Understanding Mayavada and dealing with Mayavadis: learning from Mahaprabhu?

Podcast:

Disclaimer: This transcript was generated using AI and may contain occasional errors or inaccuracies.

Summary

Understanding different philosophical perspectives is crucial for effective spiritual dialogue and preaching. This blog explores the nuances of Mayavada philosophy and how Chaitanya Mahaprabhu’s approach offers timeless lessons for modern outreach.

Key Insights from the Transcript

• The Philosophical Contrast: While Brahmavadis prefer the impersonal Brahman aspect as a matter of personal focus, Mayavadis claim that Brahman is the only reality, dismissing the personal form of the Lord (Bhagavan) as a useful illusion or temporary fiction.

• Mahaprabhu’s Relational Brilliance: When confronting Mayavadi sannyasis in Varanasi, Chaitanya Mahaprabhu did not lead with direct condemnation; instead, he demonstrated profound humility, found points of common ground, and charmed them through his behavior before engaging in deep Vedanta philosophy.

• Balancing Mass and Class Outreach: Effective spiritual movements require both mass outreach (such as public kirtans that inspire the general public) and class outreach (establishing a solid philosophical and cultural foundation with thoughtful leaders and intellectuals).

• The Danger of Dismissive Preaching: A common public perception labels devotees as impractical sentimentalists; overcoming this requires presenting a balanced approach that pairs vibrant devotional practices with profound, rational philosophy.

• Building Bridges Before Correcting: Successful outreach requires meeting people where they are, building relational bridges based on shared values and commonalities, and allowing them to experience deeper spiritual fulfillment rather than aggressively attacking their existing misconceptions.

