Understanding how bhakti fulfills the purpose of scripture – and how we can help

[Bhagavatam class on 11.14-1-3 at ISKCON, Alachua, USA]

Transcript

This is an AI-generated transcript and may contain some errors.
Seek the blessings of all the senior devotees. I can speak something here, the Srimad Bhagavatam today.
And here Krishna is speaking something very similar to what he has spoken in the Bhagavad Gita, the start of the fourth chapter. There also he traces the ancient nature of this knowledge. In fact, the timeless nature of this knowledge.
And he says then, So Kalena and Nashta, those same two words are used here also. Kalena, Nashta, Pravayi. So by the power of time, the spiritual knowledge was lost and Krishna says that I am giving it now to you, Arjuna.
So of course the context when he is speaking to Uddhava and the context when he is speaking to Arjuna are quite different. In here, Krishna has described the various processes of yoga and he has of course described the primacy of bhakti. So Uddhava wants to have a categorical emphasis on that.
And he asks, Are all these yoga processes important? Or is one particular process most important? And instead of directly answering the question, Krishna, he focusses on giving the background by which that answer will naturally emerge. So if we say bhakti yoga is the best way, why? You are followers of bhakti, that’s why you think bhakti, you claim bhakti is the best. Now Krishna is going to describe here how he himself gave this knowledge and how the various processes emerged.
And then from that analysis, the paramount, the supremacy of bhakti will emerge. In the Bhagavad Gita, prior to when Krishna says there he is talking about, in the 3.36-43, he is talking about how selfish desire, kama, deludes all living beings and how we need buddhi, we need intelligence to raise ourselves to the spiritual platform. So in 3.43, Krishna tells Arjuna that with intelligence, situate yourself in the spiritual platform.
And naturally the question will come, where does this intelligence come from? It comes from knowledge. Prabhupada explains in the 10th chapter of the Bhagavad Gita purport that knowledge means to see things as they are, and intelligence means to see things in proper perspective. So to see a thing as it is, that is knowledge.
But intelligence means to see things in interrelation with other things. And this difference is seen again in the Bhagavad Gita in 18.20-22, Krishna talks about knowledge in the three modes. And 18.30-32, he talks about intelligence in the three modes.
So, knowledge basically refers to the jnana indriyas, how we take the world in. So, intelligence refers to how we interact with the world. So, there we have two modes of interaction with the world, to the jnana indriyas we take in knowledge, through the knowledge acquiring senses we take in information, through the karma indriyas to the action applying senses, we act.
So, intelligence, if we see what Krishna talks about in 18.30-32, he is talking about how we act in the world. So, how we perceive and how we act are related, of course, but there is a different thrust. So, essentially Krishna says, okay, if you have to act with sense control, for that you need knowledge.
And that knowledge, Krishna says, I have provided long ago. I provided it to the sun god, that which I had given to the sun god, which was lost, now I will speak to you, because you are my devotee. So, the purpose of the Lord in giving spiritual knowledge is to free us from illusion and to elevate us towards the supreme liberation.
And here also, Krishna, he gives the antecedents. There Krishna is talking about how within the course of one creation of Brahma itself, the knowledge has got lost. Here Krishna is talking about after one creation gets over and when the next creation begins, then in the intermediate period also the knowledge is lost and he gives the knowledge back.
So, that is why pralaya, it is lost at pralaya, at destruction, but then it comes back again. So, broadly this purpose of spiritual knowledge is to guide us in our living. If, say, somebody sends us a gift and it is a very complicated machine that has come.
It has all the, it has the battery, it has the power cord, it has everything for its maintenance and its operation, but there is no manual. Then we may wonder, you know, who sent this gift? If a person would be careful enough, cautious enough to send us a gift, it is reasonable to consider that they may also send what the machine is to be meant for. So, if we look at the world around us, it is immensely complicated and whatever we need for living is provided here.
We see that we need food, we need water, we need air, we need light and all these things are there in nature already. And Prabhupada explains in a purport that there are different living beings and they all have different food items that they eat. And all the living beings, whatever food items they need, they are provided for in nature.
So, this is an amazing arrangement. How has this come about? Some scientists say that it is actually, then you call it something called anthropic principle. They say, you know, if it had not been there, then those living beings would not be alive.
So, therefore, only because the living beings are alive, we are asking this question, how is it there? But that is simply an observation of consequence. That is not an explanation of cause. Yeah, the food would not be there, the living beings would not be alive, but still the question remains, where did the food come from? So, where did the arrangements come from? So, basically point I am making is that the needs for living are provided for.
