Speaking with sensitivity

Podcast:

Video:

Transcript

This is an AI-generated transcript and may contain some errors.
I’m grateful to be here with all of you today and it’s good to know that all of you are waiting training to teach and share Krishna Consciousness through the medium of teaching. It’s one of the most important services that anyone can ever do and Shri Prabhupada wanted that everyone in whatever way possible share Krishna Consciousness and that is the mood of Bhagavad Gita also. So, it’s one thing to want to share, it’s another thing to invest time to learn what to share.
It’s even more sign of dedication to learn how to share. So, to share is good, to know how to learn what to share is better, but to learn how to share is the best. So, all of you are doing that and I’m happy to be of service.
So, today I’ll speak on the topic of sensitivity in speaking and so as teachers all of us have a responsibility to help those with whom we are sharing the knowledge to help them come closer to Krishna. So, this is a powerpoint which I’ll be showing and along with that I’ll also be using it as a as a whiteboard. So, I may write something in the powerpoint along the way also.
So, I’ll be basing this on the Bhagavad Gita 1715 where Krishna talks about discipline of speech, austerity of speech. He says, So, he’s talking vanmayam tapa. This is the discipline or the austerity of speech and when we do this discipline, then our speech will become effective.
So, what does he talk about as the characteristics of this speech? I’ve analysed this in terms of a diagram. So, Krishna talks about two components that when we are disciplining the speech, it needs to be sensitive and sensible. Sensitive refers to the awareness of the impact it is going to have on the audience and sensible refers to the content of what you are speaking.
So, both. So, sensitive is non-agitating or pleasing. So, Anudvega Karam Vakyam and Priyam, Krishna says.
That is non-agitating and pleasing. And then as far as sensible is concerned, it’s a Satyam, truthful and Hitam, beneficial. So, we need to balance both these aspects when we are speaking, sensitive and sensible.
Now, if you consider, I’ll be talking mainly two points. Sometimes, especially as teachers of Krishna consciousness, we may use spirituality to rationalise verbal violence. Verbal violence means that I may think that because I know what is right, I will speak the right thing no matter how it affects others.
So, that is a temptation and we need to avoid that temptation. That is the major part of the talk and then I’ll talk about when and how to speak strongly. So, now to put it another way, the same point of effective speech.
So, there’s a speaker here and then around the speaker there is an unspoken attitude toward hearer. So, with what attitude do we approach our hearers? And then, of course, there is a hearer and then there is the content of what we speak. So, now we can’t directly control the hearers.
Of course, we can choose whom we are speaking to, to some extent, but that’s not in our control. Once the audience has come, they are there. We can’t change them immediately.
They are where they are. So, if we want them to change, what are the two tools we have? One is the content of the speech and it is our attitude, the attitude with which we are looking at them. So, when Prabhupada went to America, what was the attitude? Most people would have considered that the, sorry, it’s not attitude toward speaker, it is attitude toward hearer.
So, most people, Prabhupada went to America and he went to the hippies. Now, when he went to the hippies, at that time most people would have considered those hippies to be not at all, they were so degraded that, in fact, they would not be capable of receiving Krishna consciousness. That would have been his understanding.
In fact, in general, in India, it was considered that across the oceans towards the west, the further we go, the more degraded things become. But the hippies were considered degraded even by western standards, what to speak of Vedic standards. And Prabhupada could easily have an attitude of condescension, of condemnation.
These are fallen people, these are sinful people, these are worthless people. But Prabhupada never had that attitude toward them. None of the people who came to meet Prabhupada ever felt that Prabhupada made them feel that we are sinful, that we are impure.
Just by being with Prabhupada, they felt like wanting to become pure. Prabhupada did not mince words in talking about the principles of bhakti. But Prabhupada did not make people feel impure.
He inspired them to become pure and that was because his attitude was filled with compassion, not condescension, not looking at certain attributes and condemning people for those attributes. So, the attitude towards hearer is extremely important. And then based on that, the content of speech that we have.
So, sometimes it can be palatable, sometimes it can be unpalatable. Now sensitivity does not mean that we always speak palatable speech only. Sometimes we may have to speak unpalatable speech and we will talk about that in due course.
But the important thing is that what is the attitude with which we are speaking. When an unpalatable speech is made with the attitude of condemnation or condescension, that completely alienates people. But when even unpalatable speech is made with an attitude of compassion, where people can see or sense the compassion, then they don’t feel that bad about it.
They still feel bad, but not too much. So, once we have that attitude of compassion, we may also be able to see how we can speak even unpalatable truth in the least unpalatable way. So, we will look at that now.
Sometimes the speech might be just neutral also. It’s just functional. They are just giving some information.
There is nothing palatable or unpalatable about it. The neutral speech is usually not transformational. It is you give some information to somebody, they might find it useful.
That’s okay. That doesn’t positively endure or transform. So, now, when we talk about sensitive speaking, I gave one reference already, Anudekkaram Vakyam Satyam Prihitam Chait.
But there are many other references. The Bhagavad Gita is not the only reference. We see in the Updesha Amrit, one of the characteristics of pure devotee is described to be Anya Ninda Di Shunya.
One who doesn’t have any tendency to criticise anyone. Then the Gita also says that the characteristic of the godly people, the characteristic of those with Daiva Prakruti is Apahishunam. Apahishunam Prabhupada translates as aversion to fault finding.
Not that they don’t find faults, but they don’t like to find faults. Generally, we’d say we should be beyond attachment and aversion. But it’s interesting, aversion to something is considered to be a virtue of the godly people, of those with Daiva Prakruti.
So, aversion here means not that you hate the fault finders or hate fault finding, but it’s just that we don’t like it. We don’t take joy in it. So, that is not something which we look forward to.
So, aversion to fault finding. Sorry, are you able to hear and see? Okay. Then there is, of course, the Gita’s 326.
Krishna says, don’t agitate the minds of others. In fact, he is very categorically saying, even if people are attached and you are detached, even if people are ignorant and you are knowledgeable, still don’t disturb people’s minds. What does he say? He says, elevate them gradually, elevate them gradually.
