The Monks Podcast 12 with Shyamananda Prabhu – Capitalism Communism and Spirituality – part 2

Thank you and welcome back. So today we will continue our discussion on communism, capitalism, and the search for identity. In our last session, we discussed how communism, capitalism basically focuses on opportunity and individuality, but it leads often to inequality because successful people, wealthy people go on top and others get exploited.

In capitalism, communism, they try to impose equality, but eventually it leads to people developing lethargy on one side, and on the other side, eventually equality is created because there are people who are rulers, and they can become brutally powerful. So underlying both of these, the common problem we could say is that there is human nature. The human nature has its weaknesses because of which human nature and people might become lethargic, people might become exploitative, people might become domineering.

So common to capitalism and communism, irrespective of the differences, both see success in material terms. That we provide material goods to people, and both, to some extent, see the human being as a material creature who is meant for consumption and production and consumption. So then we discussed about how if we want to grow, if spirituality is to provide some answers, one aspect of it is to understand that the resources of the world which we are trying to use and make something worthwhile, they don't belong to us.

They belong to God. Another aspect of it is that the human being is a spiritual being, and that's why providing material things alone will not satisfy people. So if we consider that the fundamental problem in society is not an economic problem, but a spiritual problem.

The spiritual problem is that human nature needs to be addressed and remedied or rectified so that humans don't succumb to exploitative mentality or lethargy or whatever. So how would spiritual wisdom help us at a social level to address the fundamental problem of human nature? So is this more or less a reasonable summary of what we discussed last time? Yeah, and I would also like to see whether 50 years of ISKCON, of course, ISKCON should not be seen just in the light of the last 50 years. Our existence can be traced back to the medieval ages and also even back to pre-historical times if somebody can give us that bandwidth, so to say.

So in that sense, what have we contributed? What we could do? And in one way also, where we have not succeeded. And as members of our institution, we remain loyal to its tenets and principles, but also we are, in Prabhupada's words, supposed to be independently thoughtful. So I'm not taking the course of being independent-minded and just mudslinging on authorities or powers-to-be or those who are in charge.

As they say, people get the government they deserve. So similarly, we also have a little bit of that. We need to take care of that.

So where is the RFI? Where is the room for improvement for a society like ISKCON where we know the four different tasks, being an intellectual, being an administrative person, being a productive person, or being a tertiary sector person? We are predominantly meant to be active in the intellectual department. So whether we have done something that is laudable or where we need to do something more, that should be explored. That would be my end of the day.

So if we consider the four Varanas that were there in traditional Indian culture, they are also talked about in the Bhagavad Gita. They are all meant to help people both have meaningful, productive social engagement and also to help them develop a spiritual connection. The idea that Bhagavad Gita says is, yathah pravrttir bhūtānāṁ yena svaraṁ vidaṁ tataṁ svakarmāṇātma-abhyarja siddhiṁ vindrati mānavaḥ That in 1846, it says that, svakarmāṇātma-abhyarja, by your work, worship.

And svakarmāṇā Krishna is telling before that, the four Varanas. So the idea was, worship the Lord through your work. And the original system was meant so that people, according to their nature, they contribute to society and they also connect with the Lord.

And thus, they grow spiritually and they grow materially according to their capacity. So if we consider this system, ideally, as it was present, then the concept was that people are different. We cannot impose equality artificially on humanity because different people have different abilities.

So acknowledge the diversity. So we have diversity at a material level, we acknowledge equality at a spiritual level. That is, everybody is a soul who is meant to go towards the Lord.

Who is going to grow spiritually, find inner fulfillment. But everybody will have to do it in their own way, to some extent. So now, when that was a system, to some extent, it's a question whether that system is the sole way to spiritual growth.

Or is that system something which is practiced in the past? And because that particular social structure is not seen today as viable, can spiritual growth be sought by individuals independent of, or in whatever context they are? So one could be the understanding of Varanashram, if you use those words, is that we have society, people divided according to their, people divided is a dangerous word to some extent today, classified according to their natures and engaged. But another way of looking at Varanashram could be that the essential principle is people find a material setting that is compatible for them and they function within that material setting which is also compatible for the spiritual growth. So basically, care for the material needs in a way that is spiritually conducive.

So for example, today, if somebody is a writer, or somebody is a singer, somebody is a doctor, then if they could do their professions in a way that is broadly spiritually compatible, would that be addressing their underlying essential principle? So everybody has to do some job and they contribute accordingly. But the idea is we also need to address the fundamental flaws of human nature, which can sabotage even the best of systems. So the spiritual connection is what addresses the human nature by purification.

And whatever the current material nature is, that is channeled through appropriate engagement and contribution. So if we could see that as the essential purpose, then we can look at how the current expression of the tradition in the form of the Krishna Consciousness Movement has contributed or has performed or can perform in today's world. Does that make sense to you? Yeah, I would like to address that thing where you said with a little bit of trepidation that can I use the word divine society? I have to make a confession here.