So, then would just like a manual, just like a device with its power cords and batteries provided, given, then would not the manual for living be provided? If the needs for living are provided, would not the knowledge for why to live be provided? That knowledge is the revelation coming from the Lord. So, that is why here Krishna is saying that when the creation comes, at that time manifest this knowledge. This is co-eternal with creation.
So, actually it is eternal, but whenever creation manifests, at that time this knowledge becomes manifest to guide living beings through their journey in life. Now, the Bhagavatam also explains that in the beginning everybody was in the mode of goodness and that is why they could understand the knowledge straightforward. But as people’s modes became more complex, there is a combination of lower and higher modes, then, because not all people are at the same level, the same path was not equally appealing.
So, therefore, the same path was diversified and thus for people who are at different levels of consciousness, different paths were recommended, so that they can at least make gradual elevation. However, what was meant to act in cooperation eventually started acting in competition. That means that there are various processes and they are meant to cooperatively help the soul to rise from one level of consciousness to another, to another, to another.
But the nature of the human mind is that it wants to believe that whatever I am doing is the best. So, proponents of different paths, they started claiming that their path was not just one progression in the ladder of Vedic elevation, rather it was itself the supreme. In the Vedanta Sutra, there are sections where the author Bhadra and Vyasa, he actually refutes Sankhya, he refutes Yoga, he refutes Mimamsa.
Now, Valdividya Bhushan in his Govindabhashya commentary analyses there that Yoga is actually a path given by the Supreme Lord. So, Yoga is a part of our tradition, Sankhya, Ashtanga, Sankhya or the six systems of philosophy, they are all parts of our tradition. So, why is it that they are being refuted over here? So, he says that by the Supreme Lord’s arrangement, even the great sages sometimes get deluded and therefore, instead of proclaiming the supremacy of Bhakti, they proclaim that their own paths are supreme.
And we respect the greatness of those sages, but we don’t accept these particular teachings of theirs. And then he goes on further and he also refutes Yoga, he also refutes Sankhya, he also refutes Mimamsa. Now, when we say he refutes, that doesn’t mean he proves that they are false.
Sankhya is a frame of analysis, Yoga is a frame of looking at the world, they are valid. But what is refuted is the idea that they are the path, they are the best path to the highest destination. In life, we all need two things, Sadhan and Sadhya.
Sadhan is the means and Sadhya is the goal. Whatever we do, if we want to travel, then okay, where do I want to go and how am I going to go? Oh, okay, I want to go to Jacksonville. Should I go by car or should I ask for a ride or should I look for a bus? What should I do? So, there is Sadhan and Sadhya.
So, Chaitanya Mahaprabhu cautions that if you just get too caught in scriptures, and there are so many scriptures with so many teachings, that what is the means and what is the end, that can, we can get bewildered about that. So, for people, say for somebody in the mode of ignorance, for them to rise slightly upwards, there is the Puranas which talk about worship of particular Devatas. But when the followers of those Devatas started claiming that their Devata is supreme, then that which was meant to be cooperative in the Vedic master plan for elevation, that instead of being cooperative, became competitive.
And when this happened, that is the illusion. So, Nashta, Kalena Nashta. So, the same knowledge which is meant for helping us rise, if it claims to be the highest, then it becomes a deviation from the path.
And Krishna, after telling how these paths are meant for gradual elevation, then he will say that how? When they are thought of as independent paths to spiritual realisation, they cause illusion. So, he will illustrate, he will emphasise that Bhakti is the highest. So, broadly speaking, if you consider a human being, we have three broad faculties, the hands, the head and the heart.
So, when we work with the hands, primarily, that is Karma Yoga. We are always working, but when we work with the hands, work physically for some higher purpose. So, we work with detachment.
So, when we work with the hands, that is Karma Yoga, primarily. When we work with the head, that is Jnana Yoga. Analyse, this is not this, this is not this.
See, basically, analysis means that we observe reality, whatever is there we observe, and then we filter reality. Analysis means we observe, we process, we filter. This is not important for me, this is not important for me, this is not important for me.
And this is what I want to focus on. So, when doctors analyse symptoms, this symptom is present, but this symptom is not present. So, it cannot be this disease, it cannot be this disease, it cannot be this disease.
So, that way, by analysis, they reject options and then they come to conclusion, this is your disease. That is how, actually, when doctors diagnose a disease, it is a process of inference through rejection, primarily. And now, that is the process of Jnanis, Naiti.
