The Monk’s Podcast 53 with Krishna Abishek Prabhu – Bhaktivinoda Thakura’s inclusive presentation of bhakti

Transcript

This is an AI-generated transcript and may contain some errors.
Hare Krishna Hare Krishna Krishna Vishakru welcome to the mom’s podcast it’s me now thanks for having me here thank you I think we have known each other for almost about 10 years now more than that probably a little more I have always appreciated your friendship and especially how you have helped me understand our tradition better I read your thesis on Bhaktinath Thakur also so I think also the fact that you come in your lineage is related to Bhaktinath Thakur also makes it special I can say you are an authentic Gaudiya scholar you are authentic from the traditional perspective and authentic from the contemporary perspective also as you did your PhD in Chicago Divinity so Bhaktinath Thakur engages with the contemporary tradition or a contemporary intellectual tradition and can you give some examples of say some things which you felt were addressed by Bhaktinath Thakur in the writings in a way that you had not heard being addressed before and that helped you to so when we say he brought in a dialogue we often understand that Prabhupada went and presented Krishna Consciousness in the West in the moment as it started in the West but Prabhupada also says that the father of the modern day Krishna Consciousness movement is Bhaktinath Thakur Bhaktinath Thakur laid the intellectual groundwork and Prabhupada took it further so can you explain this point about which questions or some issues or some questions which Bhaktinath Thakur the way he addressed attracted you yeah sure I would try I would try to approach that question by thinking to the idea of what it means to be a liberal and what is it what does liberal arts mean so Bhaktinath Thakur had the educational training in the liberal arts and he was a liberal not in the modern political sense but in the sense of an all-encompassing world view and in his introduction to Sri Chaitanya the very first line says the teachings of Lord Chaitanya can resolve all contradictions that arise in various philosophies one idea wow liberal in the modern sense and liberal in the all-inclusive sense what is the difference the difference is you know the word liberal in today’s political discourse has a certain baggage right it is often identified with left inclined thinkers as well as people who belong to an elite intellectual class who is disconnected with the common suffering of everyday people that’s how the word liberal is often understood and say like an intellectual elite and then leftist intellectual elite leftist disconnected with grass roots problem and at the same time takes the first seat when it comes to trying to represent these people in the grass roots that’s well put yeah couple of other things also disconnected itself is liberals seem to be quite against tradition that’s the modern perception and my argument is Bhaktivinoda Thakur is the opposite he is a liberal who is very much within the tradition more than you can imagine and it is possible to be within a tradition and still be liberal we would probably want to use a different word today given the political baggage that word has but a liberal means somebody who is willing to you know include everyone as long as they are not against the principles of Dharma that’s true I noticed that people may espouse some liberal positions but often they have quite an illiberal disposition and this is also something Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati Thakur pointed out many times in his life saying that what kind of a broad-minded person or you could translate that as the word liberal what kind of a liberal or broad-minded person are you that you will not tolerate any other argument than the ones that you already set your mind on that’s so true they are quite liberal about anyone who does not espouse the liberal position yes and so and that the right people at least in the United States Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati Thakur referring to somebody particularly when he is talking about this I read it in different you know I didn’t when I read through all these books I didn’t like look into details so I didn’t remember the context but I have written at least two or three pieces what kind of a liberal or broad-minded person are you and he is saying this to some of the scholars in his times right who are a part of the establishment so Bhaktisiddhanta Thakur as far as I understand you know I mean from a worldly perspective we are all humans and there must be some problem somewhere and so if you want to dig holes in his life you know he has given his autobiography and said you know this is for my friends and followers just make sure that it doesn’t get into wrong hands basically people who will just use it to dig holes and create more ruckus if they want to do that that is their business that is their you know that’s their prerogative but Vaishnavas usually say that you know flies and honeybees in Bangla they call machi and momachi they look very similar but they go to different destinations based on their taste so let’s leave that conversation at that coming back to some of the questions that we brought up before this zoom podcast and the role of Bhaktivinoda Thakur that you asked right now Bhaktivinoda Thakur wrote an article called Dwayananda Saraswati and Tantra Shastra so it’s his article on