The first time I read Srila Prabhupada saying divide society, it sent a shockwave through my spine, felt a cold chill going down. And I said, divide? Why divide? And I remember without understanding the whole thing, I had not read Janma Karma, Guna Karma Vibhagasa, I had not known Yasyalam Lakshanam Praptam, which Narada Muni is saying that look at the Lakshana, look at the behavior, look at the Gunas, look at the Dharma, look at the way in which a person has his propensities, proclivities, then decide what his Varna should be. And I had a debate with my father and he had that shock on his face that so now after I gave you such a good education, you are joining a society which is intent on dividing society? Why? As such, do we have less reasons for dividing society that you want to add one more? It could be because the way the choice of words was made and of course it takes some time to understand how to organize society.

So what Prabhupada meant was organize things in a proper way. I'll give an example which may not be completely suitable but in our own temple establishment, there was a fire in our restaurant. Somebody noticed it, they raised the alarm, fire, fire, fire.

Within two minutes, we could see the flames leaping from the kitchen and there were about eight or ten people just panicky. Somebody is telling what exactly is the nature. First of all, see whether it's a chemical fire, paper fire, electrical fire or what else.

There is a simple unassuming devotee. He was standing there and he didn't have the courage to speak loudly. So he told someone, I am from the Navy.

I have a three-month certificate course. I'm a certificate holder in fire management. So then somebody else who was more like an administrative type, he shouted, everybody just shut up and come down and let this guy go up.

So there was a vantage point where he stood up. He could see that there is a gas condition, the steam went, the inner linings get coated with grease, that's from fire. Within seconds, he could understand what's to be done and he politely told that these four people should not be, although they were part of the restaurant establishment, they should not be allowed here.

And then he said, four people just give me sand, two give me water, two stand here. Didn't he divide the whole motley crowd into an orderly kind of thing? Those whom he thought were useful, he kept them. Others who could not understand, he just told that at least don't do any mischief, just stay there.

So in one sense, he divided society. In one sense, he organized it. Why? Because he was the best intellectual response we could have for that particular event.

Now, of course, society doesn't go through emergencies all the time. When there's an emergency, mostly people agree. And I can say it with confidence because we are seeing 1.3 billion people actually agreeing to just one guy telling them, believe me, things will improve if we have a lockdown.

So that's what an intellectual does, that he or she can prove on the basis of having that maturity. And there are certain guidelines, there are some indicators as to what will make people believe, but we won't go into that. So I will end with this point.

I have a management background and I'm also involved in reading a lot about training process. So the Western mindset immediately either it has a, it recoils that, oh, India, ancient India, social system, caste system. We don't want, we are not interested.

As early as 1950, two ladies, they developed the Myers-Briggs type indicator. What was that for? Because the industrial revolution could be seen as going at its peak in the 1840s, 1850s or so. And then India became independent in 1950 and then 47.

So railways came to India in 1950. So India was slow to industrialization. So by the time it was 1950, 1960.

I think 1850 you're saying? 1850 the railways came to India. Oh, the Indian war of independence began in 1857. And railways came to India maybe 1870 or something like that.

1880 because the railway celebrated their 125th, some kind of thing. Wasn't there? Okay. So what I'm saying is India was late to be industrialized.

Yeah. The division was very clear. When I studied economics, it was developed countries and underdeveloped countries.

And then to be more politically correct, there's some saying developing countries. Yeah. So that was like a little solace for our hurt minds that, well, why was I born in a developing country? Why couldn't I be born in a developed country? That is the whole thing.

And our generation or even one generation before us, completely brainwashed as to you are less, you are less, you are less. A few days ago when I was trying to do some research on this thing. Now this is from the 1950s.

And this is done by, well, what does it say? It was, well the year is not set, but trying to divide people into introverts, extroverts, sensory or intuitive thinking, feeling, judging and perception. Now this is as close afterwards. There are many tests.

And right now, if you check on the net, you'll have some people saying that MBTI doesn't work. Some say it works. Some say we need something.

But the idea is if you have someone who is more of a intuitive and a thinking person, there are certain jobs. For example, being an accountant, this person is more suitable. If somebody is an extrovert person, there are certain jobs like sales or marketing, which are more suitable.

Now there are exceptions where somebody, like there were Hollywood heroes who would be completely introverts off the stage. They would be publicity shy. They would not like people, but on stage they would take that persona.

Exceptions will always be there. So I would make a defense of the Guna Karma Vibhaga Shastra thing that if the birth criteria is taken away, is there any harm in trying to understand the personality traits through which we can engage a person in a particular occupation? Yeah, actually, it was very thoughtful analysis of the point that we all need some aids to find our place and purpose in the world. Yes.

