybe then you can make that shift in your own understanding, your own perspective or at least understand that there’s validity to what they think, that I respect their opinion.
I may have a slightly different way of seeing it, but I know they’re not a demon and, you know, it’s okay what they think. So, that’s really the way I’d see it. Okay.
Yes. So, hearing from them to understand where they’re coming from, I think that’s so. So, it’s interesting you made a difference.
Sajati and Asha does not mean that we agree with each other, that it just means that we have enough respect for each other or we have adequate respect that we understand that the other person has something worthwhile to say and they say it in a way that is not dismissive. Basically, we could say that their understanding and their speaking are in a way that is harmonious with us, that doesn’t put us off. So, that doesn’t make us clamp down, make us either defensive or counter-aggressive.
Is that what you mean by Sajati? Well, I think that could be a good point to conclude that how would somebody know what is Sajati association for them? Prabhu, would you mind if I chimed in here a little bit before we finish? Go ahead. Yeah. Is that okay with you Swami? I don’t want to cut you off.
Yeah, absolutely. So, I’m not going to reflect back because I know that we’re running out of time, but I would just very quickly sum up what I’m responding to. So, what is Swadhya? My husband was saying if there’s mutual respect and we’re not just coming in there to prove each other wrong, this Swadhya, we’re prepared to listen, but we can have different views.
And you summed up my husband’s point by saying as long as we don’t feel too uncomfortable with each other, that’s Swadhya. So, would you mind if I added a point to that? Yes, please. I think how big our group of Swadhya devotees is going to be, it depends on our own personal maturity, depends on what modes we’re in.
So, if we’re in the mode of ignorance, the group that we may consider Swadhya may be very, very small. If we’re in the mode of goodness, the group that we would consider Swadhya may be much, much larger. So, that’s going to differ for each of us.
For example, my group is slightly smaller than my husband’s. I need someone who’s respectful. I can’t discuss with someone who’s disrespectful.
I just can’t. But I also need someone who accepts Prabhupada’s statements as the ultimate. It’s not to say I disrespect people who don’t accept Prabhupada as the ultimate, who may accept their own guru either within or outside of this God, but I can’t accommodate it.
I’m not emotionally or spiritually mature enough to be able to accommodate that. That’s a problem with my level of spiritual maturity and emotional maturity. So, what is Swadhya for each of us is going to depend on our own maturity.
But if we’re trained in the culture of good association, and Prabhupada brings this up in several points, he says that in 3.3.6, you have to be trained, then you’ll become good. So, if I’m in the mode of ignorance, I can maybe only discuss with other people who hold very similar views. But if I begin to discuss properly, I’ll gradually come out of the mode of ignorance.
The more mature we are, the more spiritually and emotionally mature. It requires both emotional and spiritual maturity to be able to associate. I think what you did required a lot of emotional maturity.
It may not be appropriate for someone who is very quick to anger and insult because they’re not emotionally mature enough. So, we all have to gauge how big is my circle of Swadhyati that I can handle without offending others. And that may differ for each of us.
But the thing is, if we’re trained to begin discussing with Swadhyati according to my own ability to accept Swadhyati, I will gradually become purified and I will gradually rise through the modes and become more and more mature. And I’d like to give an evidence for that. Canto 10, chapter 90, text 50, 5-0.
And in that verse, Shukadeva Goswami says that we are hearing and discussing association devotees with ever-increasing sincerity. So, the more we discuss, the more we’ll become sincere. Sincere means free of impurities, free from the impurities of the modes of ignorance and passion, and ultimately in the impurities associated with the mode of goodness.
So, the key thing that we would love to see happen is that devotees become trained in the culture of good association. Who they consider Swadhyati, stick within your Swadhyati according to your capacity. If you’re orthodox and you’re very immature emotionally and spiritually, you may only be able to associate with other orthodox devotees.