Full Transcription

Purport Foolish mayavadis, not knowing that the Krishna consciousness movement is based on a solid philosophy of transcendental science, superficially conclude that those who dance and chant do not have philosophical knowledge.
Those who are Krishna conscious actually have full knowledge of the essence of Vedanta philosophy. They study the real commentary in the Vedanta philosophy and follow the actual words of the Supreme Personality of Godhead as found in Bhagavad Gita as it is. After understanding the Bhagavad philosophy and Bhagavad Dharma, they become fully spiritually conscious or Krishna conscious.
Therefore, their chanting and dancing is not material but is on the spiritual platform. Although everyone admires the ecstatic chanting and dancing of the devotees who are therefore popularly known as the Hare Krishna people, mayavadis cannot appreciate these activities because of their poor kind of knowledge. So I will just be using this tablet as a writing pad to draw and explain some things.
Thank you so much. Thank you. I took the next one.
That’s nice. That’s for me? Yes. How did you go to the next stage? Okay.
How did you go to the next stage? That’s what I’m trying to start doing. Okay. I just need to make the money and do it again.
Om Nithyanandeshwara Samaarambhaam Nithyanandeshwari Madhyamaam Hare Rama Hare Rama Rama Rama Hare Hare Hare Krishna Hare Krishna I’m grateful to be here with all of you today. Namasteetha Pranaam Hare Krishna And today, one of the key conceptual clashes that characterizes the historic upsurges of the Bhakti movement and that conceptual clash that goes on today, that is being depicted here. Chaitanya Mahaprabhu has come to Varanasi and while he is dancing with his associates performing ecstatic kirtans, the Mayavadi Sannyasis are deriding him.
They’re just a sentimentalist. Bhavukkahiya has become a sentimentalist. Bhavuke Rasaani.
He’s just spending time with other sentimentalists. So, I talk about this verse, so I talk about some three broad perspectives. First, the philosophical perspective.
What is going on over here? Then the historical perspective of how things have changed and yet not changed. And then lastly, from a practical perspective. Practical is a contemporary perspective today.
So, philosophically, the idea here is that those who are impersonalists, specifically the Mayavadis, they consider devotees to be less pretentious. Devotees to be sentimental. So, basically, from the time of Shankaracharya, who appeared around 7th century, Shankaracharya established that Brahman, or he tried to establish that Brahman is not just the supreme reality.
Brahman is the only reality. And Brahman Satya Jagan Nitya. Everything else is false.
But he himself soon recognized that for most people, the idea of meditating on an impersonal, quality-less, activity-less Brahman is actually extremely difficult. So, they started having the idea that you can practice bhakti. And you can worship a form of the Lord.
But you worship till you become enlightened enough to start focusing on the impersonal. So, they gave a subordinate status to the personal manifestation of the Lord. So, basically, the bhakti understanding is that there is one absence.
I don’t want it to be like this. So, the bhakti understanding is based on the Vedanta Sutra and the Bhagavatam is that there is one absolute truth and it has three different aspects. So, there is the Bhagavan aspect, there is the Paramatma aspect and there is the Brahman aspect.
And all these three are actually, they are non-different at one level. It is the same one reality, which is known differently based on different levels of realization. And of course, the highest level of realization is Bhagavan.
But it is not that Brahman is lower. It is just that when that absolute truth is known by one of its features, then it is called as Brahman. Say, for example, suppose there is some delicacy like gulab jamun after the story.
Now, when we get the first fragrance of the gulab jamun, then we still the gulab jamun and then we taste the gulab jamun. Now, even when we get the fragrance of the gulab jamun, it is still the gulab jamun. It is only that we are experiencing only one feature of the gulab jamun, that is its fragrance.
So, the absolute truth is one, but when we experience only one aspect of the absolute truth, that is, it is eternal, then that level of realization is called as Brahman. But when we see gulab jamun, we are not just smelling it, but also seeing it. So, then there is a greater experience of the gulab jamun.
So, similarly, when we understand that the absolute truth is not just having a personal aspect, it is not just eternal, but also has consciousness, then that is called as the Parmatma. So, the same absolute truth, when only its sat feature, its eternal feature is realized, that is Brahman. And the same absolute truth, its sat and chit features, both are realized, that is Parmatma.
That is like the same gulab jamun, but when we smell it and see it, that is the same gulab jamun, but experience is different. And when we see, smell and taste it, that is like the ultimate reality, we understand that it’s eternal, it’s conscious and it is reciprocal. That sat, chit and ananda is filled with joy and gives us joy through loving reciprocations.
So, that is Bhagwan. So, we understand it’s one absolute truth with three different features and each feature realized at a different level of realization. So, it is not that Brahman is lower and Bhagwan is higher.