And if you consider the principle, that's perfectly not only valid, but we could say it's valuable. Because if somebody understands, say, okay, I'm an introvert. And that's why I don't, I don't feel comfortable in crowds.

Otherwise people start thinking you are socially inhibited. You're a strange person. Why do you stay alone? Well, no, this is the way I am.

And it can be actually very empowering to understand that. So then if we consider any system of analysis of, again, going back to human nature or human personality, the purpose is that we recognize our strengths, recognize our limitations, and then we function optimally accordingly. And when we function optimally, the idea is that we contribute at a practical level, at a social level.

At the same time, we also do something which is meaningful and we grow spiritually. So if we are to address that, spirituality is basically meant to improve or enrich or enhance human nature. Then it could almost be said that this can be applied to any system of social classification.

A person who's an introvert and a person who's an extrovert, both can practice bhakti, but there may be some significant differences in the stress and how they practice bhakti. If a person is a type A or type B, as we call talk about leaders, but they may all practice it in different ways. And everybody at whatever level they are, they can grow spiritually and they can grow professionally or grow socially also, if they understand themselves better and they tap themselves better.

So, am I with you or are the two of us? Yes, yes, yes. Okay. We could be touching disjoint corners, but I hope that we converge at one point later in the conversation.

You made a point which immediately triggered off a thought in my head, that let us say somebody is having a particular occupation, which gives him a lot of money. So today things are judged on mostly in the outside world, take it or hate it or love it on the basis of how much money you have earned. So there is a lot of money coming in, but there is no inner satisfaction.

On the other hand, someone chooses to do what he or she likes to do, and then there is no money coming in. So one particular group of people, who choose their vocation depending upon what they like, they are seen as losers and they may also see themselves as misfits. While somebody who does something which the world can throw its money at, gets a truckload of cash, but inside he is cringing, he is dying a miserable death every day.

So net result is dissatisfaction. So can our efforts at keeping spirituality at the center, keeping spiritual goals as the main goals in life, can they address this particular issue? Yes, that's a, it's a important question. If we at one level, let's talk about in the Bhagavad Gita Krishna talks about within our inner world, in our world, there are three things, there's the body, there's the mind and there's the soul.

So at the level of the mind, Krishna talks about two distinct kinds of impressions. I prefer to use the words impulses and instincts for them. Okay.

But we can, we can use some other words. So impulses I correlate with lust, anger, greed, envy, pride, illusion, and instincts I correlate with innate abilities. So the first negative and the positive like that.

Yeah. Impulses are anti-intelligent. Okay.

Instincts are programmed intelligence. So somebody who is, has musical instincts, they don't have to laboriously practice to get the basics. They just get it.

And even new, they learn fast. Of course, everybody has to practice, but they have some innate ability in it. So when Krishna at one level tells Arjuna that you have to curb, you have to curb lust, curb desires.

But at the same time, the same Krishna is saying, what will repression accomplish? So the way I see it as far as the instincts are concerned, Arjuna has Kshatriya instincts. You have to, you cannot repress them. You will have to act according to your Kshatriya nature, but Krishna is telling, Kshatriya can become power hungry, Kshatriya can become greedy, Kshatriya can become violent unnecessarily, Kshatriya can become lusty.

So for that, you have to, you have to discipline it. So the impulses have to be curbed and the instincts have to be channeled. Beautiful.

So why I was saying this is that if we understand ourselves as spiritual beings, then there is that self-understanding itself creates a certain amount of distance and detachment from worldly propaganda and worldly gains. So rather than thinking, I just want to, I want to make the most money. I want to make the most, I want to have the most followers.

Once somebody understands their nature, then I said, I'm a soul. Then if I am a soul, let me try to understand what kind of body I have right now, what kind of instincts I have, and then let me work accordingly. So rather than just simply chasing after the professions that are socially glamorized or that are lucrative in the current socioeconomic structure, the capacity to choose something that is more meaningful and fulfilling for oneself, that capacity is developed by spiritual self-understanding.

Because if I have a material self-understanding, then I will also have a material definition of success. And the material definition of success will be, you know, how much money I get, how much prestige and power and positions and possessions I get. And certain professions may give them more, certain professions may give them less.

So if we consider the Brahmanas and Kshatriyas, the Brahmanas don't get any property, they don't get much possessions. But they are ready to accept that. The Kshatriyas get certain things and they accept that.

But then along with that, they are ready to fight wars and there are dangers over there. So in one sense, spiritual self-understanding can actually enhance material self-understanding also. And once a person is materially satisfied to some extent, then curbing the impulses becomes easier.

If I'm working in a profession, if I'm working at a job that I love to do, then I get some satisfaction in that. And then therefore, I can more easily resist the lure of greed. I can more easily resist the lure of lust or anger.