This is not the reality, this is not the reality, this is not the reality. Then, what is the supreme reality? So, by negation of the material, they try to achieve the transcendent. Now, the innermost faculty for us, the driving faculty is the heart.
And the heart longs for love. The path of the heart is Bhakti Yoga. Now, Bhakti Yoga is not just the path of the heart.
Actually, Bhakti Yoga is the path of the heart which uses the head and the hands. Where the heart is, that is where our head will go, that is where our hands will go. Now, whatever we are devoted to, that is what we will use all our faculties for.
So, the deepest core of our being is our heart. Now, when you talk about heart, we are not talking about emotions which come and go. Specific emotions we sometimes feel and they are infatuations.
Sometimes, specific aversions we may feel. But beyond the specific emotions we feel is our emotionality. Not emotionality in the sense of being very emotional sentimental.
Emotionality in the sense of our faculty to feel, our faculty to experience emotions which comes from our consciousness. So, Bhakti Yoga is the path of the heart. It actually goes to our innermost core.
And from that, addressing the power of our innermost core, our power to desire, our power to love, it directs us to the highest reality. So, Jiva Goswami in his Andharvas describes that there are different manifestations of the absolute. So, there is Brahman, Paramatma and Bhagawan.
So, he says, Brahman manifestation means that we perceive of the absolute truth without any attributes, neither material attributes nor spiritual attributes. We see simply as existence. So, for example, say now I am looking at you, you are looking at me.
So, now when we are looking at each other, there are three things involved. So, if you are looking at me, you are the subject of consciousness. I am the object of consciousness.
And in between is the stream of consciousness that connects us to. So, whenever perception happens, there is the object of consciousness which is seen, there is the subject of consciousness which is the seer. Bhaktivinoda Thakur writes essay about this principle of the seer and the seen.
So, now the point is that the impersonalists hold that both the object and the subject of consciousness are illusion. They say only the stream of consciousness exists. So, neither you exist nor I exist.
Only the stream of consciousness exists. And Krishna, right in the start of the Bhagavad Gita, he actually counters this notion. The first word that he speaks is a counter of monism.
He says, nathve vaham jatunasam nathvam neme janadhipanachaivana bhavishyama sarvevaya matahaparam Neither you nor I nor any of these kings will ever cease to exist. So, personality is an irreducible reality as Krishna describes it. But the point I am making is that that Yuga Swami considers Brahman to be the only reality.
Or Yuga Swami considers, says that the impersonalists consider Brahman to be the only reality and so they conceal the absolute without any potencies. There is no potency at all. So, beyond that, there are the, there are the, these are the jnanis and there are the yogis.
So, yogis basically integrate the head and the hands and they try to reach towards the heart. They perform physical austerity, their head and they try to analyse, meditate and try to find out who is there in the heart. So, they are, they are a little higher than the karmis and the jnanis, but they are not yet at the level of bhakti.
So, what the yogis do is, they perceive the Supreme Lord with material potencies. That means there is a Supreme Being who controls this world. So, the Supreme Being has potencies, but only material potencies.
The bhaktas perceive the Supreme Lord with material and spiritual potencies. Yes, he is controlling this world, but that is not the only thing that he is doing. He has his own self-existence where he has a delightful life of love.
If the Supreme Lord were simply a judge who is rewarding the pious and punishing the impious, actually to be God would be very boring. You know, being a judge is not a very enjoyable profession. So, if God, all he had to do was to be a judge for the rest of eternity, a human judge would be better because he gets a break.
A divine judge gets no break. So, yes, there is a manifestation of God who does that, but that is not God’s original self-existence. So, the bhaktas understand that controlling the world is not the primary function of God.
He has his own self-existence where he delights in eternal pastimes of love. So, the bhaktas conceive of the Absolute as having both material potencies in the sense that he is not material, but the material world is his potency. He controls the material world also through his potencies.
And he also has spiritual potencies. The material potency, we can say, is the three modes of material nature. Sattva, guna, rajoguna, tamoguna.
Sometimes Prabhupada uses the word three modes of spiritual nature to refer to samvid, sandhini and ladhini shaktis. So, this is the complete understanding of the Absolute Truth. So, I said till now what I talked about is that if you want to go on a journey, we need to know the sadhya and sadhana.