Tantra in that article he says that Dwayananda Saraswati who we know very well just pause so are you addressing that my earlier question of how Bhaktivinoda Thakur say address some issues which were not addressed earlier or how Bhaktivinoda Thakur help you to stay I am trying to address all the three points you raised that the idea about western academia being an academic the idea of liberal the second is how Bhaktivinoda Thakur helped me and number three how Bhaktivinoda Thakur is liberal in his own way those are the three things I am trying to address in this article Bhaktivinoda Thakur says that Dwayananda Saraswati should not criticise tantras because he is saying tantras allow eating meat and alcohol and all these kind of quote unquote abominable activities it’s not Hindu it should be a part of Hindu reform to get rid of tantric practises and Bhaktivinoda Thakur says that Mahasaya very respectfully sir or this gentleman has no idea about Hinduism he says that Lord Shiva is said to have composed the tantras because Lord Shiva is Vishnu in touch with the mode of Tamas and there are people in the mode of Tamas who need to eat meat and drink alcohol so Lord Shiva gives a particular kind of step by step process for their gradual evolution in the journey of self discovery so to say and it is also the responsibility of Vaishnavas Bhaktivinoda Thakur says to come to rescue of their Shakta brethren or Shakta friends or Shakta brothers and sisters when the Shaktas are not able to defend their own scriptures because all of this is within the ambit of Dharma now that article is remarkable and in the second article Bhaktivinoda Thakur reviews a book written by the elder brother of Swami Vivekananda in which he analyses the character of Ramakrishna now remember Ramakrishna was not that famous when he was writing this article and he says I hear about this Babaji who lives in Dakineshwar who has become very popular and he is showing signs of spiritual ecstasy and if this Babaji is genuine I offer my respects to him again and again and again at the same time you know these are the symptoms of ecstasy according to Prabhupada Swami and we must know what those are and we must you know be careful to separate the husk from the grain so to say in my language I’m summarising it and so he ends that article in a positive note saying if Ramakrishna is indeed a Paramahamsa then I respect him you know so that to me defines what is liberal in the sense he is not compromising his position as a Vaishnava but he is also creating the space for others to be who they want and the third article I wanted to mention in this regard and this is the last one is the dawn of Vaishnavism in a Christian heart and in that article he says there can be Vaishnavas who wear Tilak Mala but they are not Vaishnavas they are Biddha Vaishnavas they are trying they are progressing at the same time this Christian gentleman is so devoted but also look at his Siddhanta here are the points of his Siddhanta and these Siddhantas are no different from what somebody like Jiva Goswami gives us and so we as Vaishnavas must if we are Saragrahis that means essence seekers rather than burden bearers we must recognise this John Newman Christian gentleman with a European name to be a Vaishnava just like us so to me that not only was remarkable on a personal level for the first time I saw this broad definition of what is Bhakti but I also saw that he was not narrow minded thus liberal narrow versus liberal liberal means broad and he in a way professed values that were very Vaishnava very traditionally Vaishnava and he says and I’ll conclude with this give me the strength to respect everybody according to my capability and what they deserve and Vaishnavas offer respect that means if there is something going on that is against the values of Dharma and Dharma goes back to the Srimad Bhagavatam Satya is honesty for those you know is purity or cleanliness is enterprise austerity penance whatever and is compassion or kindness so that is what Dharma means to you know that was that’s what it meant in my family that’s how I was taught Shri Prabhupada translates you know those into the English term for regulative principles we talked about four pillars of religion also four pillars of Dharma so as long as those ethical values were kept then it’s alright yes please this is I feel a slightly different subject but those three letters I was three articles letters whatever you want to say articles it was published in the Sajjana Toshni Journal so now these three if we consider Vaishnavism as it is practised today these three in one sense are considered as the competitors or challenges to Vaishnavism the worship of the Devatas the Advaitavad philosophy and say non-Vedic Dharmas like Christianity and it seems Bhaktivinod Thakur is openly appreciating all three of them not in intrinsically but not worship of the Devatas worship of the Devatas completely completely in the sense that not that he is recommending the worship of the Devatas but he is recognising that it also has a place yes exactly exactly so now sometimes I feel that in trying to present Vaishnavism to people we may end up leaving no place for anything else it is true it becomes like a see one of the ways I differentiate is spiritual life is not one zero it’s not digital logic it’s more of analogue analogue that’s a good one I put it this way I put it this way it’s not just about salt and pepper we also have garam