But the more you discuss, if you discuss correctly, your sincerity, your impurities will become dissipated. We read earlier on in Bhagavatam 11.3.31 that Krishna begins to remove things which are inauspicious from our hearts. And then as we come to the mode of goodness, our circle of Swadhyati may increase.
But we have to start where it’s realistic for us, but do the discussion according to correct principles, the principles of Bhāgavatam. By doing that, gradually we’ll become free of impurities by the grace of the Lord, and one day we’ll be broad-minded, we’ll be Mahatmas, we’ll be able to associate with faithful devotees, liberal or orthodox. But if we’re not, stick to what you’re comfortable with until you’re comfortable to go further.
It’s beautiful. Thank you. So it’s a, in one sense, to even come out of our comfort zone, it’s good to actually, in one sense, in our bhakti, initial practises of bhakti, to find our comfort zone also.
The word comfort zone sometimes has a negative connotation, but we are using it in the sense that first, when we start our bhakti, we need to find a circle where we are valued, accepted, and what we are saying is not just dismissed or not like strongly questioned or rejected. And once by that we practise bhakti and we become purified, then we will be able to come to a level where we can also, we have that emotional and spiritual maturity to associate with those with differing views. And we can put that, we can accommodate that without being disturbed or without our disturbing others.
I think this is where Krishna says that one of the characters of a devotee is that in 15th chapter, one who is not disturbed by others and one who does not disturb others. Yes, beautiful. And just one, you understood that and put that so nicely.
I love that shastric evidence you brought in to support that. And just one point I wanted to emphasise is that for us to, our discussions to begin to have that purifying effect, Padma says again and again, there is a culture of good avada discussion, and we have to be trained in that culture. Most of us, at least what I see how devotees discuss, on social media, we discuss according to the culture of vittanda and jalpa.
And unless we’re trained to associate and discuss according to the culture of vada, this transformation will not happen. So that’s the key thing, training in the culture of vada discussion. And then choose your svanjati, but do it according to the culture of vada discussion.
Gradually we’ll become more mature. It’s beautiful. It’s a very realistic and doable way of moving forward.
Thank you. Krishna Prabhu, you want to add something concluding? I really like those points. Yeah, that vada discussion, it’s not so prevalent in ISKCON at this point in time, and there needs to be training.
You know, devotees need to be trained. And I mean, there were other things you were kind of discussing about independently thoughtful, which we haven’t really touched on at all, which really comes in on this as well. Devotees need to learn how to discuss shastra and see it from different lights, because our culture is very much about, as you started by saying, hearing from authority.
And everyone is really indoctrinated into that style of learning. Maybe it’s a reflection of the fact that that’s what goes on out there in the material world now. It’s very much a case of sitting down and just imbibing chunks of knowledge from the authority, from the professor, from someone above.
And that’s very much our style. And to change to a more discussion format does take a little practise and a little training. And I think it’s very important that devotees receive that.
And we’d really like to see that implemented much more in our society than is currently the case, because there really is no training at all. You sit in a class, it ends five minutes before the time’s up, and you’ve got a chance for one or two questions. And then the speaker gives the answer, and you go, thank you very much.
And that’s it. And we’re not trained to use our intelligence, to use the critical thinking faculty to really examine Prabhupada’s statements and think about them for ourselves and try to come up with these different lights and perspectives and understandings. Prabhupada himself said right from the beginning that, now you’ve heard, now what? Do I agree? Don’t I agree with what the Swami is saying? He said right from the very beginning he was encouraging devotees to do that.
So that’s what we’re trying to do. We’re trying to encourage devotees to do that, come together to discuss like that. So we’d like to just say that have a look at our website www.improvingsangha.com, 16 principles of discussion.
All of them are taken from Srila Prabhupada. Everything on that website is taken from what we’ve seen Srila Prabhupada to be saying. And we support it with all the various references to show that it’s not something that we’ve invented, that we’ve come up with our own ideas.
It’s really just what we’ve gleaned from Prabhupada himself. So yeah, if you get a chance have a look at the website and please contact us if you need any help. We do coaching, there are some coaching videos on that website also on each of the principles.