So, now he’s not saying, okay, in the name of not agitating them, just leave them where they are. No, give them a path for gradual elevation. The point is, don’t speak unpalatably.
We shouldn’t think that just because people are wrong and we know what is the right thing, we have a right to condemn them for being wrong. No, don’t agitate the minds of people. In general, whenever a person comes for any spiritual programme or any spiritual circle, it’s a reasonable inference to assume that people are coming with some kind of agitation already in their mind.
The world is an agitating place. And yes, sometimes we may have to correct their misconceptions. But if our speech adds to the agitation of their mind and that is the primary or that is the sole contribution that we are doing, then at least as they perceive it, then they will say, why should I keep coming here? So, not agitating the mind is important.
And then the Gita in 18.3, in the 18th chapter, Krishna talks about two categories of people. Those who say that yajna dana karma should be done, yajna dana tapa should be done, and those who say that yajna dana tapa should not be done. And Krishna says, actually, yajna dana tapa should be done.
They should not be given up. But while Krishna talks about the other party, that those who say yajna dana tapa should be given up. So, he says, they are also manishinaha.
Manishinaha means they are thinkers. Literally, manishinaha means mana isha, those who have controlled their mind. Now, the word name manish is quite common.
Most of us may not know the implication of manish. What it means is one who is the controller of their mind. What it means is that mind doesn’t wander here and there.
They can think deeply about issues. They are thinkers. So, Krishna is referring even to those who are teaching something opposite to what he is teaching as manishinaha.
So, this is very striking. Sometimes you say this person is wrong. I had to call him wrong.
I call him a fool. No, not so simple. Why is Krishna referring to them as manishinaha? Because he is saying that he is appreciating the fact that these people are also thinking what is the way to become disentangled from the world.
So, some people say the way to become disentangled is to act with detachment. Others is to say to renounce the world. But he is appreciating the good in them.
The good is that they are thinking about how to become disentangled from the world. So, even if that is, can everyone mute their mics please? Okay. So, I think, Mataji, are you the host or I am the only host? Swamiji, you are the host.
Okay, sure. So, yeah. So, now here we see Krishna showing the example that even people whom he who’s teaching something opposite, he’s not dismissing them as foolish.
He’s appreciating the good in them. Now, you may say, yes, this is fine. But we see so many times when Prabhupada uses strong words.
Yes, Prabhupada does use strong words. But let’s look at over here. So, Prabhupada uses words like rascals or fools.
And sometimes these words may strike us when we see them in his speech or writing. But Prabhupada was very measured and careful when he used such words. So, if you look at this count, the maximum amount of time Prabhupada used such words were when Prabhupada spoke in his private conversations.
And that is, now his conversations were recorded, but they were with his very close and committed followers. And if this also we want to consider, this is out of, this is the number of words Prabhupada himself actually spoke. What happened over here? Okay.
So, this is how many words Prabhupada spoke? What happened? Yeah. So, Prabhupada spoke something like 143 million words. So, totally we have 143 million words he has spoken.
And out of that, if you see 2791 words, that is not even 1%, that is not even 0.1%. It may be something like 0.01%, even less than that. And even in that, if you see that Prabhupada spoke those words like this, far lesser in his lectures, less than half of that time in his lectures, 1373 times. And then if you look at his books, there we see it is even almost one-fourth of the number of times he spoke that in his lectures, he spoke such words in his books.
And half of that, he has spoken it in what he wrote as books, many of Prabhupada’s books like Life Comes From Life or even Science of Self-Realisation. They were lectures or conversations which were put in the book form. But there’s something which Prabhupada himself either typed or dictated to be books.
So, it is that Prabhupada spoke strongly, but Prabhupada was not indiscriminate in speaking strongly at all times. Prabhupada was measured in his speech. And there are many occasions when Prabhupada could have chosen to speak strongly, but he spoke effectively.
So, for example, many of you know the incident when a hippy came and asked Prabhupada. This hippy was all stoned on LSD. And he asked, Swamiji, what is the happiness of the spiritual world? Now, Prabhupada could have said that if you are taking drugs, you are breaking the regulative principles, you cannot even get any glimpse of what the happiness of the spiritual world is.
And Prabhupada could have quoted Shastra to support that. What did Prabhupada say? Prabhupada explained in terms that he could make sense. He said the happiness of the spiritual world is like an ocean of LSD.
Now, there is no scripture which says something like that. LSD itself is not mentioned in the scripture. But what is Prabhupada doing? Prabhupada is communicating the truth in a way that makes sense to the person and attracts the person.
Oh, yeah, the ocean of LSD. I would like to experience that. So, that’s Prabhupada’s expertise.
So, it’s not that to follow Prabhupada, we have to necessarily speak strongly. Yes, there are times when we speak strongly, but more important than speaking strongly is speaking effectively. Speaking effectively means we attract people towards the truth, not that we alienate them from the truth.
Now, why would we speak strongly sometimes? Now, sometimes what happens is because we have spiritual knowledge and especially if we are having some practises, we have a good sadhana, we follow the four aggregate principles, we may start thinking that this gives us the right to condemn others. Because of this, we may not see people fully and we may not even see ourselves fully. By see people fully means we may not appreciate the good in them as Prabhupada did with the huppies.
And we may not see ourselves fully means we may not see that actually I’m not speaking from a platform of compassion. I am speaking from a platform of arrogance. I am speaking from a platform of condescension, looking down at others.
So, yes, it’s important for us to have knowledge. It’s important for us to have practises. But the result of this should be that we develop a godly nature and we learn to see more and more good in others.
Now, broadly, where do we need sensitivity? Generally, when we see something is wrong and we feel that I should fix it. Now, how do I go fixing it? Broadly, there can be two things wrong in people. One is they may have wrong conceptions and they may have wrong actions.
Wrong conceptions means somebody may say that God is impersonal or somebody may say there is no God or they may have wrong actions. They may be taking meat, they may be having unrestrained sexual indulgence. They may be doing so many things like that.