masala and turmeric and jeera our spice box has diversity that’s right I think spices are not so well known in the west India itself it’s a very good example also so now we tend to define things in terms of polarity one or zero so like you are a devotee or you are a non devotee spiritual or material but within that there is a spectrum absolutely Bhakti Siddhanta recognise that spectrum Prabhupada too and Bhakti Siddhanta too everybody recognises that so yeah of course if you look at Prabhupada’s writings that is there Prabhupada I think in the same verse when he talks about qualities of a saint yes so in this sense in this verse there is no specific mention of necessarily worshipping a personal deity Prabhupada says this can also apply to a person who is not a personalist even an impersonalist is a transcendentalist yes that is true and can be a saintly person so Prabhupada appreciating the saintliness he is not like wholly endorsing if he exhibits if he is authentic or if he is genuine then I offer my obeisances as third case he is talking about Vaishnavism not so much as a specific practise as more of a more of a you could say a universal emotion like rising of Christianity in the heart, rising of Vaishnavism in the heart of a Christian so he is talking more of a emotion might be a little cheap word not appropriate word but maybe it is like a it is Rasa the word is Rasa and his point is Rasa is universal by the way if I may interject last month I had a almost one hour conversation with Wendy Doniger and we were both appreciating how Rasa is universal and she said yes that is true you know just as there are elements of Dharma or ethics that can be translated across cultures, there are elements of Yoga that can be translated across cultures, so is Rasa that can be translated across cultures and if you look at it Dharma is Sambandha in a sense, Yoga is Abhidheya and Rasa is Prayojana and that is what Krishna Bhakti is in those three words Sambandha Sambandha you know that is when you know what is Ishwar Prakriti, Jiva, Kala and Karma then you practise Dharma you respect all forms of life and you know and then for your own internal self you practise Yoga, Bhakti Yoga whatever, but then the purpose for Bhakti Yogi especially is the experience of Rasa and that is the Prayojana so Chaitanya Mahaprabhu gave the essence of Krishna Bhakti based on what is called the Anubandha Chatushtaya in Sanskrit hermeneutics Sambandha, Abhidheya, Prayojana these three words and the Chaitanya Chittamrita talks about it, Bhagavatam also has, these three words kind of encapsulate what is Bhakti and the fourth word that is the Adhikari, the person who is going through the process right so Sambandha, Abhidheya, Prayojana in practical terms right, is Dharma Yoga and Rasa and those are the three things that are universally translatable at least according to Bhaktivinoda Thakur and you know, Rajiv Malhotra says Wendy Doniger is the most powerful lady in Hindu studies in the West today right, and they disagree with each other and I don’t want to get into that but I have read both their works and I see if I were to if Bhaktivinoda Thakur was here in the room with us today, I think this is what he would tell us, he would tell us that there are enough people on planet Earth to debate each other to look at their differences but if we give Chaitanya Mahaprabhu a chance he will show us the way where people with the most amount of differences can also come together in harmony and in peace for a constructive purpose for planet Earth which is what Dharma is supposed to do according to the Bhagavatam if we practise Dharma, planet Earth lives well right beautiful just to go back to a couple of points now, so Rasa is a Rasa can be a potential universal concept and it is you could say it’s one of the things which our tradition the Gaudiya tradition has distinctly to offer that’s what Bhaktivinoda Thakur said so now, taking that point further, you went back you said earlier also about Mankimchandra who wrote a sanitised version of Krishna he presented sure so now, he removed some of the Leelas whose morality was questionable from a western educated perspective because morality is also related but then in some ways those are the past times which actually give the experience of Rasa consider Krishna as Mahabharata Krishna is expert he is shrewd he guides the Pandavas yes Veerya Rasa Veerya is one like Haasya is one Jagupsa is one so Krishna is in that Rasa but in Bhagavatam he is in Sringara Rasa hmm sorry, go ahead so now, this point that presenting or rather taking the Bhagavatam version of Krishna or Bhagavatam vision of Krishna and not watering it down or not fitting it to modern sensibilities but explaining it in a way that modern sensibilities can also appreciate that’s the book Krishna Samhita that’s what he tried to do in Krishna Samhita yeah, I think in his autobiography also he writes that many people didn’t understand the purpose of the book and that’s why it became somewhat controversial yes, he mentions that people did not understand the difference between Paramarthika and Aparakrita Paramarthika Artha is Dharma, sorry is Dharma Artha Kama Moksha where the four Purusharthas Parama Artha is you know, something transcendental to this, in a sense spiritual that gives the essence of the Arthas but Aparakrita is nature so whatever is Paramarthika is still within nature Aparakrita is on the other hand transcendental so the difference