Where do I want to go and how do I want to go it? So, then I explained how bhakti is the best sadhana because it addresses our core, not just the hands or the head, but the heart. And Krishna is the supreme sadhya because he is the Absolute with both material and spiritual potencies. Now, depending on people’s conceptions, their relative emphasis, their relative understanding of the Absolute Truth, they may perceive the Absolute Truth differently and they may pursue that conception.
So, that’s a path for limited elevation for them. So, jnanis also get elevated by their path, yogis also get elevated by their path, but it’s a limited elevation. It doesn’t lead to complete perfection.
So, when a path that leads to partial elevation is claimed to be the supreme, that is where the misdirection happens. That is how the knowledge gets lost. And this is something which keeps happening.
It’s interesting that Krishna, in the same Bhagavad Gita where he says, by the power of time, the spiritual knowledge is lost. Krishna also says, Time I am. So, he is the giver of spiritual knowledge when he comes himself or he sends his representatives.
And through the power of time, it is he who also causes that knowledge to go. Now, it is not he who is causing it. There are primary causes, there are secondary causes, and there are tertiary causes.
So, when the sun is giving light, but somewhere there is a shadow, because the sun is the ultimate cause, but the sun is not causing the shadow. It’s somebody who is turned away from the sun and is standing. That person causes the shadow.
So, like that, it is people who get deviated, people who misunderstand and misapply. I talked about Gyanendriya and Karmendriya, about knowledge and intelligence. So, people who either misunderstand the truth or misapply the truth, either of them, they cause the deviation to happen.
They cause that knowledge to get off track. Now, Prabhupada was very concerned that when he gave this knowledge, it should be preserved as it is. Because he knew that the nature of material nature is to cause deterioration of things.
Now, it’s interesting that when Shri Prabhupada said, I kept this knowledge as it is. I gave what my spiritual master taught me as it is. Now, if we look at Shri Prabhupada’s teaching style, and Shri Prabhupada’s writing style, Bhakti Sankhya Thakur’s writing style, a significant amount of difference.
Many of the magazines that Prabhupada wrote, the early B.T.G. magazine, 1944, before that, at that time when he wrote magazines, he uses quite high English. But in most of his books, he used simple English. Because that is a mode of presentation.
The essential message was the same, but what was required for the audience, Prabhupada did that accordingly. So, keeping things as it is, means essentially that the effect is as it is. Sometimes people ask, okay, there are so many, through so many people, this message has gone.
So, there’s a tradition. How do you know that throughout the tradition, the message has been transmitted as it is? What is the proof of that? Yes, now we can try to do a historical analysis, to try to check, okay, this person, this person, this acharya is connected to this acharya, this acharya is connected to this acharya. And we can try to explain that.
But the more important thing is, if we consider spiritual knowledge to be like a curative medicine, then what we can see is that, okay, if this medicine was given to person E, and the person, he had severe fever, and the fever went off. And then from A, it was passed on to B, to C, to D, to E, and like that it has come to Z. Now, how do we know that somebody has not slipped in a counterfeit medicine in between? If we want to go and check all the people, check their pockets, check what they do, maybe have a video to see whether they are passing it properly or not. It’s a very messy process.
But if Z takes the medicine, and Z gets cured the same way as A was cured, then we understand that it has been passed on. So, the essence of whether the message is being transmitted or not, whether the medicine has been transmitted or not is, if the desired result is coming out or not, if people, if the desired result is coming, then the message is as it is. Similarly, when we say that Bhagavad Gita is as it is, Prabhupada says it is Bhagavad Gita as it is.
So, how do we know that? We look at what happened to Arjuna at the end of the Bhagavad Gita. Arjuna, we can see there are two ways. What is Arjuna’s understanding and what is Arjuna’s action? Again, knowledge and intelligence.
So, Arjuna’s understanding, he tells at the end of the Chatushloki Gita. He says that, So, he says, you are the Supreme Lord. So, Arjuna understands that Krishna is the Sadya.
That is 10.12, 13. And then at the end of the Bhagavad Gita, in 18.73 Krishna says that, Arjuna says, Now, Arjuna is not saying, I will fight. Fighting is one specific activity.
Arjuna’s understanding is, I am a devotee of Krishna. I want to practise Bhakti. And Bhakti means harmonising human will with divine will.
So, Arjuna understands that the Sadya is Krishna and the Sadhana is Bhakti. Now, we can see Shri Prabhupada travelled all over the world, taught millions of people. And what was their understanding? They had various different conceptions of Sadya and Sadhana.
But they gave it all up. And they accepted Krishna as the Supreme Sadya and Bhakti as the Supreme Sadya. And this way, the same effect, like the first person A was cured and person Z was cured.