So, generally, in terms of people’s concept, people’s conceptions or people’s actions, we may see something wrong. And when we see that wrong, we may think, oh, this person is so terrible. This person is about to go to hell.
And if I don’t speak something to save him, this person already has one leg in hell. Actually, by my strong speech, I can pull him out. I pull him or her out.
We might think like that. But it’s not that simple. See people fully means what? We don’t see the good within them.
It may be presently some good is there or potentially some good is in there. Now, Prabhupada saw the potential good in the hippies. They were disillusioned, disenchanted with the, as they call, the great American dream that, you know, become wealthy, have a good family, have a good job, have a good life.
He said, this life is not good enough. We want something more. So, Prabhupada appreciated that good.
Although they’re searching for something good, was in unhealthy direction. They were exploring through drugs. But he appreciated the good in them.
And sometimes what happens is we see people’s faults and we presume that this is all that they have. That is all that they have. And there’s nothing more to them apart from their faults.
And they will always have those faults. So, and we tend to label people. This person is a Mayavadi.
This person is a meat-eater. This person is like this. This person is like that.
But what happens is, now, yes, from a functional perspective, in the world, labels will be required. If somebody is forgetful, we want to give them some service. And yes, we have to be careful if we give them that service.
So, yes, from a functional perspective, labels may be required. But we can’t see labels as permanent character definers. People change.
And even if they have some defects, still they are not limited to that particular negative quality. They may have other good qualities. So, it is unnecessarily, it is undesirable and it is unhealthy.
It damages them. It damages our attitude toward them. It damages our ability to help them.
So, now, in fact, the more we learn philosophy, the more quick we become to put labels on people. Oh, this person is a demigod worshipper. This person is this.
This person is this. This person is this. In general, in India, I even avoid using the word demigod because what happens is people, the way we devotees sometimes speak the word demigod, we speak it with so much negativity and derision.
I was in America and I was in one class and this is one person came and said, what is this demigod? Are they demons? Demons? Why demons? They are devatas. I said, no, how do people speak about them so negatively? I thought they must be demons. It sounds also like demons.
So, now there is no word demigod in scripture per se. So, most Indians understand. So, I straight simply use the word devata.
There is Krishna is Bhagawan and there are devatas. So, of course, that is something which is up to individual. But the point is we don’t have to label people.
Somebody may be a worshipper of the devata, but that doesn’t mean that they don’t have an interest in Krishna. They may not come to Krishna temple. They may not have interest in Krishna bhakti.
They may have and we can find that and being a worshipper of devata might be still better than being a materialist or atheist. So, we reduce people to labels. So, sometimes the more knowledge we have, the more quickly we get more labels to fix on people.
Oh, this person is like this, this person is like this, this person is like this and that can be unhealthy. So, now just the scriptures do radically challenge our conceptions. So, in the Mahabharata, there is a section which is called the Vyadha Gita.
Vyadha means hunter or butcher. So, this is philosophical wisdom given by a butcher to a sage. The sage is basically a renunciate and this is elaborate instruction that butcher gives.
Now, we wonder if somebody is a butcher. A meat eater is bad, but a butcher is somebody who actually kills. How can such a person have any philosophical knowledge? But what is the Mahabharata doing? It’s challenging our conceptions.
So, in fact, this Vyadha is mentioned as a great devotee, as a noteworthy devotee in the Bhagavatam. So, it’s not just in the Mahabharata. In the Bhagavatam, in the Uddhava Gita, the Vyadha is also referred to again.
So, the point is that the scriptures show, yes, sometimes some people may have some negative behavioural attributes, but they are not reducible to that alone. So, the point of this pastime is not that all butchers are automatically wise. That’s not the point.
But the point is that we shouldn’t stereotypically presume that because a person has having this kind of behaviour, that means this person will have no wisdom. This person is ignorant. This person is senseless.
No, there’s no necessary correlation like that. Why is that? Now, how can a butcher have wisdom? Because Gana Karmanogati Krishna says in the fourth chapter 17 verse that karma is very complicated. So, people’s present situations may result from a complex bend of mixed past karma.
Mixed past karma means that some of their karma might be good, some of their karma might be bad. So, because of their good karma, they may have spiritual knowledge. Because of their bad karma, they might be put in a situation where they are engaged in a profession that is considered quite unfortunate and terrible.
So, their past good karma leads to wisdom. Their past bad karma may lead to an unfortunate profession. So, life is complex.
Sometimes people who may be in what we might call a sinful professions, may still have virtues in them. So, what happens is people are not unidimensional. Their entire character is not determined by just one behaviour.
Now, whatever it is, whatever particular behaviour we might find, all of us will have our own things which we find very objectionable. And when we think somebody is behaving like that, somebody may use foul words. And now it’s definitely not good to use foul words.
But just because somebody uses foul words doesn’t mean necessarily that everything that the person says is foolish. Foul language is not good, but they may speak something intelligent also. So, we can’t reduce people down to one aspect of their character.
So, this is why we need to avoid absolutising. People are complex conscious beings. They are not monochromatic philosophical categories.
What do I mean by this? That people are people. They are conscious beings. They are not philosophical categories.
And they are complex. They are multiple facets to him. Now, when Prabhupada was living in America, initially he was in Butler, Pennsylvania.
Then he went to New York. There he was staying with one Dr. Patel. He was a yoga teacher.
And Dr. Patel was at the opposite spectrum of philosophy as compared to Prabhupada. He was a Advaitin. He taught impersonal philosophy.
And Prabhupada, he would have quite a few arguments at times. And many years later, after Krishna Consciousness was spread and he met Prabhupada in Mumbai. And when he came, he came to Prabhupada’s room and Prabhupada had a very cordial talk.
They remembered their times together and they were joking and laughing and they departed. And then Giriraj Maharaj was there and he observed. He said, Prabhupada, I thought this Dr. Mishra is Mayavadi.
He said, yes. And then Prabhupada said, philosophically, we argue like anything, but culturally, we are friends. Culturally, we are friends.