between spiritual and transcendental is very subtle and I pointed out that difference in Krishna Samhita which people did not understand that’s what he said in his autobiography so what exactly is the difference? Krishna Leela is Aparakrita Krishna Leela is untouched by matter and Krishna is Akhila Rasamrita Murthy so Aparakrita you are translating as transcendental transcendental and Paramarthika I am translating as spiritual Bhakti Siddhanta would translate Aparakrita as supra mundane ok mundane is things that are going on in the world so even if you are spiritual you are still in the world you are still functioning with the parameters of the world but Vyasadev accessed the Leelas of Krishna in his Samadhi and it is only through the process of Bhakti Yoga you can come to that level of Samadhi where you understand what is Rasa and at that level Krishna Leela you realise is not of this world it’s totally supra mundane or transcendental and he says that is what readers of Krishna Samhita did not understand very well so spiritual can refer to generic spirituality also like say monistic or something like that but when you are talking about transcendental or Aparakrita supra mundane so Paramarthik refers to anything beyond matter taking up some eternal interest but that is your that is your spiritual development and you can go you can become a Buddhist or you can become a Christian or you can become an Atheist but you are seeking the truth but you are still within the world a dog trying to catch its tail and you have not transcended the limitations of this world through your practise of Bhakti Yoga and come to the level of realising what is Rasa and the point where you realise what is Rasa the holy names feel different and the ten Nama Paradhas are impossible to do but more importantly we realise that the level of the Rasical level of chanting the holy names that the Nama, Rupa, Guna, Lila they are actually not separate they are just four dimensions of the same thing and that Nama can be chanted in various Rasa you can chant the holy name in Shanta Rasa for tranquilly or whatever but the holy names can also be chanted in Madhurya Rasa for instance where Hare is what Krishna calls Radha and Rama is what Radha calls Krishna back because Rama means somebody who knows how to please or the pleasure potency as Prabhupada translated it Hare and so the Hare Krishna mantra is the play of Radha and Krishna and when you chant or when you sing the names you suddenly realise this is a love song and Rupa Goswami wrote in his Upadesa Amrita that the mantra needs to be chanted or sung or recited with Adar Adar means to adore so I was just speaking with Yogeshwar Prabhu couple of weeks back, Joshua Green he is one of my mentors what is the point you are making over here Bhaktivinoda Thakur Bhaktivinoda Thakur Rasa and misunderstanding Rasa from a worldly perspective and doing certain things and your previous point about Vaishnavism how Vaishnavism that many people practise today hinging on the works of Bhaktivinoda Thakur Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati and Srila Prabhupada is very different or at least appears very different from what these Acharyas are saying in their books that’s what I am trying to point out and so the singing of the holy names is the constant remembrance of the love song and that’s how Mahaprabhu presented it Nirbandha means firm resolve you know all the time Kirtan does not necessarily mean to hold a japa mala in your hand even what you and I are doing in a very broad sense is Kirtan Mat Chitta Mat Gata Prana Bodhayante Paraspara Kathayante Mam Nityam Tushyanti Cha Ramanti Cha Bhagavad Gita that is also Kirtan because the result of Kirtan is Tushyanti Ramanti you know as Krishna says it is Tushti and Ramanti is also related to the word Ram that is delight, one who delights and so that holy name can be chanted in Sakya Rasa, in Vasaliya Rasa and so and so forth but if we do not follow a step by step process that Rupa Goswami has given out in the Bhakti Rasamrita Sindhu you know it’s like and this is something our common mentor Adanath Swami and I we have gone back and discussed this many many times that is unless we have a systematic progression through Bhakti we can take initiation but many years will pass and we will be stuck in the same level it’s like enroling in a school and there are no classrooms the rooms are there but the classes are not divided and the education is not happening so Krishna consciousness is a scientific process of cultivating the wisdom of the heart so to say right and now what Bhaktivinoda Thakur pointed out in Bankim Chandra Chatterjee and many others of his times that when you are divorcing Krishna from Rasa then the Krishna you are trying to talk about is not the Aparakrita Krishna it is not the supramundane Krishna right and the other thing we have to the two more things very quick points that I can explain if you ask anything one is we use the word Supreme Personality of Godhead which is different from the word God God is a short form of the Supreme Personality of Godhead those five words are powerful words what do those mean is one thing we have to be very clear about because God is not Supreme Personality of Godhead Krishna is the Supreme Personality of Godhead and Supreme Personality of Godhead is a translation of the word Bhagavan and we often use the words Bhagavan and God interchangeably but so do we with the word Ishwara and God and