Because basically, if I'm unsatisfied where I am, that's where lust, anger, greed, all of these start tempting and troubling us. So what could be a starting point for someone? Someone says, Okay, I'll buy your message that I need to find that exact spot where I should stand. So do you guys have any kind of a roadmap towards understanding your spiritual nature? We always claim we do.

But can we translate that into a cogent, legible roadmap? Are you talking about spiritual nature or material nature? Yeah, you said this understanding spiritual nature and you fortify yourself against so many of the mental problems which people face today. So in this half capitalist, half communistic or completely confused, half capital, half communistic, but totally confused state today. What can the Hare Krishna Movement suggest to a person? Probably, it's a grassroots level change.

Because we live in a world where, because it's a secular world, it's going to be difficult for any wisdom tradition, which is reflexively associated with some religion, to present itself on the broader socio-political context. So at this stage, it might be best for us to work at an individual level. And if you look at say religious history, Christians were persecuted by the Roman Empire.

In fact, it was a Roman official who crucified Jesus. And then after that for several centuries, it was Christians who were persecuted quite a bit. And after that, as the Roman Empire started crumbling, not so much because of external attacks, but because of inner immorality, the king started looking around and seeing who are the moral people, who are the responsible people? And he found that they were Christians.

And then he decided that even for any functioning society, a basic level of morality is required. And he adopted Christianity as the official religion of the Roman Empire, in the hope that citizens would become moral by that. Now, of course, that had led to certain complications because he adopted Christianity, not for spiritual growth, but for political consolidation.

And as he adjusted some doctrines and he rejected the idea of any future lives. But the point is that it is thereby, by being constructive members in society up to a particular point, that's when they attracted the attention of the government. So we could work at an individual level.

And if individually, those who have, those who do some spiritual practices, and therefore are spiritually grounded, they are also materially competent, they are materially responsible, and they are moral. Then every organization needs people who are competent and responsible. And do we have models? I'm proposing an answer, but I'm also questioning the answers simultaneously.

So if we consider this principle, does it happen that by the practice of Bhakti Yoga or the Gita's wisdom, do we see individuals being transformed, the human nature being addressed or being improved, and thereby people becoming better contributors to society? If you are asking me, the answer is, at least to my experience, a big yes. May not be yes with Y-E-S capital. At least the Y is capital.

So in one sense, a spiritual model is also a little bit of self-critical. So trying to say that we have saved the world, or we are the great benefactors of society, is a bit kind of a thing which would derail my own internal process. I would not like to be seen like that.

I would rather like society to say that this person or this particular person has contributed in a much bigger way. So I was just thinking in today's times, when people are in self-isolation, and they are practicing social distancing, if we try to fortify people's minds, and we show good examples, like many times, I really appreciate this saying, that one preacher told his deputy, by all means preach, and if necessary, open your mouth. So when we talk of satisfied people, when we talk of people who have found their bearing, they know exactly, this is what I am meant to be, and this is what I don't need to do.

This could very well be a silent example. And when the world kind of depends upon YouTube likes and Facebook friends, we may not find such happy contented people, those who are putting videos every day, because that would be against their nature. It would take something more than that to find out.

But at the same time, when you nicely put it that, you should begin with an understanding, that we are spiritual by nature. So now that we are discussing, and appreciating Prabhupada's genius, in calling the process of chanting the Hare Krishna Maha Mantra, as part of a cultural process. In the very first seminal essay, he put out, what he said, there is no need of any mental adjustment.

There is no need to understand the language of the mantra. So I feel that this is the understanding that, here you are, you are confused. In fact, if somebody knows he is confused, he is already leagues ahead of 90% of the population.

At least he knows that he is confused. Many don't know that they are confused. So in that sense, if people follow Srila Prabhupada's offering, of this simple sound vibration, and he says that, it will surpass physical, mental, and intellectual levels.

Now for that, we have empirical evidence, that simple physical comfort and luxuries, do not amount to satisfaction. There is enough of evidence for that. People with all kinds of things, which they can satisfy their mind, they feel that music, song, dance, entertainment, is not able to give them mental satisfaction also.

So I am going to take this to this level where, we may not have empirical evidence of, the kind of satisfaction, which spiritual culture gives, but we do have empirical evidence, of the dissatisfaction created by, putting our priorities in the wrong way. Yes. So taking this forward that, if we consider that, the spiritual practices like, chanting the holy names, they give us some kind of non-material enrichment.

Sure. there is, there are, there are spiritual, signs of spiritual advancement, spiritual parameters of spiritual advancement, we could say. Now can they be translated, or appreciated, in the terms of social contribution? Say for example, like earlier I said, the greed and the hunger for power, among the leaders of society, that can sabotage any system, or if in communism, if people become lethargic, that can sabotage a system.

So if we consider, the impulses, the self-destructive impulses, or the world destructive impulses, lust, anger, greed, envy, pride, illusion. Now, we have certain parameters, that these decrease by spiritual practices. Say for example, somebody who is a spiritual practitioner, may not, may will not, maybe take alcohol, will avoid intoxication, will avoid gambling.