So Prabhupada was not reducing Dr. Mishra down to, you are a Mayavadi, there’s nothing more to you. No, Prabhupada looked at him, okay, he’s also a culture gentleman. He also went to the West to try to share some Indian spiritual wisdom.
And there was so much in common they had. So this reducing people to one category is the reason why we may have a negative attitude. Remember, I started by talking two things.
What is our attitude toward our audience and what do we speak to the audience? So right now, this whole discussion is how we may have a negative attitude toward our audience. And one negative attitude, we look down at the audience, we condemn them. And how do we condemn them? By seeing one negative thing in them and reducing their whole being, their whole character, their whole personality to that one negative attribute.
So earlier I talked about negative behaviours and now I’m talking about, say, incorrect philosophical conceptions. Both don’t give us a justification to speak wrongly. So now, all meat-eaters don’t have the same character.
Some meat-eaters may be violent, but does that mean all meat-eaters are violent? No, just as, do all vegetarians have same character? No, it is just one behavioural attribute. In fact, one of the biggest ironies of the last century was that the one person who was probably responsible for more human deaths than anyone else, that was Hitler and Hitler was a vegetarian. So now I’m in no way minimising the importance of avoiding meat-eating.
Yes, it’s terrible, there’s violence. But what do most of us have in common with Hitler? Nothing. We are vegetarians.
But does that make our character similar to his? No. So people are complex beings. Yes, we can note certain behavioural patterns or certain philosophical conceptions they have, but don’t reduce them to that.
If you reduce them, then knowingly or unknowingly our attitude will not stay compassionate. We’ll look down at them. It’ll become condescension or even condemnation.
So I talked about this first point, how we may use spirituality to rationalise verbal violence. Now I’ll talk about when and how to speak strongly. I’m not saying that never speak strongly.
There are times when we need to speak that. So we talked about the attitude toward the speaker and now we’re looking at the content of the speech. So our purpose is to speak the truth.
And yes, sometimes the truth is unpalatable. So if we speak something unpalatable, that is quite likely to be unpopular. So if somebody runs an alcohol shop or somebody runs a meat shop and they say, is meat eating okay or is consuming alcohol okay? Now we cannot say it’s just okay.
Now we may not condemn them for that and we may give a gradual pathway for them to help them come out of it. But sometimes we have to speak unpalatable truth. We can’t avoid that.
So but at the same time, even when we have to speak unpalatable truth, so our purpose is not simply to be popular. That oh, if I speak this, I’ll become popular. We don’t speak for popularity.
But then we don’t speak for unpopularity either. Truth may be unpalatable, but unpalatability is not the sole test of truth. That means that I can’t say that just because I’m speaking something unpalatable, that means it must be true.
And worse still, I know one particular preacher. He said, I’m very unhappy with the status of ISKCON right now. He said, why? He said, because ISKCON is becoming so popular.
So what’s wrong with that? You know, if we are speaking the truth, we would not be popular. Now that is a quite a perverse idea of things. Now does that mean the test of purity is unpopularity? No, that is not the test of purity.
The test of purity is purity. How much we love Krishna. Prabhupada sought popularity, not at the cost of purity.
What do you mean Prabhupada sought popularity? Prabhupada went to America and he went to the West and he brought Western disciples and when Western disciples came here, they captivated the Indian cultural imagination and that captivated Indians and Prabhupada became very very celebrated at that time. So Prabhupada, so popularity itself is not bad. The popularity is not our purpose, not the unpopularity our purpose.
Our purpose is to share spiritual wisdom in a way that attracts people. So we can’t say that if say we speak something and people get upset, then some people say, you know, that’s because they are attached, because they are illusion. And they are not going to like what I speak, because I am speaking the truth.
Well, maybe, maybe not. Maybe it is not you are speaking the truth. Maybe it is because you are speaking in a way that alienates people.
So right now we are shifting to what do we speak. Yes, sometimes we try to speak the truth which may be unpalatable. So the truth may be unpalatable, but it doesn’t have to be spoken unpalatably.
It doesn’t have to be spoken unpalatably. So we sometimes overlook how Prabhupada was also very sensitive and careful in what he spoke, even to his own disciples. When Prabhupada brought his Western disciples for the first time to India, there’s one disciple.
He had brought two or three disciples. One of them was Kirtanananda. He became Kirtanananda Swami.
He was quite dedicated and devout at that time. There’s another who somehow lost interest in Krishna Consciousness and started wearing a long beard, long hair, and he was quite dishevelled in his looks. And because he was Prabhupada’s disciple, he would go everywhere with Prabhupada’s programmes.
And then he would misrepresent Prabhupada. And then Prabhupada told one of his closer disciples, now tell him to dress in a proper way, to be more neat and tidy. And Prabhupada didn’t tell him directly.
All that was his own disciple. And then he told, but he said he didn’t listen. And then after that, one day that devotee came to meet Prabhupada and he told Prabhupada, Prabhupada knew back to God it has come.
Oh, okay. So Prabhupada opened it and Prabhupada looked at it and he said there was a story of Haridas Thakur and how Haridas Thakur had transformed the prostitute. So he said, what do you see in this? This is how Haridas Thakur’s potency.
Yeah, but what do you see the difference between the two pictures? So there’s a picture of this prostitute earlier and there’s a picture of the prostitute later. So he said that she had a very seductive appearance earlier and now she was looking like a devotee. So she had cut her hair and she looked very, very devotee-centric.
So what is the difference? She is a devotee. So what does it mean? Prabhupada said. Prabhupada, she has cut her hair.
Yes. Then this devotee said, Prabhupada, do you want me to cut my hair? He said, yes. So even with a simple point we may say Prabhupada was sensitive.
So Prabhupada was, we may reduce, earlier I talked about reducing people. We may reduce Prabhupada also. This is how, if I have to be faithful to Prabhupada, that means this is the way I have to speak.
No, Prabhupada was multifaceted. He spoke at different times in different ways. Now, we may say, what about speaking strongly? Yes, you have to speak strongly.