you know Brahman and God and Paramatma and God now in the Sanskrit language Brahman Paramatma Bhagavan Ishwar are very distinct words and we have to respect that when we use the word God to describe all of that we are trying to explain we are trying to relish the flavour of Garam Masala through the taste of salt and pepper and it’s not possible do you see what I’m saying that’s the first thing so in that sense I once went to give a talk and I said one of the things one of my core academic arguments is God is not Vishnu because the word God has a very specific Judeo-Christian Abrahamic connotation and in the English language we may use it but we have to look at the specific Tikas of the Bhagavatam and the verses and the primary text to understand what exactly is the context of that word in English it just says God or Supreme Personality of God one and the second point I wanted to mention is that the teachings of Krishna for Bhaktivinoda Thakur and for all our Acharyas as far as I understand it is for the well-being of the planet and it gives an alternative vision of the universe that means when somebody stands under a dark night sky and looks up at the stars they see a vast universe where there are all these heavenly bodies that are going around in their respective orbits but all of them are dead that’s what mechanistic empirical science tells us we do not find life in our shape and form in anything that we see the Bhagavatam gives an alternative perspective that is this universe is not bleak this universe in fact is full of joy and bliss if you give up the illusion that you are the lord and master of it all and you become a servant and you learn to look at the universe through the lens of Rasa and when you do that all these universes this is the cover of Srila Prabhupada’s first edition of Bhagavatam that within every universe there is transcendental Rasa and that’s how we look at these universes and this was the idea behind what we now call the temple of Vedic planetarium but this is also Bhaktivinoda Thakur’s idea that we must demonstrate the universe that we look at is very different from how western colonial traditions are asking us to imagine it to be it is a Rasika universe you can talk to plants and the moon is a beautiful place without this approach life becomes intolerable it becomes purposeless why are we even here why are we going through our daily grind but the moment we understand this a lot of our internal suffering gets resolved and so does a lot of our external suffering and people who are trying to reduce human suffering by creating aeroplanes and telegraph machines and so and so forth are doing a great job and I have a chapter that I am working on right now for my book from SUNY where I talk about this that these inventions modern scientific inventions are great they are awesome but the metaphysics that underlies these inventions will eventually lead to the commodification of life and there is also an article by Bhaktivinoda Thakur on this that if we boil down the human body to this carbon and calcium and this and that what is your value not more than 11 rupees maybe he writes an article these exact words right but the moment you realise the point of subjectivity that means you are happy you have a unique perspective on things and you are somebody who is capable of experiencing refined emotions and being happy even within this lifetime right and then you suddenly realise the whole universe the skies are floating around this is a verse from Krishna Samhita from Bhaktivinoda Thakur just like Krishna is the Dhruva star and all the other stars like all the other constellations circle it we Jivas circle the source of these transcendental emotions even if we don’t understand what it is let’s call it Krishna okhila rashaamritamurti poshrimara tara kapali Krishna is okhila all rashaamritamurti he is the embodiment of the immortal transcendental emotions that can be found anywhere in the universe that’s the definition of Krishna and after that the rest are details and they come as a person progresses sorry I’ll shut up I’ve been speaking too much I want to hear your thoughts on what I said so far yeah so it seems somehow in the broadening of the presentation of bhakti the idea of Krishna and rasa in relationship with Krishna may sometimes get lost either in the basically I think there are three different things now there are practises and there are beliefs and beyond that there are experiences also realisations whatever you want to use Anubhav as Goswamis talk about it so sometimes we get so caught either in imposing the rules or arguing about the rationality of the beliefs that we may miss out on either we ourselves having the experience others have that experience exactly each individual is on their own journey and Krishna says in the Vrindavan Gita that even if they worship Devatas they are ultimately coming towards me and you know Bhagavatam says how we do upeksha of people who are envious, those who are open-minded we help them those who are equals to us we associate with them and those who are senior to us we learn from them and it is destructive to actually you know shake up whatever foreign belief an individual has and Bhaktivinoda Thakur like Martin Luther makes a distinction between faith and belief belief is holding on to ideas that we think are true and even if we see counter-arguments or counter-evidence it shakes our faith and so belief is something that or really need to