So, same result that was there in Arjuna, we see that by Shri Prabhupada when he taught the Bhagavad Gita. And similarly now, when we have the responsibility of sharing Shri Prabhupada’s message. We have to see whether the result is coming out.
The specific process, how exactly that result is brought about, that may vary. Prabhupada writes, speaks in one lecture that I practically invented this Krishna consciousness movement. On one level he says, I just give everything as it is.
On the other he says, I practically invented it. Invented means, Prabhupada explains. He takes this in a Nectar of Devotion lecture.
He says that, actually, he says, Rupa Goswami says, Somehow or the other, fix the mind on Krishna. And he says, Prabhupada says, it is the spiritual master’s responsibility to invent ways and means to help the disciple fix the mind on Krishna. So, what Prabhupada invented is not the Sadya, he did not invent Krishna.
He did not invent Bhakti. That is what is given in scripture. But how exactly people can practise Bhakti today? How exactly they can fix their mind on Krishna? That is something which Prabhupada was very creative.
So, book distribution was a way in which he channelled the passionate energy. Ratha Yatra was a brilliant idea. The hippies like to dance on streets.
They like to do outrageous things. And what could be more outrageous than dancing on streets? If you dance on streets, you will get in trouble with the police. But here Prabhupada developed Ratha Yatra and they danced on the streets and the police were escorting them.
So, Prabhupada took an ancient festival which was there in Jagannath Puri and Prabhupada adapted it. The adaptation was that instead of having it on the same day as it was in Puri, Prabhupada had it on different days depending on what was accessible for people. So, the principle remained the same but the way it was executed changed.
So, deviation can happen in two ways. Basically, there is a tradition and there is a situation, contemporary situation. So, the spiritual message has to be connected with the tradition and has to be connected with the contemporary situation.
If it is not connected with the tradition, then there is no potency. If it is not connected with the situation, it has no relevance. So, both are required.
If Vedic scriptures are in Sanskrit, if Prabhupada had come to America and spoken in Sanskrit, he may speak in perfect Sanskrit. There is perfect connection with the tradition but there is no connection with the audience and there is no effect. So, presenting the message effectively means that there has to be both the connection with the tradition and connection with the audience.
So, if in trying to connect with the audience, we just bend too much backwards, we adjust, we adapt too many things, then there is a disconnection with the tradition. And then that is where if there is excessive flexibility, we just start changing core things. You need not worship Krishna, you can worship this God, you can worship that God, that is also okay.
That God is supreme, we should not say that. So, if there is too much adaptation to the situation, then we have, the excess of flexibility comes at the cost of fidelity. Fidelity is connection with the tradition.
So, that way deviation can happen. But deviation can happen in another way also. If there is excess of fidelity and lack of flexibility, then we may be connected with the tradition but we are not connected with the situation, we are not connected with the audience at all.
And then also what may happen is that we may not have any effect on people. So, faithfulness to the tradition also includes faithfulness to the flexibility of the tradition. The tradition itself has an aspect of flexibility.
So, now what comes from the tradition is unchanging but the situation in which we are presented, that is changing. And therefore, the mode of presentation, the appropriate way that needs to be adapted according to time, place, circumstance. Srila Prabhupada himself was quite flexible.
I will conclude with two points that about the flexibility of Srila Prabhupada and the fidelity of Srila Prabhupada. That when Srila Prabhupada was in America, most of the people here were at that time in the counter culture who were more or less rejecting mainstream culture. So, the movement that started in America was primarily a temple based movement.
People would just reject the world and come to the temple and consider the whole world to be maya and live in the temple. And that was what becoming a devotee meant. But when Prabhupada went to India, at that time in India, most of the people were pious Hindus and they had no interest in leaving their home and coming to the temples.
When that kind of rejecting the world, rejecting everything, that kind of presentation was made, it did not hold much relevance to them. So, Prabhupada created, he cast a very wide net we could say. He created something called a life membership programme where the only thing that they do is they give some contribution and they get Prabhupada’s books and they will facilitate to come and stay in the temple.
So, what is the purpose of this? At least have some connection with Krishna and within that connection, gradually progression can take place. And now we see after many years, in the 1970s and even 1980s, our movement was not very strong in India. But now, India has become like the powerhouse of our movement.
So, situations change. So, from now on, thousands and thousands of people, I went to one person’s, one to person meet and people write their certificates, LLB, this, that, and yet put in the certificate nameplate, ISKCON life member. So, he is proud of that identification.