It is Brahman and Bhagwan are the same thing, but Brahman is a lower level of realization. It is not that Brahman is lower. I hope the difference is clear.
Suppose, just to illustrate this point, say gulab jamun, if suppose when we smell gulab jamun, we never tasted it and we give a name for that object. So, we call it fragrance. And so, then the fragrance and the gulab jamun are the same thing.
But at that time, because we have only experienced the fragrance, we call it fragrance. But suppose we see the gulab jamun, then we call it a fragrance sphere. So, now it is still the same gulab jamun, but based on that experience, we have given it a name.
So, to put it another way, there is one absolute truth, but based on how much we realize it. So, if only the sat and sprit is realized, it is Brahman. If the sat and chit are realized, then it is Paramatma.
And sat, chit and ananda, all three are realized, then it is Bhagwan. Advayam means history and non-divine. So, now, philosophically, we have two categories of impersonals.
Which are the two categories, anyone remember the terms, Sanskrit? Two categories of impersonals, not to be developed. Brahmavadis and Mayavadis. So, Brahmavadis and Mayavadis are the difference between the two of them is that if we consider based on the level of realization, this is Brahman, this is Bhagwan.
So, the Brahmavadis prefer this. They do not deny or deride or falsify Bhagwan. They just say, we are attracted to the impersonal aspect.
Maybe the personal is there, maybe whatever the personal is, we are not attracted to it. So, this idea, it is only a matter of personal preference that this is non-offensive. And Krishna talks about this in 12.3 to 5 in the Bhagavad Gita.
And here he says, they will also attain me, they will attain me in the form of Brahman, in the manifestation of Brahman, but this process is Klesho-Dikta-Raskesha. It is a troublesome process. It is a gradual process.
But the Mayavadis are somewhat different. What they say is, Brahman is the only reality. And they say everything else is false.
And then they say that in the domain of falsity, there are various levels of falsity. So, this Brahman plus Sattva, when Brahman is covered by the mode of goodness, that manifests as Bhagwan. Brahman plus Rajas, there are different theories.
I am just saying one theory of Mayavadis, because Mayavadis say everything is one, but all Mayavadis are not one, because they have different opinions. So, there have been big conflicts even among Mayavadis. Brahman plus Rajas, they say is Jeeva.
When Brahman is covered by the mode of passion, then it becomes Jeeva. And when Brahman is covered by Tamas, it becomes matter, it becomes property. So, now their idea is even Bhagwan is Maya.
But they say this is helpful Maya or it is a useful fiction. The idea is that Jeeva has to merge with Brahman. That is the final destination.
But most Jeevas cannot directly dwell on the impersonal aspect. So, their idea is temporarily worship. So, if this is the Jeeva, this is Bhagwan.
So, this is the Jeeva can perform Bhakti temporarily till they realize. Now, they realize something. What they realize? Nowadays, the modern Mayavad, see Mayavad is a deviation from Vedic philosophy.
And modern Mayavad is even a deviation from Mayavad. Because modern Mayavadis often say that I am God. There is one Mayavadi teacher who came, he says, this is the age of egalitarianism.
So, in the past, there are many gurus who came and said that I am God. He says, I am not like that. I have not come to tell you I am God.
I have come to tell you, you are God. So, now when this idea is there, so they say you are God, but actually or I am God or you are God, but their ultimate understanding is I am an illusion and God is an illusion. So, the idea is that this is the ultimate reality Brahman and from that Brahman there is the Chhatakash and Patakash, the small sky and big sky.
This is Jeeva, this is Bhagwan. And when there is a relationship of Bhakti among the two, the result of this will be eventually the Jeeva will realize that I am false and Bhagwan is false. And all that exists is the stream of consciousness.
If this is false, then Bhakti is also false. Basically, what will happen is my sense of I-ness is illusion. God’s sense of I-ness is also an illusion and the ultimate reality is there is just the merging into the infinite existence of Brahman.
So, their idea is that this is required, Bhakti is required for, so generally if we consider, let’s put it another way, let’s understand their idea of liberation. So, normally when there is perception, there is a subject, say for example, I am looking at you. So, I am the subject and say you are the object.
So, you are looking at me, I am looking at you. So, the perceiver is the subject, the perceived is the object. And in between is the stream of consciousness.
So, their idea is that the subject is false, the object is false. And the only reality is the stream of consciousness. And that stream of consciousness is what we are meant to, we are meant to realize that we are.
And according to them, liberation means to realize both that I am an illusion, God is an illusion and the reality exists beyond both those illusions. So, sometimes Prabhupada would refer to Mayavada as atheistic. But they don’t say we are atheistic, they say we are transtheistic.
We are transcendental to atheism. Atheism is a preliminary thing, we go beyond the idea of God. So, now from that, why am I mentioning all this? Because what the Mayavadis say, so this Mayavad is considered offensive because they are saying that the form of the Lord is Maya.