bank on whereas faith is something that is you know spontaneously ingrained in every living being whether they accept it or not falling in love is an act of faith getting married is an act of faith getting on a bus or aeroplane is an act of faith because faith is the assumption that the circumstances that I have that I experience will continue to work in my favour and even if it is unfavourable I can fight and I can transcend it or I can overcome it right? so faith is the trust that this process and I go along very well together and this works Shraddha so Biswaash Biswaash and Shraddha are different things sorry so faith is more like a operational assumption whereas belief is more like a like a conviction conviction about certain ideas yeah inarguable tenet it’s more about abstract truths whereas faith is more dynamic more operational yes that’s absolutely right Sanskrit words to differentiate belief and faith Bangla words Biswaash is belief you know I believe Jesus Christ is my lord and saviour well somebody tomorrow can come and you know kind of cut that apart and say no and then my belief will be hurt and I will lose my belief but faith is I am very minute I need to surrender to somebody something bigger than me I am looking for bliss in the world and I know it is attainable that is faith and so he points this out in his book Tattva Viveka not Bhakti Tattva Viveka and he says there are twelve foundational principles universal foundational principles of spiritual life just one minute so I am just trying to clarify the difference because you let’s say if we talk about belief it’s more about the nature of reality faith is more about the nature of what really works for me also the nature of reality faith is that dimension of us that tells us that no matter what happens I am alright and things will be alright and belief is a certain conviction about certain ideas that we think is true right and it is our banking on these ideas belief is basically you know I believe in Santa Claus right I think many kids are convinced that Santa Claus exists but then somebody tells them no actually your parents were giving you and then suddenly they are shattered but that is also a part of growing up and so people who come to the path of Bhakti also have certain beliefs that get shattered before they assume this path right but faith is that principle that makes them go from their previous state to this new state and say that I am a seeker of truth and I will find it or I have a larger shelter of joy which is beyond me and if I do x y and z I will actually get there that is faith that’s why I said falling in love is an act of faith or getting on an aeroplane is an act of faith so faith more connected with the process and belief is more connected with some tenets conviction that ideas in our head and Bhaktivinoda Thakur points out that beliefs may change and mature as you go along but faith gets deeper right and with more time with more realisations the more we are open minded and the more we explore in this path of bhakti the more we will see what is the nature of faith and why it is important right and our beliefs might change and I mean think about it you know I have been practising what 32-34 years now and what I believed when I was 20 on the path of Krishna consciousness is very different from what I believe today and it happens to most people you ask any any Vaishnav anywhere that 10 years back or 5 years back whatever beliefs you had did you change your beliefs and everybody will say yeah I used to think this but now after reading Shastra I think this or this realisation came I am not sure what do you think right so beliefs are constantly changing faith on the other hand remains you see what I am saying yeah so going back earlier you talk about the difference between the term God and the terms say Ishwara or Brahman or Bhagwan so again was that also to stress the point of the difference of Rasa that God has a particular connotation and yes yes but more than just Rasa it also has to do with language and culture says that to understand Rasa we need many many elements such as Gopi, Vrindavan you know Alamban Udipan so and so forth right so a tamal tree in Vrindavan reminds you of Krishna because Krishna is Tamal Krishna he is dark like a tamal tree now you try to look for tamal trees in Michigan good luck it won’t work so what would be the Alamban in Michigan you know and our common friend Hari Parshat Prabhu came and said thus Thai Bhava of Michigan is depression it’s like a permanent mood right and I agree with him now Bhaktivinoda Thakur said that future will understand Krishna Bhakti so well that they will be able to translate Rasa Rasa Leela, Gopa, Gopi, Vrindavan Alamban, Udipan in their own language in their own culture and this is the gift of Sriman Mahabhuti right that is to be able to translate Rasa and experience the states of Bhava and eventually Rasa Rasa Nishbhakti is what Mahaprabhu tried to give to the whole world and he says that they have Vaishnavism right we don’t have to preach to anybody we don’t have to convert anybody we don’t have to make somebody change their names to a Hindu name and wear a dhoti kurta to become Vaishnav but let them understand what we have to offer and let them culturally translate that into their own you know situation without deviations right and that is why for example if somebody puts a Santa Claus hat on a Krishna Vidra on a deity it’s a Rasa Bhasha it’s like