So, there’s some connection with Krishna and gradually they become elevated. So, Prabhupada himself was, he wanted the life members to become devotees, but he was satisfied, at least that connection is there. So, Prabhupada, we did Harinam Sankirtan in all over the world.
But when the devotees started doing Harinam Sankirtan in India, especially in Bengal, so people started throwing coins at them. Because at that time, Vaishnavism was considered a beggar’s profession. So, people who could not do anything, they would do Kirtans and people will give them some money.
So, Prabhupada told them, don’t do Kirtans over here. Not permanently, but we don’t want to be lumped with these people. So, Prabhupada was sensitive to the audience and accordingly he presented them.
So, similarly for us, we need to make sure that there is a connection with the tradition and connection with the contemporary situation. There is fidelity which connects us with the tradition, there is flexibility which connects us with the audience. If either is missing, then both ways deviation can happen.
We can bend too much towards the situation or we can bend too much towards the tradition and become disconnected from the situation. If you bend too much towards the contemporary situation, then we just become a part of the contemporary landscape. There’s nothing about the tradition left.
If you bend too much towards the tradition, then the tradition becomes a museum exhibit. There’s nobody practising it. It’s not relevant to people.
But what the tradition essentially is, it’s not meant to be a museum, it is not meant to be a fossil, it is meant to be a garden where souls are to be cultivated, souls are to be harvested. And depending on what the atmospheric condition is, the same seed is brought, but sometimes different kinds of water are required. Sometimes different kinds of manure is required.
But the purpose is let the seed blossom. So by having this as it is means the followers should come as it is. The people should understand that Krishna is God and bhakti is the means to him.
If they understand this and pursue this, then this purpose of Krishna in giving the spiritual knowledge in ensuring that the Vedic message, the purpose is fulfilled, that we will also be able to play our small part in carrying on this glorious legacy which Prabhupada has given us. So I’ll summarise quickly. I spoke today about how Vedic knowledge originates and is disseminated.
So the principle of revelation is that if somebody gives us a device, they provide a manual. So like that the world is provided with our needs. So will God not provide us a knowledge of what is the purpose for living in this world? And that knowledge comes through the scriptures.
So when people are of one level of consciousness, one knowledge is given. People and goodness, knowledge of transcendence of bhakti is given. People of different levels, then knowledge is customised to help them make limited spiritual advancement from their level to one step up.
But when these intermediate processes are considered to be ultimate, then instead of cooperation, there is competition. And then that is how deviation happens. So that has to be rejected.
And then how do we know that bhakti is the highest path? We discussed how bhakti addresses our innermost faculty. Karma addresses the hands, jnana addresses the head, bhakti addresses the heart. And how do we know bhakti for Bhagwan is the highest? That bhakti is the sadhana and Bhagwan is the sadhya.
This is about how the jnanis conceive of the absolute without any attribute, just consciousness without any object or subject. So there is no attribute at all. The yogis who have a blend of the head and the hands, they conceive of the absolute with material potencies.
He’s controlling this world. Whereas the bhaktas conceive of the absolute with material and spiritual potencies. He’s not just a judge.
He has a joyful self-existence with his personal associates and his personal potencies. And we want to attain that absolute. So how do we know that Bhagavad Gita is as it is? How do we know that a medicine is as it is? Whether the effect it had on the original patient does it have it on the later patient? So similarly, whatever the effect on Arjuna, is it there on the followers of Shri Prabhupada? Arjuna accepted Krishna as sadhya and bhakti as sadhana.
And millions of people following Shri Prabhupada had accepted that. And as the followers of Shri Prabhupada, when we present bhakti, we also need to check whether we are having this result in people of helping them understand Krishna as sadhya and bhakti as sadhana. Prabhupada gave the message as it is and yet he invented the Krishna consciousness movement.
That means he gave the knowledge of sadhana and sadhya, but how to fix the mind on sadhya, he did many adaptations for that purpose. So we too need to be connected with the tradition, that is our fidelity, and we need to connect to the contemporary situation, that is our flexibility. Then the message will have its effect.
So if we connect too much with the situation, then there is deviation because we just become a part of the contemporary landscape. If we connect only with the tradition, then we become a museum piece. But when we are connected with both, then it’s like a potent medicine that cures the patient.
The message goes into the hearts of people and their bhaktilata, their creeper of devotion blossoms. And thus the living tradition is a garden filled with fruits of love of Krishna, which Lord Chaitanya Mahaprabhu wanted to disseminate. Thank you very much.