And that is, that Lord’s form is the supreme object of devotion, the supreme shelter, to call that as Maya is offensive. And this particular, Krishna talks about 9, 11, 12. He also talks about 7, 24.
He talks about this. So, now from their perspective, if somebody is worshipping the Lord, somebody is practicing Bhakti, that means that they, that person is not evolved enough to realize that I am Brahman. Therefore, their idea is, your Bhakti is preliminary to Jnana.
That you practice Bhakti till you get the Jnana that you are one with Brahman. And then you go beyond Bhakti. That is their idea.
So, they consider, therefore, anybody who is still practicing Bhakti is, is at a preliminary level. You are not advanced enough to understand that you are spiritual leader, that you are that non-differentiated oneness that is Brahman. And therefore, they say those who are Bhaktas, they are less intelligent.
They have not yet realized the ultimate reality. Now, of course, this idea that Bhakti is for a lower level of spiritual realization, this itself is open to question. After Shankaracharya came up with his thesis, then Ravacharya right from the beginning has critiqued and subsequent Acharyas and Vaishyas have pointed out that this idea that there is a two-level reality, that there is what you call Brahman as the Paramarthi, the only reality, and everything else is illusory.
This itself is not mentioned in the scripture, this two-level categorization of scripture. But this is their idea. And this idea was very widespread.
And therefore, they consider Bhakti is for less intelligent people. And generally, their understanding is to function in the world, you have to see duality. This is wealth, this is poverty, this is comfort, this is discomfort.
So, their idea is actual spirituality begins with Sanyas. It is only when somebody has renounced the world, then one can start real spirituality. Before that, it is just like a practice run before that.
It is practicing for that purpose. And therefore, while common people may be practicing Bhakti, they say it is good for them. But a Sanyasi practicing Bhakti, that they find especially objectionable.
That people who are doing Kirtan over there, Bhajan over there, they didn’t mind that. But for a Sanyasi to do that, you are meant to be renounced. The very fact that you have taken Sanyas means you have gone beyond illusion, including the illusion that there is a rivalry between you and God.
And therefore, they say that if you as a Sanyasi are doing this, then you are a sentimentalist. So, basically, what the Mayavadis do is that they invert the hierarchy. They say Brahman is the highest and Bhagwan is not even lower.
It is illusory just till you go to the Brahman, to the Bhagwan. So, for them, Brahman is not just the highest reality, it is the only reality. And then Bhagwan is somewhere here.
So, like Bhagwan is a step on the ladder. So, Bhagwan is here, Jiva is here and Prakriti is here. The idea is that Jiva is attached to Prakriti.
So, this is detachment. And then to bring about this detachment, the Jiva can attach himself to Bhagwan. And that is Bhakti.
But Bhakti is like a stepping stone on the ladder. So, if you are here, you come up till here. Once you come up till here, then you go here.
And when you go here, just like when one visits the material world, one understands it’s maya. One understands that Jiva is maya. One understands that Bhagwan is maya.
And one alters into the oneness of them. So, now this idea, it does not have much philosophy and practically any scriptural basis. But it is a very appealing idea to be particularly to the intellectual mind.
Because sometimes the intellectual mind loves to analyze, loves to philosophize. And it likes to go beyond externals. This worship of a form that is external, you have to go beyond.
So, now with this, this is the philosophical understanding of what is going on over here. Now, next part of it is historically. Now, historically what happened is that initially the Mayavadis taught only pure Jnana.
But then they realized Jnana alone is not appealing to a large number of people. It’s very, very few who can just focus on all. The only thing to think is that there’s nothing to think.
The only thing to do is that there’s nothing to do. The only thing to desire is that there’s nothing to desire. So, that is very difficult, practically impossible, but very difficult for most people.
So, they said subsequently, so this one if you say we start in the 7th century, when, now of course Mayavad existed before that also, but Shankaracharya was the person who propagated it quite forcefully across the world. They said Jnana plus Bhakti. And Bhakti is temporarily done.
So, I put it bracket because it’s an illusion, which you ultimately have to give up. But then they found that Bhakti was becoming more and more widespread. Then they said, okay, Bhakti is for less intelligent people.
So, you practice it right now, but ultimately you will go bad. So, there is a common slogan among Mayavadi people, Chaitanyera patha, Shankarera matha. So, Chaitanyera patha means follow the path of Chaitanya Mahaprabhu.
That is chanting, dancing, singing, that’s very nice. It’s easy, it’s joyful, but Shankarera matha. The purpose is you ultimately get the realization of Shankaracharya.
That is, it will go beyond Bhakti, it will go beyond Bhagwan. You have to merge with Brahma. Now, this was quite an insidious idea.