And we may say, if I don’t speak the truth, it is compromise. Yes, that is true. Not speaking the truth is compromise.
But knowing which truth to speak when, that is not compromise, that is intelligence. Knowing which truth to speak when, that is intelligence. Most of the life members, most of the Indians who helped Prabhupada during his preaching in India, they were already well-established businessmen, well-established in society and they already had their own spiritual connections.
In fact, two of the biggest life members, biggest in the sense that they offered the biggest help to Prabhupada, both of them were very close and initiated disciples of Advaitic Gurus. And they came to Prabhupada because they appreciated what Prabhupada was doing for Indian culture, for Indian spirituality and they wanted to contribute. Now, Prabhupada visited their homes.
Now, His Holiness Radhanath Maharaj and His Holiness Giriraj Maharaj, both told me that we also visited their homes many times. So, right in their homes when they went, at the entrance itself, in their various rooms, in their altar, they had big pictures of these Advaitic Gurus and Prabhupada never spoke one word negative about them. Prabhupada, they wanted to do some seva and Prabhupada engaged them in seva.
So, Prabhupada chose which truth to speak. He said, oh, you know, this is Advaitavada and Advaitavada is, this is wrong and you are having Guru who is Advaitavadi. Well, that was not the truth that was relevant at that time for that person.
If somebody is already initiated disciple and somebody is already committed to a particular path, for them to change is not that easy. The first thing that is required for them to change is to develop trust, to develop a relationship. So, Prabhupada focused on developing that relationship, focused on giving them pious credits by engaging them in Krishna’s service and they did an extraordinary amount of service to Krishna by offering Shila Prabhupada so much support, especially in the Juhu temple.
So, His Holiness Rajanath Maharaj told me personally when I was talking with him about this once. So, he said with one of his life members, Maharaj was personally there with him just a day or two before he departed from the world. He was quite old and he said when I met him, he was remembering Shila Prabhupada and glorifying Shila Prabhupada and he had so much devotion for Prabhupada.
He had tears in his eyes and he said at that time, I was thinking, Maharaj was saying that I was thinking at that time, now will Krishna see just the fact that when he was going to depart from the world, this life member, was Krishna going to see, oh this person was initiated by so and so Guru or was Krishna going to see how much service he had done to Prabhupada, how much devotion he had to Prabhupada. So, he may have been nominally initiated. He may have appreciated that Guru also.
But people cannot be reduced to their philosophical affiliation also or their institutional affiliation. So, they may be affiliated institution. Just like in our movement, we have devotees.
Are all ISKCON devotees the same? No, everybody is individual. Everybody is different. We can have a wide variety of differences.
So, Saragrahi, essence seekers, rather than reducing this person, this person is a Mayavadi because initiated by Mayavadi Guru. I saw that they had a service attitude. They had a devotional mood and Krishna is Saragrahi.
Krishna ultimately is the essence seeker. So, Bhavagrahi, we talk about Krishna not Saragrahi, Bhavagrahi. So, Krishna will see the Bhava of Seva, the Bhava Bhakti and Krishna will elevate that person.
So, knowing which truth to speak when is not compromise. It is intelligence. So, some people may say that it’s a simple choice.
Do you have the courage to speak the actual truth or you are cowardly and you speak the compromised truth? And when you phrase it this way itself, sometimes some questions are phrased in a wrong way. There is a question phrased in such a way that there is no right answer to the question. So, you know, do you have the courage to speak the truth or are you cowardly and you’re going to speak the compromised truth? Well, that is not the actual choice.
So, why is this not the actual choice? See, sometimes when people ask this question, they have to question the question itself. So, if somebody, the famous example of a loaded question is, if somebody asks a man, so, have you stopped beating your wife? What? Now, there is no right answer to this question. He says, yes.
You rascal, you used to beat your wife. No, you rascal, you’re still beating your wife. So, the question is phrased in such a way that there is no right answer.
So, we can’t answer the question. We have to question the question. So, if somebody says, so, will you have the courage to speak the truth or will you be cowardly and compromise? You have to question, are those the only two choices? Are those the actual choices? No, these are not the actual choices.
What is the actual choice? How to speak? Do we speak in a way that attracts people to the truth or do we speak in a way that alienates people from the truth? That is the actual choice. So, truth is not one thing. In the truth, there are many, many different aspects of the truth.
So, we need to speak in a way that attracts people to the truth. So, sensitivity doesn’t mean that we compromise the truth. Sensitivity means we are compassionate and give people the opportunity to come closer to Krishna from wherever they are, with whatever kind of actions they may be doing, with whatever kind of compassion they may have, with the conceptions they may have.
When we have this mood, then actually we can speak effectively. We can attract people to our Krishna. So, that mood of compassion and followed by a careful selection of what we speak.
That’s how we can attract people to Krishna. That’s all. I’ll conclude with this, that what is our purpose in speaking about Krishna? It is, we should remove the walls, the walls of misconceptions, the walls of obstacles that they may have.
So, Krishna is here, they are here. Whatever walls are there, we want to remove those walls. Sometimes the walls may be misconceptions and we may have to break those walls.
But if we speak in a judgemental, condescending, holier-than-thou way, then what happens? Our words may become the walls because of which they may not come to Krishna. So, if you keep that purpose in mind, then we can always be effective in how we speak. And yes, if sometimes some misconceptions are actually stopping people from coming to Krishna, we need to break those walls.
We need to challenge and correct those misconceptions. But we don’t have to presume that this is the misconception that is stopping people from coming to Krishna. Yes, somebody might be belonging to an Advaithic organisation, somebody might be worshipping a Devata, somebody might be eating meat.
But is that stopping them from coming to Krishna right now? If that is not, let them come toward Krishna. And in due course, the right time will come when we will address those issues. So, we focus on not just breaking walls, but on breaking those walls that are stopping people from coming to Krishna right now.
So, everybody has so many misconceptions. Even we right now have misconceptions. Even I have misconceptions.