Hare Krishna. Yes, Maharaj. Well, thank you so much.
It’s the second time I’ve heard your question, and I’m happy to answer it at any time. I’ll try to give a brief two points that occurred to me. You emphasised that bhakti is the sadhana and Krishna is the sadhya.
But we also hear that bhakti is not just a means but also the goal. In other words, there’s bodhi lifestyles. It would seem we don’t want Krishna.
We want to love Krishna. We want to exchange with Krishna. Yeah.
It’s more, I think the first point can be clarified. And the second one, but you just help me suggest, I’d rather have an authentic museum that maybe once in a while someone would venture to visit. Yeah.
And have something that’s big, popular, and so relevant, but it’s disconnected. So I wouldn’t put it like it’s 50-50. I would say sometimes probably.
So we’re not looking for bhakti life. Yeah, that’s true. You would say, what’s the use of so many stars? Better one moon.
So I’m not saying we should be exclusive or exclude Krishna. But at the same time, if we have to give up one thing or the other, I hope we don’t. But if we did, I’d rather give up the popularity than give up the authenticity.
Yes. So is bhakti the sadhya or is it for us a sadhana also? Yes, it is. It is because when we go to the spiritual world, there also we love Krishna.
So in a sense, even Krishna is not just a sadhya. He’s also a sadhana. Krishna is our destination, but he’s also our companion.
He’s present in our hearts right now also, but we’re not realising his presence. So there is bhakti yoga as a sadhana that we do. By practising bhakti yoga, we become purified.
And when we become purified, then we love Krishna and we practise bhakti out of natural affection. So bhakti is a sadhana in the sense that right now, it is a means for raising our consciousness upwards. But sadhana does not mean, it is not in the sense that, okay, after I reach the destination, I don’t need this vehicle.
No, there what changes is not the process, but the purpose or the reason, the motivating factor. Right now, we practise bhakti for our purification, but there we practise bhakti simply out of love. Jiva Goswami says that sadhakas, they practise bhakti because of their buddhi.
The siddhas practise bhakti because of their priti. So in that sense, the process does not change. So it is not a dispensable vehicle.
The vehicle is what we eternally use, but the purpose why we are using it changes. And it is better to have an authentic museum than just a hodgepodge, which is not connected with the tradition. Yes, that is definitely true.
So we will see that the adjustments have to be very well thought out, very cautiously done, and we have to constantly see the effect. The adjustments will have to be minimal. I definitely did not imply that 50% flexibility and 50% fidelity.
That was not the point. My point was simply that flexibility is also required. For example, in some aspects, flexibility is very easy to understand.
If you go to a country where, say, Spanish is spoken, then we cannot speak in English over there. Somebody has to translate. So with respect to language, there has to be flexibility.
Similarly, with respect to, say, food, certain foods may be more easily available, there are certain foods that may not be available. So there is a conversation in the book Hare Krishna Explosion between Allen Ginsberg and Srila Prabhupada. And there, Allen Ginsberg says that Krishna conscious movement will not spread because it is too sectarian.
Prabhupada said, oh, it is universal. So what is sectarian? So he talks about three things. Your language, your food, and your dress.
So Prabhupada is quite liberal about it. He says, you know, language. Prabhupada even goes to the extent that you do not even have to chant Krishna’s name.
You can chant names in any tradition, according to your tradition. Then he says, dress, that is not essential. It is preferable, but it is not essential.
As for food, any food you can offer to Krishna. So in the name of flexibility, we cannot change the purpose. The purpose has to be the same.
But certain things which put off people, they may have to be adjusted. So now here, with respect to flexibility, one dicey point comes is, in the culture, there are certain aspects which can put off some people. So then how do we deal with those aspects? We have to give the medicine.
But we have to give the medicine in a way that people feel inspired to take the medicine. I was like a nurse. One time I was very sick.
So I had almost like 25, 23, 25 blood samples had been taken from my hand. So then when the nurse came and she wanted to take a blood sample, there was practically no place to take the blood sample from. And he spent almost 10 minutes to find out a place where painlessly the pin could be inserted.
The needle could be inserted. And she would have said, I do not care. My goal is to put the pin.
So but that would have caused a lot of pain. So she was concerned about that. So now obviously the pin prick, because of the injection, is going to be there.
But that pain can be minimised. So if I have already got some sore spots on my skin, then I have to be careful. Then the needle has to be inserted more carefully.