Now, will, can we say that these, avoiding these activities, contributes to helping them become better citizens. And it's not just these activities, it's what these activities represent. So, that means, the, we have four principles, four regulative principles, we talk about, no meat eating, gambling, intoxication, illicit sex, and they are associated with certain virtues.

And these are considered the four pillars of Dharma. So that is, meat eating is, we avoid meat eating and then we show mercy. Isn't it? Then intoxication is, gambling is truthfulness.

Avoid gambling and we cultivate truthfulness. Then avoid, illicit sex and we cultivate purity. Yes, cleanliness.

Cleanliness. And we avoid, austerities for intoxication. Intoxication.

Okay. So now, would a person who is austere, merciful, clean or pure, or we could say pure hearted, and, truthful, would such a person, be a more valuable asset for society? For, contributing better in society? Are these, these virtues, translatable or, can be assessed as valuable in social terms? See, in and of themselves, these four are in one sense, neutral. It's like, take a nation, there is someone who is a, a person who is, a citizen who is, aware of his civic responsibilities.

Higher than that, is a patriot, who says, I love my country, I would sacrifice something for my country. Below that could be a saboteur, a traitor, who may sell sensitive information to an enemy. So, certainly, somebody who's a traitor, they say traitors hang.

So, they need to be punished. But if you are following these four principles, and if you kind of, this is a part of your spiritual CV. So it's like saying, why should I hire you for this job? Sir, I haven't committed any murder in my last 23 years.

Oh, God. I haven't raped anyone. There are no, what is slander, felony charges against me.

So, they may say, but sir, it's not expected. If you are aspiring for this high job here, then tell us about the positive things which you have done. So in one sense, these four are like a fence.

The fence means it is supposed to protect something. So what is it that it is protecting? So, this is a criticism leveled against many Indian governments in the past, may not be now, or could be now also. And they said, you will have a tree planting campaign, 3 billion trees planted.

So mostly they have a small hole in the ground, which is small round fence. And after three or four months, you find that the thing inside the fence is intact. But what is it? It is, it is protected.

So, sorry, after three months, what happens? There is nothing inside. There is no sapling. The sapling is dead.

Oh, okay. So what is it that it is protecting? So the four regular principles, the four positive attributes, they are the protectors of your spiritual sapling, the spiritual culture. And that sapling, when it grows into a big tree, then you may not need the small fence around.

Okay. So, these rules and regulations are not meant to be kind of a deciding factor through and through. Of course, I'm not saying it gives a license that after some time of spiritual progress, you may break them.

I'm not insinuating that at all. But the fact is that they are meant to protect something. And that something is what you began with, that understanding our innate spiritual nature, developing it.

Then in one sense, it doesn't matter what you are doing outwardly to preserve your body and soul together. You could be, as they say in English, a tinker, tailor, soldier, sailor, whatever. And the spiritual pursuit gives you so much of satisfaction, so much of contentment that what comes from your job, I would dare say, in a bit of an adventurous mode, is an insignificant by-product.

Hmm. But if it is an insignificant by-product, then wouldn't that make people materially apathetic? The media provides or the things which… Yeah. Would it make people materially apathetic or uncaring and not enterprising enough to contribute anything to society? If you start feeling that is insignificant.

Like you mentioned these four things. Now, can you see the correlation between these four things and the industries that they represent today? There is a big correlation. Okay.

The meatpacking industry, the gambling industry. exactly. So today when they're saying, let us be more kind to animals.

What do you mean more kind? Okay. Let's not slaughter them mercilessly. By the billions, which we are doing.

Hmm. Now, isn't this part of the education or training, which a spiritually sound culture can give to people? That just because you can, you don't do these things. Maybe your previous generations did.

Maybe your country or your culture has a long history of doing it. Like people always say, we are always eating flesh. But for the last hundred generations, where your people eating factory flesh with industry, that would put Austrians or Schmitz to shame that kind of incarceration of animals.

That certainly was not there. So that's not part of, even if we admit that people should be allowed to choose what food they want, whether it is animal food or plant based food, even if it is animal based food, what is happening now is certainly very shameful. Hmm.

I just, today I was reading about how when animals are an animal husbandry or factory farms happen. So with respect to mammals like cows, they have apparatus, which was earlier called as the rape rack. And what was done at that time is all the limbs of the cow are tied up.

And then the seminal material from a bull is taken. And then a human hand is inserted into the reproductive organ of the cow with the injection and the stuff is injected. And the whole idea of this is that if they, if they have to have natural union between a cow and a bull, they have to maintain a bull and bulls don't give milk.