So, now it’s not that every single misconception has to be corrected right now. Which is the main misconception that is stopping people from coming toward Krishna? And for most people, their conceptions are not what stop people from coming to Krishna. Their misconceptions.
They may have practical problems. This point is not clear to me. This point, can you explain this? And if we logically explain things and if we are kind and cordial with them, then that can attract them toward Krishna.
That’s how if we learn to be sensitive in our speech, we will attract many many people toward Krishna. Some people may come all the way toward Krishna. But even those who don’t come all the way toward Krishna, they will take a few steps toward Krishna.
And they will appreciate Krishna and Krishna’s devotees. And that itself is spiritual advancement for them. On the other hand, if we don’t do that, if we become very judgemental in our speaking, then what happens is we might attract very very few people, but we will alienate a lot of people away from Krishna because of our judgemental attitude.
And that we want to avoid very much. So, we can imagine that the success in outreach is like a progressive thing. That yes, we attract, some people will become very serious, some people will become slightly serious, some people will just become appreciative.
But everybody can be on their forward journey toward Krishna. And that would be the success of our speaking about Krishna. So, I’ll summarise what I spoke today.
I started by speaking about discipline of speaking based on the Bhagavad Gita 1715. So, sensitive and sensible. That’s what is effective speaking.
And then two points I spoke within that. First is, how we may rationalise speaking strongly or even condemning people we may rationalise. So, how to avoid that? So, what does, first communication to be effective, what do we need? First is, we look at what a person is, what is my attitude toward my audience? And then secondly, what exactly am I speaking? So, we want an attitude more of compassion not condescension.
And how do we develop that attitude of compassion not condescension? It is by helping people, by seeing the good in people, seeing what is right, what is good in people. To the extent we see that, to that extent, we can elevate, we can be elevated and we can help them elevate. And while seeing good in people, what we need to avoid? We avoid reducing people to their particular wrong behaviour or even their wrong conceptions.
And that’s why because people are not categories, they are conscious beings, they are complex. So, we discussed many examples how Prabhupada, he spoke strongly sometimes, but he was also expert. The point was not speaking strongly or softly, the point is speaking effectively.
And then the second part was, truth may be unpalatable, but that doesn’t mean everything so-called unpalatability is truth. And certainly doesn’t mean that we have a right to speak unpalatably. We learn, we try to speak as sensitively as possible so that we can attract people toward Krishna.
So, thank you very much. Are there any reflections or questions? Hare Krishna. Hare Krishna.
Thank you so much. In such a short time, you explained many many things actually. We have to go through our notes once again and dive in to understand.
So, thank you so much firstly for your time and giving this very valuable tip because finally whatever study we will be doing that is behind the curtain. And when we are actually meeting the audience, what is coming is our speech. So, whatever homework we have done does not matter.
Finally, it matters that what is my inner consciousness which is also projecting the homework that is being done. So, can I ask one question? And also all of you devotees, you can also ask. So, you spoke about Prabhuji that attract and alienate these two things.
So, sometimes it can happen that the way we wish to deal with a particular person or a particular concept to be spoken. And keeping in mind also that we have to be speaking the right words. But somehow, whatever is done, the person gets upset.
So, in that such a case, what is to be done after that? I mean, little damage has happened because of the speech. Because of the way we spoke or just the person has become offended for no reason or whatever. Whatever.
From our side, we feel we have done the best only. Taken all considerations and all things, but still the person has got upset. Maybe the new person also or can be even from the known category like friends and family also.
It can be anyone. But when such a thing happens, then what we are supposed to do? Okay. So, if you find that somebody is hurt or offended by something we have done or spoken, what can we do? Yes, it’s not a pleasant situation to be in.
And especially if that relationship is important for us, then it’s even more unpleasant. So, basically two, three things. In general, we can say that a person, we can look at fixing this kind of situation in three modes.
A person in Rajoguna will think that, you know, I can’t live without fixing this problem. I have to fix this problem. I have to make this person friendly toward me, favourable toward me.
And basically in Rajoguna, we assume that we have more control than what we do. And we think it’s entirely up to me to fix the problem. So, we may talk with them, we may talk with somebody connected with them and we may talk with somebody else.
And we may do so many things that that person feels even more pressured from so many directions. Sometimes some hurts need to be individually processed. People need to themselves recover and then they can become more receptive to understand things from a broader or a different perspective.
So, Rajoguna means, I think that I have to fix this right now, immediately. And we just take any and every means to try to fix it. Tamoguna is the other extreme where we think, oh, this always happens to be like this.
People get offended with me. Even when I have good intentions, always people get hurt. Maybe something is intrinsically wrong with me.
I am worthless. Maybe I’ll never be able to do anything like that. So, I’ll never be able to have good relationships.
I’ll never be actually able to help people come closer to Krishna. I’ll never be able to do any service. So, here what happens is, we underestimate the capacity to control that we have.
So, in Sattvaguna, Sattvat Sanjayate Jnanam, Krishna says. One of the results of Sattvaguna is knowledge. That means when we are in the mode of goodness, we can perceive properly.
Okay. What exactly did I do? And how did this person see this? What did I do to contribute to this problem? And then, now our ego might say, I didn’t do anything. Or that would be Rajoguna speaking.
Tamoguna may say that, no, maybe I’m only worthless. I did something wrong. I don’t even know what I did wrong.
But I keep doing wrong. No. Try to objectively analyse as much as possible.
What did we do to cause this misconception? If we didn’t do much, then we can say, okay, can I do something to fix this? Maybe I can clarify what I meant or what was my purpose in doing whatever I did or spoke. Maybe if they’re not ready to listen to me, I can write to them. Maybe I can communicate to someone else.
But if that person is not at all ready to listen, then we have to let go. Maybe time is the best healer. I remember I was in a mediation.
I was doing a mediation for a couple of devotees. And one devotee approached and said that, I know you are very angry with me. And the other devotee said, no, I’m not angry with you.