So, Brahmavadi is, they are fine, their preference is okay. But here it is deriding, it is minimizing and therefore misleading. So, historically, as we move forward, there are two main things that happened.
One was that the Bhakti movement started spreading very widely and the Bhaktas started establishing how Bhakti is also grounded in great philosophy. But basically, the Advaitavad was like the benchmark of intellectual intellectuality. Just like in today’s world, science is the benchmark for most intelligent people.
So, as soon as we talk about the soul, as soon as we talk about God, people say like, is this scientific? Is there a scientific proof for this? So, just as science has a strong hold on people’s minds today, for nearly a millennia, Advaitavad had a strong hold on people’s mind. So, as soon as somebody will talk anything about philosophy, anything about Vedanta, you say, okay, but what about Advaitavad? Is this in harmony with Advaitavad? So, it was a very difficult challenge for the Vaishnava Acharyas to challenge, to counter it. And sometimes you may read Acharya’s commentary, you may read Prabhupada’s commentary, and then you think Prabhupada is so fixated on Mayavada, constantly refuting Mayavada, constantly refuting Mayavada.
The point is that Prabhupada is teaching a long tradition, where the tradition was constantly minimized and derided. Now, in that context, we’ll understand now Chaitanya Mahaprabhu’s strategy, how he deals with it. So, basically, when Chaitanya Mahaprabhu goes, this is a very poor map of India, but, anyway, Chaitanya Mahaprabhu is in, so somewhere here, this is Jagannath Puri.
So, Mahaprabhu went from here, from Varanasi, this is an extremely approximation, from Varanasi, he went to Vrindavan. So, initially, this happened, he went from Varanasi to Vrindavan, and the Mayavadis were criticizing him, he didn’t care for them. He just smiled and walked away from there.
He went to Vrindavan, Pahiya Mathura, he went to Mathura, and then he came back. And this time, when he came back to Varanasi, he went like this, and he came back over here. This is the time when he encountered the Mayavadis.
Now, generally, whenever we have to resolve a conflict, or we have to address somebody who has a misconception, if you just start by telling you are wrong, that raises the person’s defenses, and then they are not ready to listen to any argument. So, the way Mahaprabhu dealt with the Mayavadis, as we will discuss in subsequent verses, is very expert. So, the first thing, that finally an arrangement was made, there was a Maharashtrian Brahmana who invited the Mayavadis, and they invited Mahaprabhu also.
So, when Mahaprabhu went over there, first thing is, if this is our understanding, this is somebody else’s understanding. Now, that their understanding and our understanding are different, but if we want to have any kind of communication, communication that will lead to transformation, then we have to find some intersection point, something that we agree on. If there is nothing that two people can agree on, then there is no basis for a discussion.
If we start, say, arguing based on Shastra, and the other person doesn’t accept Shastra authority, then how can we have any discussion around it? If somebody starts talking based on science, and that person says, I don’t believe science. Okay. Unless there is some common foundation, there cannot be any discussion.
So, Mahaprabhu started that common foundation. When he came there, he offered his respects to Sanyasis, and then he sat down at the place where everyone would wash their feet. And what was Mahaprabhu doing over here? And then, because he was a Sanyasi, he had a purgence.
He also manifested the Brahman Purgence. So, the Sanyasis got attracted to him. And then, he said, why are you sitting there? Please come and sit with us.
He said, no, actually, I am from a lower Sampradaya. I am here a Sampradaya. So, now for us, we say, what is a Sampradaya? It’s like, somebody is a graduate from Cambridge, and somebody is a graduate from some other ordinary college.
Somebody who doesn’t know the caliber of Cambridge, they say, both of you are graduates from the big league. But those of Cambridge, they say, you know, we are like, we are a different tattva. We are in a different species.
Especially in America, I don’t know how much it is, but in America, somebody from Yale or any of the Ivy Leagues, there is an elitist mentality. So, although Mahaprabhu was a Sanyasi, and they were also Sanyasis, he said, I am from a lower Sampradaya. And they appreciated his humility.
And they said, yeah, but you are a Sanyasi, why are you chanting and answering like this? And he said, that actually, when I took Sanyas, my Guru told me that I am a fool. And I cannot do anything except chanting. Therefore, I am following my Guru.
Now, what is Mahaprabhu doing over here? First thing is, he again playing another conception that Bhakti is for less intelligent people. And then he is also saying that I am following my Guru. Even the Mayavadis recognize that you have to follow your Guru.
Of course, their idea is that ultimately, you and your Guru, both are illusion and everything is done. But before that, you have to follow your Guru. So, Mahaprabhu was finding areas of agreement.
Even if there is 99% disagreement between us and the other person, if we want any communication, we need to start with the 1% area of agreement. If we start with the 99% area of disagreement, then the disagreement won’t just be disagreement, it will become destruction. It will become character assassination and it can regenerate into terrible things.