So have a look at those and see if it’s helpful because we found it very very helpful indeed. Thank you Prabhu. Thank you Prabhu.
So just so Improving Sangha is a website where people can join and get your association when you do when do you do virtual reading sessions or studying sessions or it is more that they can assimilate those principles and they can apply that in their social circles and if they want some guidance in how to go about doing that then you are available. How is it your answer? We first of all share everything that’s helped us, everything that we heard from Prabhupada that changed the way we, these are the 16 principles, these were just quotes of when we were listening and reading we heard and that really helped us. We share that, we share how we apply it, we’ve got videos where we do discussions.
Right now if anyone’s really is teaching you how to do what we do and for anyone’s really interested, one devotee contacted me from South Africa just by looking at the website. So he said I really want more help and I just began doing virtual discussions with him. Unfortunately it’s not like we have millions of people who are interested in this.
I wish more devotees were interested in this but at this stage in time it’s very few devotees are interested. So we do have the time that we can give virtual association and virtual one-on-one help to devotees but our hope is that as devotees in more countries and more cities and more towns begin to learn these principles that we begin to develop a network of devotees who then can help people in their locality. But at this moment in time if anyone’s interested in what we’ve already got up there and wants more one-on-one help we’re happy to get that one-on-one help virtually to devotees as well.
Oh that’s very generous of you. Amazing. Thank you.
So this has been a very illuminating session. So if usually at the end of my podcast I try to summarise what we discussed. We discussed a lot of topics but can I try to summarise overall today? So we discussed broadly on the topic of can scripture be understood from multiple perspectives by sadhakas and I started by that there are different perspectives if with respect to siddhas and great acharyas but with us so then is it there that’s not normally taught but then you mentioned Krishna Ramapuram you mentioned that there is scripture has to be applied and different people are at different levels and unless we address the level of the person and we may be actually not helping them we may be end up harming them misguiding them also.
So it’s essential in that sense that the understanding that works for a particular person. So then I made this point that and he also made this point that just trying to understand itself is purifying. Krishna is pleased by that and ultimately our purpose in discussing is more to please Krishna than to try to say establish that my understanding is the right understanding.
So that purpose of pleasing Krishna is important and then even within this understanding under different levels that so are the understandings equal or are they there is a hierarchy in the understandings also. So then made the point that even if there is a hierarchy ultimately the principle is that we have to look at the person and see what is beneficial for that person to rise up. So otherwise if you’re using the hierarchy emphasise the hierarchy and discourage people and we are defeating the purpose of scripture and you made that quote later by pointed about that Raghupatra to Nanda Gopal Prabhu and the Kumar Prabhu that is now use scriptural statements for judging yourself not for judging others.
So there that was a later point but whenever we discuss that that we are not meant to be judgemental but we can be discerning. The discerning is more for from our perspective what is favourable what is not favourable for us not whether the other person is right or wrong and then in that since I discussed that that generally are the scriptural references for this kind of discussion. He said that yes in one sense the scripture is showing us how to centre our discussions.
So like we have the centre in Prabhupada it takes Prabhupada’s purports and then we discuss how Prabhupada’s purpose can be understood. How does this make sense to you? How does it make sense to you? And then we share that discussion. So isn’t it when we are sharing this is the next logical step after Shravanam.
So Kirtanam and Smaranam this is the next step which is which is may not be depicted in our scriptures but is definitely described in the scripture like Bodhayanta, Parasparam and other verses. So then while we are discussing multiple perspectives isn’t it important to say have theological boundaries that this is right and this is wrong isn’t that somebody would. So if somebody is trying to crush somebody else it may not necessarily be because they are egoistic wanting to prove their point right but they may want to protect the understanding of scripture.
So then you made that it is in one sense dangerous to presume that we are the intellectual guardian of the tradition and most of us are not in that position. So it’s best that we never take that role and if even if some of us get some wrong understanding how much of a difference is it going to make. It’s for us it may be more important to be encouraged in the study of Shastra than to be heavily corrected and thereby give up the desire to study Shastra itself.