He says, anger is a very expensive emotion and you are not worth it. Now, if somebody has that arrogant or dismissive attitude towards other person, it’s going to be very difficult to have any kind of reconciliation. So sometimes if people are just not ready to hear, then what do we do? We have to let go.
Maybe time will heal. It happened with Prabhupada also. Sometimes some of his God brothers, they objected to some of the things that Prabhupada did.
Now, Bhaktiswami Sri Thakur was known by the honorific Prabhupada. And when Srila Prabhupada’s disciples, Prabhupada suggested, Bhaktivinand Swami, when he was Bhaktivinand Swami, suggested many different names, Vishnupada and other things, Prabhupada. This can be called Prabhupada.
And Prabhupada accepted. Some of his disciples, some of his God brothers felt that our Srila Prabhupada was usurping the Gaudiya Mata Srila Prabhupada, was usurping his own Guru’s position by taking the label Prabhupada for himself. But it’s not like that.
Jiva Swami was also called Prabhupada. So he tried to explain. He said, I had no intention.
My spiritual master is my life and soul. But some of them understood, some of them didn’t. So what can we do? Now, we shouldn’t presume that there’s nothing we can do, that nothing we can do.
But if we find after objective analysis, there’s not much we can do, then it’s best to let go and move on. Okay. Any other questions or comments? Hare Krishna.
Prabhuji, it could happen that when we are trying to explain some concepts, that some people may become aggressive, where they don’t see our point of view. Especially there are two most important points is when we are trying to tell them that Krishna is the Supreme Personality of Godhead, which is a very, you know, a topic which many people don’t agree with, and about eating onion and garlic. So these are the two main topics which I have seen when I have been trying to talk to people, that the bone of contention is these two main topics.
And they become quite aggressive and say that, how do you say, I mean, if we eat onion and garlic, are we anything worse than what you are? You know, and they sort of argue like that. So, how do we control our emotions and at the same time, try to make them understand? Yes. One of the, if somebody is becoming too aggressive on some contentious points, such as Krishna supremacy or say giving up onion garlic or eating it, well, one of the biggest skills that any effective teacher has to learn is to choose one’s battles.
Choose one’s battles. That means that, is this some issue that needs to be dealt with right now? Is this the most important thing that I, even if the person has a particular conception, and maybe it’s wrong, or they are saying that my conception is wrong. Is this what I need to deal with right now? So, if you notice that some issue is contentious, and we have certain answers, we have given those answers, and they don’t find those answers convincing, then you can always look for more scriptural references, more logical points, and we can come up with that.
But sometimes, it is just that some battles are just best avoided. Avoided means that we decide, yeah, okay, you know, that’s, we will come to that point later. That’s not the important thing right now.
So, we’re not saying that onion garlic is sinful. Onion garlic is not like eating meat. It is tamasic.
So, tamasic itself, it has some negative influences on our consciousness, but that’s subtle. So, are we saying that people who are eating that are bad? No, that’s not the exact point we are saying. We are saying that we are trying to elevate our consciousness, and according to our tradition’s wisdom, there are certain things which aid in the elevation of consciousness, and certain things which impede the elevation of consciousness, or which actually accelerate the obfuscation or the contamination of consciousness.
So, that is why we follow these. Now, we can present it more in a descriptive way rather than a prescriptive way. Descriptive is, this is how I understand it.
This is why we do it. I’m not saying that you have to do it, and if you don’t do it, you’re wrong. You don’t have to emphasise that.
So, rather than talking about the moral rightness or wrongness of the issue, we can focus on the effect on the consciousness. The effect on the consciousness is subtle. The consciousness itself is very difficult to understand.
Level of consciousness is difficult to understand. The effect of certain substances on the levels of consciousness is even more difficult to understand. We might give some empirical, some logical evidence, but ultimately this is the tradition’s wisdom that we have, and we are trying to raise our consciousness, and the tradition has had many teachers who have specialised in providing the sources for raising the consciousness.
That’s why we are following it. So, beyond that, we don’t have to make it a moral issue. Once we make it a moral issue and say somebody is wrong or bad for not taking it, then we come on slippery territory.
It’s not very easy to prove that. So, overall, don’t get into conflicting zones right now. And even with respect to Krishna’s supremacy, there is a time and a place for talking about that.
And when is it necessary? It depends. There are very few Indians or Hindus or most of the audience that we interact with who will say that Krishna is not God. They’ll say Krishna is God.
That problem comes when we say only Krishna is God. So, now, only Krishna is God, that is something which will take time for them to understand. So, we have to decide, is this the battle that we want to fight right now? Sometimes it is, sometimes it is not.
So, that varies. So, if we find that, okay, if they’re not accepting it, they’re finding it very difficult, then we can say that, okay, there are a lot of other things in the philosophy. Let’s discuss those.
This is a contentious issue. We can discuss this later. So, knowing which issues to address when is vital for an effective speaker.
And in general, so, earlier I said, look at what is it that is obstructing people from coming to Krishna. That wall we want to break. We don’t have to break every wall.
But other point is that not only that this is the wall to be broken, well, do I have the tools to break this wall right now? If I don’t have the tools, then maybe let me not focus on that. So, if somebody considers Ganesh is supreme and we say Krishna is supreme and then we quote some scriptures and they go and do search on Google or they ask some authority, some person they consider authority and they come up with some quotes. And they say, no, this Puran is not, this is not the highest, this is the highest.
And we get into too much of a debate with them. And the end result is, they think this religion business is very confusing. I can’t even figure out who is God.
So, better let me give up all this religion and become a materialist, become an atheist. And we have done disservice to them. So, we have done serious disservice to them.
If instead of elevating their faith, we have confused them so much that they lose whatever faith they have also. So, that’s why focus on speaking in a way that gradually elevates people. The same Mahabharata which has Vishnu Sahasranam also has Shiva Sahasranam.
The same Lord Chaitanya Mahaprabhu who was so devoted to Krishna also went to the temple of Bhuvaneshwar where Lord Shiva was there. Now, it is described that many of the people in Bhuvaneshwar temple, Lord Shiva’s temple, they became devotees of Lord Chaitanya. But there is no description that Lord Chaitanya in Bhuvaneshwar temple preached to them that Lord Shiva is not God and you should worship Krishna.