So it's just a unnecessary expenditure from other times. Just keep it made and then accelerate the insemination because the bull and the cow may not unite immediately, but do it faster. So, of course, now they now they call it, they renamed it, not like the rape rack, but the reproductive rack or something like that is a more softer name, but it's so we could say at one level that cruelty is a problem for any society.

And if cruelty is decreased, the quality of the society will improve. If kindness and compassion are improved, the quality of the society would improve. So then this brings us to something that it's, it's a matter of the cultivation of virtues.

So spiritual culture and spiritual growth, if it enhances virtues in people, virtues can contribute even to the material welfare. And without virtues, one cannot have any lasting material welfare. So whatever be the, whatever be the socio-political, socio-economic system in the world, if it is run by people with virtues, then that can make sure that the system works well, even if we have capitalism, but if the capitalists are not just mad for money, they have a sense of social responsibility.

They give charity, they take care of the welfare of people. Then that virtue of charity and absence of, so we could say the virtue of charity is present and the vice of greed is absent. Then they could help create a better, better society.

Exactly. Like one lady, this is a small example. A lady, a friend told me that his housemaid called up and said, I would like to come as soon as possible.

And they stay in a suburb of Mumbai. And the friend called her and said, you want to come? Why? She said, I'm actually bored at home and I need to do something. I just can't sit all day.

So he said that, well, the danger of COVID spreading is not yet gone. And then she actually blurted out that actually if I come to work, at least you will be motivated to give me something because I haven't come for 35 straight days. So he said, listen, even if you don't come for two more months, I am going to send you your monthly salary online.

Do not worry. So here is, now he's not a big industrialist, but he is doing his bit. There is another doctor who is a dentist and she has a dentist assisting her.

And three other employees. Same thing. Just because there is a closure, doesn't mean I know that your home may have some kind of a need, whether a medical need or whatever.

So your salary is not going to be blocked. Do not worry about it. So when Krishna said, Yajna, dana, tapa, kriya, pavanani, manishina, you should not give up these things because they even purify people who are highly practiced or expert in the thinking process.

This is where I feel is the, maybe albeit small, but a microcosm of the spiritual culture working. Is it not? Beautiful. So this goes back again to the point of grassroots transformation that I had made earlier.

Yes. That spirituality infuses virtue in people. Then some people may have the resources to exercise that virtue in a small way.

Say like a person with, say, middle class or upper middle class can give charity to maybe a few people. But somebody who is a business tycoon, they might be able to give charity to a large number of people. So society will arrange itself in some kind of hierarchy.

It might be communist. It might be capitalist. It might be autocratic.

But what, like you started with, you talk about the incident of the fire. There has to be a hierarchy for effective functioning. So every hierarchy we could say can tilt toward tyranny.

Yes. But we can't assume by default that hierarchy is tyranny. Hierarchy is required.

And society may have its own current hierarchy and it can have its problems. So capitalism can have its problems. Communism can have its problems.

The way the Varanasi got converted or degenerated into the caste system, that hierarchy had its problems. So we could critique each of these systems in their own way. But the important thing is, no system will work if there are not individuals with virtues.

And the primary role of spirituality is to help a human being cultivate virtues or nourish virtues to combat vices and to cultivate virtues. Now we are talking about virtues not in a moralistic, judgmental kind of sense, but even for functioning in the world, some amount of virtue is required. Now we have this whole system of digital or rather online sale and purchase.

There is a certain amount of virtue, honesty, trust that is involved. Somebody bought something on… when this started, what was that? Before Amazon came up, there was on, they call it Craigslist in America. Yeah, it's still there.

It's still there. So if somebody bought something from there, now a buyer could send money and if the seller doesn't send the product or the seller sends a defective product, now who's actually going to litigate? Where is that seller? How am I going to litigate? I'm going to do a court case. What am I going to do? But there is a basic level of trust, the basic level of competence and that system worked.

So for any system to work, there has to be some basic level of trust and competence. And that is also associated with some basic virtues. So if we consider the fact that spirituality can help people, not that in a moralistic sense, but by tapping their own spiritual core, they manifest their own virtue, the virtues that are latent within them, then that can lead to a inside-out, bottom-up kind of transformation.

Inside-out within the individual, bottom-up in society. And in that sense, our spiritual contribution can be independent of the socio-economic system that is there. For whatever model is outside, what we are pursuing could be like independent of whatever that model is.

Yes. And could this be the reason that some of our most prominent spiritual stalwarts, Ramanujacharya, Madhavacharya, Shankaracharya, Sri Chaitanya Mahaprabhu, they did not pursue the socio-economic paradigm prevalent during their times, but encouraged their followers to begin their inward process of discovery as early and accelerated as much as possible. Can we say like that? Can you repeat the last part? Accelerate? Accelerate the inward spiritual discovery process rather than wait for the socio-economic paradigm surrounding them to become favorable.