imposing you know Jesus Christ never saw a snowflake so to say and I’m not using the word snowflake in a political connotation but he never he was in Palestine Jesus Christ never saw a Christmas tree he wasn’t even born on December 23rd it was the Roman Emperor Constantine you know this history and I know this and then the Christmas traditions that we have you know whether it’s music in supermarkets or Christmas trees with you know those hockey stick candies whatever now taking those things and imposing it on Krishna may be sweet for some people but it also demonstrates a total non-understanding I wouldn’t even say misunderstanding a non-understanding of Rasa right but people have to culturally translate then wouldn’t that be considered acceptable translation Santa Claus it is that well I would say it is even if it is it’s not a mature cultural translation maybe a kindergarten level cultural translation the real cultural translation comes I would argue in the books of Bhaktivinoda Thakur where he shows how to culturally translate certain things like this idea of an eastern saviour the idea of a saviour itself what exactly are you saving somebody from right in Christianity it is the it is saving from eternal damnation and also the original sin that you inherited and so what Christianity generally speaking posits are the is the cause and the consequence of our suffering Vaishnavism or practically all traditions of Hinduism focus on suffering too if you look at Sankhya philosophy that is non-theistic in it’s original form Dukkha Trayavikata the three miseries that’s what you want to resolve Vedanta any philosophy you go to Buddhism they all want to reduce suffering so in terms of our attempt the human attempt to reduce suffering everybody is engaged in the same project it’s just that our metaphysics are different and our methods are different right and that is what Bhaktivinoda Thakur is trying to point out and all our Acharyas are trying to point out that you’re all trying to solve the same problem the question is do we come to a neutral stage where our problem is solved but nothing positive is happening and that is Advaita and it’s transcendental too or are you going to bracket the oneness part of everything and engage in service and loving exchange and if you’re one you can’t have love because as they say in English it takes two to tango so I would say it takes two to Bhakti and so right now in that example I just culturally translated the difference between Advaita Vedanta and Bhakti Vedanta philosophy so translating doesn’t necessarily mean putting a Santa Claus costume on Krishna if somebody loves to do that more power to them if that makes them more Krishna conscious who am I to intervene or comment or say anything it’s between them and whatever they are doing but when it comes to Siddhanta and Rasa this cultural translation is a lifetime project for multiple generations it won’t happen in just your generation or you know even our children’s generation if you think about it Bhaktivinoda Thakur wrote in 1896 that you know when will that day come when people recognise the name of Sriman Mahaprabhu he didn’t see it and it’s not till you know even now we are wondering what happened yes there were waves of Sankirtan on the way but Sankirtan movement was very big in Bengal but very small compared to the rest of the world and the ambition and this is one again one thing Venni Doniger and I went back and forth on multiple times her point was why is this not a megalomaniac agenda because you know Napoleon wanted to conquer the whole world and there are statements like that that you know Prabhupada says you want to culturally conquer the whole world why is that not a megalomaniac agenda and my answer to that is it would be megalomaniac if it boosted the ego of one person who want to rule over everything but the moment this person learns how to become a servant and puts the interest of mother Bhumi and father Dharma so to say according to the Bhagwat as the top most priority then it is not megalomaniac if you say that climate change is going to be a disaster for future generations we must stop this you know frequent amount of air travel and therefore we need to have this and this measures the Paris climate accord for example the people who run it or the people who conceived it and helped implement it are not megalomaniacs they are not trying to control the world and if they are they are trying to control the world for the planet’s benefit so whose interests are you putting forward and if you look at the Mahabharata Krishna says very clearly that my first commitment is to mother Bhumi because there is the section where the sage asks Krishna you could have stopped the war why did you let it happen and Krishna says I tried but my first commitment is to mother Bhumi and how is mother Bhumi going to you know flourish Mahabharata first says father Dharma the bull because of these times has lost his three legs and is tottering on the fourth right as long as we preserve Dharma Bhumi will be a wonderful place to live in and what is Dharma basic ethics basic ethics you don’t need to be a Yogi you don’t need to be a Bhakta you don’t need to be a Vaishnava and that’s what Bhakta Manohar Thakur used to often say first become a human being then you can think about becoming a Vaishnava even Prabhupada said you know first come to the human platform four regulative principles is coming to the human platform any decent human