No, he didn’t do that. He was just so filled with spiritual ecstasy and they became attracted to him. So, we have to choose our battles.
That would be my broad answer. Does it address the question? Yes, Prabhuji. Because actually these two points come up normally when somebody is attending a JOSD, Journey of Self-Discovery, a six-day course.
So, one of the topics is one God or many Gods. So, this topic comes up about Krishna’s supremacy. And the second about onion and garlic is when we are telling that when we offer Bhoga to the Lord, we offer without onion and garlic.
So, we are not telling them that since you’re eating onion garlic is bad or something. But we tell them that we have to offer food which doesn’t contain onion and garlic to Krishna. So, that also sometimes they ask why not and things like that.
So, that is the time when these two questions come up. That’s why I was just asking. I understand.
So, we speak that point but it depends on in a class we speak so many points. Which point we emphasise is the point that often people get discussions about. So, we can decide not to emphasise that point at that point.
Mention it but no need to emphasise it. Make it an issue of debate. So, Prabhuji, I have this question regarding about, you mentioned about when we are talking to people who are coming from Advaita philosophy.
But in all the books, it is said that Asat Sangha don’t associate with Mayavadis or those philosophies. So, how to understand this properly, Prabhuji? Okay. So, it is said that we shouldn’t associate with Mayavadis.
How do we understand this properly? Well, first of all, most of the people whom we consider Mayavadis, they themselves don’t even know what is Mayavad. And a much more precise understanding would be that they are under Mayavad influence. They are not Mayavadis.
In general, any person who seeks a spiritual path, they may read some books, they may hear some talks and they may get the idea, oh, the ultimate reality is like a light and I want to merge into that light. And that seems very non-sectarian and universal instead of worshipping this form or this deity or that deity. So, I wouldn’t even call these person as impersonalists.
They are more non-personalists. They are not rejecting the personality of Krishna. They just don’t know how Krishna’s personality is transcendental.
So, Mayavad is a very, very specific philosophy and even if somebody is even officially affiliated with a Mayavadi organisation, even if they are formally initiated by a Mayavadi teacher, even then most people when they join a philosophical organisation or they join a spiritual organisation, it is not because of the philosophy. There are so many reasons. They may join it for the culture.
Okay, they are teaching some good thing to children and that’s why I took my children over there. I had to do some puja and a priest from that organisation came and did the puja and he was a nice person. That’s how we developed a relationship with that person or their temple was closest to our house and that’s how I started going there.
So, philosophy is rarely the sole determinant or even the primary determinant for most people connecting with some spiritual group. So, yes, we shouldn’t associate with Mayavadis. What it means is that people who are actively denigrating the personality of Krishna and who are likely to undermine our faith and our devotion to Krishna, those are the people we shouldn’t associate with.
But most of the people whom we call Mayavadis, how often do they do that? For them, as I said, they are under Mayavad influence and they might be because of culture, because of so many other things, they might be under their influence. So, we have to be very careful about for whom we apply the word Mayavadi. So, association also, what does it association mean? Prabhupada is associating with Dr. Mishra.
So, was he disobeying Lord Chaitanya’s instruction? He may say that he is an exalted devotee. Yes, that may be true. But Prabhupada also set example for others.
So, even when his very young disciples would be there, female disciples, he would not spend time alone with them. He would always have somebody else in his room with them whenever they would come. So, Prabhupada, where he was strict, he was strict.
But he didn’t avoid spending time with Dr. Mishra. So, the point is what is association? The essence of association is not physical proximity. It is the transfer of desires and conceptions, primarily transfer of desires.
When do we associate with someone? We associate with someone when their desires become our desires. So, otherwise we are not really associating. Now, devotees in the West may go to one of the biggest places where devotees distribute books, you say in America, it’s football games or rugby games or baseball games.
It’s complete mania over there. Recently, there was a Soccer World Cup in UK and devotees usually at that time they do huge book distribution. Now, they are going over there.
Are they associating with all those soccer fans or which are sports fans? Well, they are not going there. They are not getting those desires. They are going there to distribute books.
So, if their desire for worshipping something beyond Krishna is not coming to us, then that is not association with Mayavadis. So, two things, first of all, don’t jump, don’t very loosely apply the label Mayavadi to people just because they are affiliated with something which is Mayavadi. And secondly, don’t equate physical proximity or say some discussion or even some courtesies with association.
So, when we talk about say, when we are dealing with Mayavadis, somebody has come to our programme or maybe we are socially or relationally connected with someone who has that kind of conceptions, then we can courteously deal with them as is appropriate. Okay. So, thank you very much for your thoughtful questions and wish you all the very best in your future services, wherever you get the opportunity to speak.
And thanks to Kalyan Radhika Mataji for giving me this opportunity and for yourself taking. Babaji, you got muted. Okay.
So, what was the last thing you heard? Thanking Mataji. Okay. So, I thank you Mataji for giving this opportunity and I thank you for taking up this initiative to teach.
I met Mataji several times after my programmes and we talked. I have noticed how thoughtful and appreciative she was about well-presented philosophy. But only recently I came to know how much preaching she is doing, how many programmes she is having and how many ways in which she is sharing Krishna Bhakti.
So, she told me, I told her that probably you are doing more preaching than many Brahmacharis also. So, in one sense, she is embodying, sharing Krishna Bhakti and it is good that you got the opportunity to learn and I pray that Prabhupada and Krishna empower all of you to share Krishna Bhakti more and more far and wide. Thank you very much.
Very beautiful. Miss. Grace Chaitanya Charan Prabhu ki Jai.
Thank you very much, Prabhuji. Thank you. Thank you so much, Prabhuji.
Thank you, Prabhuji. Thank you, Prabhuji. Thank you so much for taking out your time, Prabhuji.
Thank you so much, Prabhuji, for being here with us. Happy to be of service. I’ll take leave.
Thank you.