So in one sense there is room for slightly off understandings and we have so many of understanding of so many issues. So why make such a big fuss about those things and then yes there are so if we are keeping Prabhupada in the centre and it’s Prabhupada’s words we are trying to understand and that itself will create certain boundaries. So it’s not that we are rejecting the idea of boundaries or rejecting the idea of that also being a purpose but for most devotees who are trying to understand Shastra that is not going to be a major concern.
The major concern is actually to develop understanding of Shastra so that we actually develop a taste for it and the taste you mentioned this earlier that the taste in association comes a taste in discussing Krishna Katha and association comes when we feel that our understanding is also valued then otherwise so the higher taste is not necessarily some mystical experience that we might get it could just be the joy we experience in relishing Krishna Katha. So and in discussing Krishna Katha in association and so Prabhupada makes that point that when you understand scripture from different perspective you will get you will be able to perform austerities that that higher taste gives us the inner strength to perform austerities and they don’t seem like austerities they are actually they feel joyful because we’re getting that higher taste and then toward the end is discussed that when there are these different understandings so is it that as devotees as Madhyamadhikaris we are meant to be meant to make judgments yes we discuss that we cannot we’re meant to discern not be judgemental and when we’re discerning from a position of humility that will also help us to recognise that which association is not Sajatiya for me so if it is not Sajatiya then let me I can still respect that person from a distance but I won’t associate with them so that is different from condemning them and while being in the Sajatiya association how do we avoid being getting caught in our own echo chambers and polarising and demonising others that is by we could say focussing on that we don’t have to go about judging others but we also have to recognise that first of all we have to be sheltered in bhakti and we won’t get that shelter in we could say Vijatiya association if there is an opposite in association that that doesn’t value also what we have to say so Sajatiya doesn’t mean we have to it is not surrounding ourselves yes yes men and people who just echo us Sajatiya means that people value us that okay you have to say something valuable doesn’t necessarily mean that I agree with everything that you have to say and then in that association when we are sheltered and when we grow then eventually we can even go out and and associate with those whose understanding is significantly differently different and still we will be able to fit it in so then otherwise then we won’t be disturbed by them and we won’t also disturb them so that way the ultimate purpose for us here is to to actually go deep into scripture and develop a taste for scripture and ultimately develop a taste for Krishna and eventually when we are hearing from others and it’s not just they who are imagining this what can this person teach me but it’s not they who are teaching us something it’s Krishna who is teaching us through those things so it is it is association and Sangha is ultimately meant to connect us with Krishna that is our ultimate purpose so you want to add anything that was a wonderful summary and truly wonderful sorry thank you so much for this thank you very much thank you Krishna you want to add some words finally yeah the madhyam is making discernment but it’s different from judgement and that really struck me when you know when my wife made that point that she has friends and they’re followers of Narayan Maharaj and so her discernment is well I’m not able to associate with them because I don’t have the breadth of maturity in Krishna consciousness to discuss with them and they will defer to their authority and I will defer to my authority and it’s not going to work you know without discussion but if I was a bit more advanced I could accept that okay their authority may have a different idea to me but that’s okay and I can live with that but you know but I’m not going to make a judgement of them well they’re off they’re aposedantic they’re wrong they’re bad you know it’s just that that that’s that’s a judgement where as opposed to a discernment where I understand that I’m I can’t associate with them because they’re not swachhati and and it’s not going to work you know so I think that I thought that was a good point that really needed to be emphasised that’s why I repeated it yes thank you very much that is it’s a very important point and you also mentioned that independent thoughtfulness needs to be cultivated in devotees to that end so thank you very much this was a wonderful discussion and thank you I’m sure many of the viewers I personally felt very you could say both illuminated and vindicated so I’m sure the similar feelings will be there among the viewers also thank you very much for joining and I look forward to have more podcasts in future sometime again thank you so much thank you very much Hare Krishna Hare Krishna