So like that, depending on the time, place, circumstance, different people have different cultural sore spots. So if certain thing, if by our presentation of bhakti, if we put the needle at a place where there is already a sore spot, the person may just, it is too painful. I do not want to do this.
So let me just, I do not want to take this injection. So we have to be cautious about that. So yeah, so I will say that we have to be, if people have sore spots, we have to, we still have to give the injection.
But we have to give it in a way that does not alienate the people. That does not make them go away. So then you have to give the medicine.
But along with the medicine, a surgeon also gives, we often use the example, the sadhus’ words are meant to cut, cut illusions. Yes, a surgery has to be done. But a surgery also is accompanied with anaesthesia.
So we have to create that culture of confidence, as people feel that there are well-wishers. And then, whatever misconceptions we want to uproot, then we can uproot them. So we have to challenge their conceptions.
We have to do it as painlessly as possible. Thank you. Yeah, that’s a very valid point.
Thank you. So we’ll end the class here. If there are any further questions, we can have a discussion.
Those of you who want to leave, you can leave. Yes. Okay.
So if we give a book and somebody doesn’t take it, does that mean we are not presented properly? Not, it’s possible, but it’s not necessary. Prabhupada himself was preaching for so many years in India, and not many people took up. That is not the defect of Shri Prabhupada.
He’s a pure devotee. Sometimes people may just not be ready. So basically, we try to present as attractively as possible, so that they will want to take it.
So if people are not provided the option, then that is our problem. If people don’t take the option, that is their problem. We try to present as attractively as possible, but sometimes even with the best attractive presentation, sometimes people may not take up.
That’s their free will. That’s their level of consciousness. And we can’t ascribe all failure of preaching to the preacher.
The preacher should always be introspective and see what can I do better. But sometimes even with the best preacher, it may be that the audience is not ready. If the audience is not ready, the effect will not be there.
So it is always a cooperative endeavour. The audience also has to be interested. Prabhupada gives a simple example for this.
And he says we can push people. That say, sometimes if a car is not starting, in India it happens, if a car doesn’t start, people come along and they push the car till the car’s engine picks up. And then the car moves on.
Now, internally the person is trying to move the steering wheel, press the gas and move the car. And externally people are pushing. But suppose internally the person is pressing the brake or internally the person has gone to sleep.
Then people will say, why should I keep pushing? No, why should I keep pushing? Better let me go somewhere else and ask someone else. So like that, we can push people to some extent. But in turn, they have to start the car.
They also want to need to move. So our pushing will have no effect if they do. And they have no desire to move at all.
That’s why we can try to learn better ways of presenting the books. But we should ascribe all failure to not distribute a book to the preacher itself, to the distributor itself. Does that answer your question? Yeah, it’s just sometimes, you know, there’s so many ways you can present the book sometimes.
You listen to them, you see where they’re at. And then you say something, somebody says a book about warfare, you know, not telling them exactly and indirectly sometimes. And then they take the book and then they go outside.
Wait a second, this is not a book I have in mind. So sometimes the point is to tell them, they can give the book, giving the book is more important, how much you can teach them what’s the value of the book. But then there has to be a balance where you want them to have interest in the book.
Yeah, that’s a challenge. So sometimes we don’t present a book properly. We say this book was yoga and it turns out to be not on yoga.
Then they get alienated. So we have to see what is the important thing. Sometimes giving the book is important.
Sometimes the overall cultural perception is important. So if more and more people start feeling that we misrepresent the book and basically take the money from them, their money from them, then that may create a negative environment. So it is best that we present the book as authentically as possible, but as appealingly as possible also.
That means if there are 50 things in the book, we may present the one or two things which they can relate with. But we don’t tell that those one or two things are the only things or we don’t tell the 51st thing that is not present in the book. So if you could find an intersection between what the book contains and what interests the audience, then that is the best.
But just somehow or the other trying to hand out a book, which later makes people misunderstand what we are doing or they make us think that we are just, we are not honest people. And that can create a lot of negative perception. So, and that can alienate people.
In the long run, it will be counterproductive. So we have to, Krishna says, don’t disturb the minds of ignorant people. So people may not appreciate the content of the book, but they will see our conduct.
And if they feel that our conduct is deceptive, then they will be alienated not just from us particularly, but in future to explore the content of the book also they may get alienated. So we don’t want to win the battle and lose the war. We want to win the battle as a part of winning the war.
So winning the war is getting the soul to Krishna. Winning the battle is giving the soul a book. So both need to work harmoniously.
Thank you very much. Yes, go ahead.