Yes. It has always been an intriguing feature for me that although we could say at that time India was ruled by fanatical rulers, but our spiritual leaders are not really focused on talking anything about overthrowing the political leaders and but they have focused on at one level it's not just inward growth, inward spiritual growth, it was inward, but there is also a significant amount of social reform in terms of challenging the caste, the discriminatory caste system. Oh yes, that we have to agree.

When it comes to delivering a blow on say the solar plexus, they have done it. Oh God, yeah. So then, this could be an interesting question that in English there is a saying that I think politics is downstream from culture.

Okay. So that means where the culture, the way the culture is, politics will be shaped accordingly. So rather than trying to change the politics, change the culture, the politics will change gradually like that.

So, we see that our spiritual teachers did not, prominent spiritual teachers, they did not try to change the politics, political arrangement in the country, in the area where they were, but they did try to change the culture. So, it could be that they felt cultural change could be more lasting, political change, political things will keep going, but cultural change will be more enduring. What are your thoughts about that? Yes, true, agree.

So in today's world, if we consider the present society, we see that there are certain countries are still somewhat communist and there are most of the world is going towards capitalism is somehow considered by many people to be like a dirty word. Capitalism is a terrible thing, but broadly the free market liberal economy kind of thing. So we see that the countries which are capitalist is the countries where there is at least an opportunity to practice spirituality.

So there could be political suppression of spirituality, say, as it was in Soviet Russia or as it is even now to some extent in China. And there could be cultural distraction from spirituality as may happen because of the excessive materialism or the explicit sensuality of much of Western culture. Now, among these two, at least there is an option to practice spirituality for those who want in the Western world.

But in the communist rule, that option itself was trying to exercise that option could mean death. There's a lot of persecution. There is persecution here in the communist countries.

And there are weapons of mass distraction. Yeah. Of the consumerist culture.

Yes, weapons of mass distraction. It's in some ways, both of us have spent some time in the West now. I, you know, we often in India say it is westernization, which is taking Indians away from their spiritual roots.

It is making them more non-religious or irreligious also. Now, if we consider Western culture itself or in the Western world, is it the, is it something innate to Western culture that is keeping Western people away from spirituality means westernization is like the normal thing in the Western world. But we also see that America is considered to be one of the most religious countries in the first world.

There are a significant number of Christians, evangelical Christians and others. So is it, is westernization innately against spirituality? Because if you consider westernization, there is Europe and there is America and Europe is much more atheistic. Quite aggressively atheistic.

America in some ways is materially more successful, or at least we don't know how it will happen after the current Corona crisis ends, what will be the world economic order, but America is more materially prosperous. And yet America is more religious than Europe. So when we say westernization of, westernization leads to deterioration of spiritual culture, what is, is that true in the Western world and why the diversity in Europe and America? So I'm trying to explore by this, what causes someone to be spiritually receptive and to be not spiritually receptive.

Any thoughts on this? Well, in one way, the mass consumerism, which began after the second world war, certainly there were waiting lines for people to join monasteries and abbeys, say from 1948 to 54 or something. And then the 60s was the flower generation, people exploring alternate ways of lifestyle, meditation, LSD. And in a very, very curious way, we see, I mean, a very, very interesting thing happened when Soviet Union collapsed.

There was a big surge in religion. People wanted to discover what is exactly that the government doesn't want me to read and why. So their problem was the government didn't trust them.

And therefore they disliked it intensely. So I follow one thing and I tried to follow it scrupulously, that whenever Prabhupada would say, just like in the West, as I'm seeing here, things are bad. Invariably, he would add, why only in the West, even in India? So just westernization is not tantamount to degradation.

Degradation of spiritual culture. But what Prabhupada meant was the culture, which is based on self-gratification without any understanding of God. There are times when he, of course, he was preaching in America.

So he would say that you accept this spiritual culture and you will become the best nation in the world. You're already, you already are leaders. The idea of democracy, the idea of market-based social structure is something which you already have contributed.

And the world sees, the world tries to emulate you, imitate all the time, but also emulate. So why don't you give a proper example by accepting this pure spiritual culture also. He would exhort his audience all the time.

So Prabhupada, you're saying, also recognized the positives of western culture. It was not just utilizing of the glamour associated western culture to, to say, remind Indians of, of its spiritual roots. But, well, there were some things which Prabhupada appreciated about the west also.

Is that what you're trying to say? Or means, what are you trying to, how are you correlating this example with my question? I think this is, these discussions are more, we could say, exploratory than, they're more of exploration than exposition. Yes. We are ourselves trying to grapple social issues.

And so I just, maybe we will just address this issue and we'll wrap it up. Okay. So you were saying that Prabhupada appreciate western culture enough to recognize that it has a place of prominence in today's world.

Very much. And that place of prominence could be utilized to help people appreciate spiritual values. Now, in some ways, when Prabhupada encountered the west, he encountered, not so much the western culture as more of the western counterculture.