being will be will have integrity honesty right they will be clean hygienically also in terms of their dealings right they must you know work everyday for their own sustenance but most importantly they must be compassionate and kind these four are basically the four legs of Dharma you know rather than looking at them as the four things not to do which can come off as imposing or sectarian to some extent you can look at them as four virtues and nobody is actually going to argue that these are not virtues even from a religious perspective even from a normal human perspective they are desirable virtues the way in which the virtues are to be translated into real life the standard that are to be there they are secondary so if you focus on the principle of these virtues then that’s also a ground for universal as you said bringing together that is very true in fact it seems that there is it’s just a matter of perspective the same principles could be either presented in a way that is off-putting and seems sectarian or the same principles could be put in a way which is attractive and unifying very true very true in fact in Sanskrit we have this thing called Vidhi and Nishedha yes right Vidhi means the principle what you should do and Nishedha is what is the bare minimum you shouldn’t do so when we go to a doctor he say you take this medicine but don’t eat cold things because you have a sore throat that’s the basic minimum you shouldn’t do so when Prabhupada is using the terms four regulative principles he is presenting the Nishedhas that this is the bare minimum you shouldn’t do right but the principle is much more powerful much broader and it’s there in the Bhagavatam the foundations of Krishna consciousness that the way we understand is four regulative principles chant 16 rounds and take initiation and the rest is the rest are details our Acharyas give a very different trajectory that is 16 rounds minimum that if you don’t think about Krishna rest of the day you are not Krishna conscious whatever at least take out an hour and a half every day for this it’s important the principle is not 16 rounds the principle is 16 rounds minimum 16 rounds minimum if you are not doing anything if you are not engaging in Krishna katha you are not studying Bhagavatam you have a whole day where you are engaging in things that you have absolutely no control over at least take some time out early in the morning chant 16 rounds that’s the bare minimum but if you can if you organise your life in such a way that you can 24 hours speak about Krishna engage in devotional service in some form or the other then just as Krishna says the purpose of a small body of water is fulfilled by a great ocean similarly the purpose of 16 rounds is fulfilled by Kirtani or Sadahari and regulatory principles is basically trying to get somebody on a very basic platform of ethics right and I think to conclude that flow of thoughts there is a severe lack a severe misunderstanding of both Sanskrit and English when people read Prabhupada’s books because Prabhupada’s English is from remember the early 1900s and English has changed a lot all languages change right if we read Shakespeare we won’t understand Shakespeare and now if you go back and read Beowulf which was thousand years back that English wouldn’t even stand out as English so Prabhupada gave the Sanskrit verses because that part is as it is and it’s non compromising right and he encouraged us to go back and read the works of our previous teachers and Acharya literally means in the western world a professor that previous luminaries are previous professors right and just as to study history of religions I not only have to go to Wendy Doniger but I also have to read Edward Dimmock and Marcia Aliade because they are the previous Acharyas in that particular field in the field of Krishna Bhakti there are previous Acharyas going back all the way to Krishna himself right and this is the reason Prabhupada was very insistent that this can come from Hindu culture but Krishna consciousness is non sectarian it doesn’t belong to one particular religion just like yoga is non sectarian it doesn’t right and Bhaktivinoda Thakur says very clearly Hindu is my culture Vaishnavism is my religion and so Vaishnavism flourishes within Hindu culture just as Boeing and Airbus flourishes within western capitalist culture right now aeroplanes are western but they do not belong to the west they belong to the whole world similarly for our inner development Krishna Bhakti is universal because it belongs to the whole world even though it emerges out of Hindu culture that’s all I have to say for now.
That’s beautiful very good example of how when we had to do this brings us back to the earlier point of cultural translation that if you want to do cultural translation you have to arbitrarily impose cultural symbols but you have to do it in a way that actually serves a purpose so in Hindu culture Vaishnavism is the religion, religion is the sense what gives us transcendental experience yeah what gives us meaning in life yes and how that will be translated is that could be like a life that can require lifetimes of effort yeah absolutely that’s true sorry for taking your podcast in 20 different directions it’s been wonderful talking to you thank you for your time thank you for your time and having me here and it is good to hear your voice and see your face after a long time yes true see you again sometime soon please take care