So when Prabhupada made certain statements like, he say, for example, in the west, in the west, there is no culture. Sometimes you people have no culture. It was more a statement about the way some of the hippies who are coming to the moment, we're living rather than a complete condemnation of what was there in the west.

Because there are other places where see Prabhupada did appreciate aspects about, say, I think the cleanliness, the organization, the things which Prabhupada appreciated. Prabhupada's famous metaphor of the blind man and the lame man also indicates that there is certain things which could be appreciated, that there are the capacity to organize material resources effectively. So he said the material resources from the west and the spiritual wisdom from the east, they combine together.

So it's not just wealth, but it's also material organization that produces that wealth. Don't you think Prabhupada accepting the model of a governing body is his acknowledgement of the organizational acumen of the west. So he may not have said directly in appreciation, but that's true.

In order for the longevity of his movement, he chose one particular aspect of western management that is an organized body of a committee of individuals. And he established it way, way back, even when his society was not fully mature. In fact, just five or six years in existence.

And he thought this is the right time for me to train people up. And he gave them such heavy responsibilities, calling them the ultimate managing authority. In fact, once when it didn't function properly, he had the whole thing resign.

Everybody resigned. So that was a displeasure and the way in which they were functioning, not at their existence. Yes.

Because very soon he again reinstated it. That's true. Now, interestingly, I read one book where he said that Prabhupada was doctrinally or philosophically orthodox, but was institutionally quite innovative, quite resourceful.

Oh, yes. And in fact, I heard another way that the governing body commission, that name either Prabhupada or Bhaktisanta Thakur got from the managing body of the Indian railways. Yes, that was Bhaktisanta Thakur.

He took it from the Indian railways. He also wanted that name governing body commission only for his? Yes, yes. For his disciples to form a body.

Prabhupada explains that my Guru Maharaj wanted it. He was about to establish it, but it didn't happen. And therefore, the blame on how the Gaudiya Math could not carry the movement forward was based on this one wish, which his Guru Maharaj expressed.

But somehow it did, things didn't happen. So he said, let me not make the same mistake again, that wait for a very long time to establish it. Beautiful.

So that means, again, so if you consider in the tradition, there was the system of Mathadhipati and Mathacharya. So there's one leader, one Acharya appoints his successor Acharya. So Prabhupada did not necessarily institutionalize that system.

And so the idea is that the more important than, more important than replicating the system is, is fulfilling the purpose that the system was serving. So Prabhupada recognized that he had many dedicated disciples and they all could work and they all could contribute. But putting them in a hierarchical structure with one head would, it could lead to, even if it doesn't lead to that person becoming too autocratic, it could lead to other people feeling a little repressed.

Prabhupada in one sense, I read one beautiful offering by one of Prabhupada's followers. He said that, what was, how did Prabhupada establish such a big movement with the people who were not very trained? So he said that love, trust, empowerment and forgiveness. Oh, wonderful.

So that is a very radical way of looking at it. But Prabhupada, he loved, he trust, and trust means not just verbally, but he empowered them. And if they made mistakes, he forgave them.

So in one sense, the governing body commission is a system where Prabhupada offered this love, trust, empowerment, not just to one person, but to a group of leaders. And one of Prabhupada's disciples said that, why did Prabhupada choose these when he had 11 particular leaders who made his successor gurus? So Prabhupada was not playing favorites. Prabhupada simply observed at that time, who were the most dedicated people.

So Prabhupada appointed them. So in that sense, Prabhupada was, Prabhupada's decisions were guided by, by his purpose. His purpose was to share spiritual culture, spiritual wisdom, and whoever was helping him most responsibly, he offered it to them.

There is an old Sanskrit subhashit that a creeper takes, it coils around the nearest tree. So that's how a king, even if he has to do something, he just finds out who is the person most available right now. So we can use this logic that at that time these people, and Prabhupada actually said later there'll be more.

He said later there'll be more. So he just accepted. You are right when you say that.

He just saw the dedication, who can do it. Right now they are fresh. Let me offer them an opportunity.

That's all. I'll conclude with this last thought then. A creeper goes to the nearest tree or the branch? What are you saying? The creeper goes to the nearest branch or tree? No, it clings to the nearest tree.

It has to grow, right? Yeah. So my point is that, just to take the example, our focus is primarily to grow the creeper. Now if we start constructing a tree so that the creeper will grow, we are going way out of our area of focus.

So to organize society, organize economy, organize politics, it's a gargantuan task. And unless somebody is trained, dedicated, immersed in that kind of expertise, so we can find whatever tree is closest to the creeper and use that. And we could say that explains how Prabhupada, when he got the opportunity to engage with social leaders, political leaders, he engaged with them as much as he could.

And he tried to make sure that things move forward. So we could do the same in our spiritual setting today. Exactly.

So thank you very much for your time and discussion, time and thoughts. Hare Krishna.