So, Mahaprabhu started with that agreement. He said, yes, I am not really intelligent, I am a lower Sampradaya. My Guru said that I am intelligent.
And the fourth thing was, he said that, he accepted Brahmanyam. So, they were attracted by him. They were charmed by him.
And then when they started, when he started having a philosophical discussion, then they were somewhat open to him. And when he started speaking philosophically, he started explaining Vedanta, then they realized he is no fool. He knows Vedanta and then clearly they realized that actually he knows Vedanta better than us.
The one characteristic of, in India, there is a lot of intellectual, there is a healthy tradition of intellectual polemics. People have intellectual debates. But while there were arguments, there is also intellectual honesty.
Intellectual honesty means that if your argument is better than mine, then I will accept what you are saying. Not that somehow or the other, I am going to stick to my point. There was an American comedian who said that, I have already made up my mind.
Now, don’t confuse me with the facts. So, there is intellectual dishonesty where a person just sticks to their view, no matter how thoroughly their worldview is, their view or their worldview is challenged and falsified. But Prakashan Saraswati, when he heard Mahaprabhu speak, then he understood what is real Prakash, what is real Ananda and what is real Saraswati.
So, he became enlightened. That was the glory of Mahaprabhu. So, Mahaprabhu, he transformed, but he did not transform simply by intellectual brilliance.
Along with intellectual brilliance, there was relational brilliance. Relational brilliance means that Mahaprabhu, by his humility and his conduct, if not charmed, at least opened their hearts. And this is very important.
If there is to be effective or transformative communication, sometimes you think, I just need to have a better argument. That is important, but it requires another thing. That is relational brilliance.
One has to speak in a way that opens people’s minds, not shuts their mind. And then after all that, of course, intellectual brilliance is required. Krishna mentions this in Discipline of Speech in the Bhagavad Gita.
In 17.15, head of our Discipline of Speech, Anudveda Karambakya, Satyam Kriyayitam Chaitra. He says that we need to be sensitive in our speech. And then also we need to be sensible.
Both of them are required. This is 17.15 Discipline of Speech in the Bhagavad Gita. And Mahaprabhu will exhibit this.
So, that is the historical part. Now, the third part, which I conclude is the contemporary part. So, what does this mean in the current world? So, basically, we are defined, Prabhupada also writes in the Prakrit, we are known as the Hare Krishnas and we go and dance and sing in the streets.
And generally, when we dance and sing, many people join. They also enjoy the dancing and singing. And they are known as Hare Krishnas.
There is some survey done in America about what people think about the Hare Krishnas. And a lot of people were asked, people gave different replies. But there was one reply, which was a reply of more than 60 to 70 percent of the, these are common American people who were asked, those who had refused on the award of the Hare Krishnas.
They said, there is a jolly bunch of impractical people. Jolly people who dance and sing. It is just dancing and singing, what to do with our practical life? It is impractical people.
Is that the perception we want of our movement? Jolly part is nice, but we do not want to be seen as impractical. So, our Bhakti tradition has many different aspects to it. And while we chant and dance on the streets, we also have a beautiful culture behind it.
Beyond that, we have profound philosophy associated with it. And even today, if the only interaction that people have with us is of seeing us chanting and dancing, then they will start, they will say, okay, nice people, but not very practical. So, they don’t think that we have any wisdom, any insights, any practices that can address the real problems of life.
For them, the real problems of life are not birth, old age, disease and death. For them, the real problems of life may be climate change, may be inequity, may be poverty, may be war, may be discrimination. All those problems are the real problems of life.
So, it is important that we as devotees have a multifaceted approach in our presentation of Bhakti. So, this is the Bhakti movement. Then there are many different ways in which the Bhakti movement can reach people.
So, chanting and dancing is one way. But along with that, what are the other ways in which we are reaching out to people? Are we reaching out to people in a way which gives us intellectual respect? So, that could happen by, it’s one, of course, Prabhupada wanted that, but Prabhupada also anticipated this. So, what happened in India was, when the devotees were doing kirtan in Bengal, some people started throwing money at the devotees.
And in India, kirtan was basically like a beggar’s profession. You sing some songs, please people, and people give some charity. When Prabhupada saw that, Prabhupada said, stop something.
He said, we don’t want to be lumpered with beggars. He says, right. We don’t have anything against beggars.
But, you know, there are also parts of Krishna, but we don’t want people to think that we are that. So, he was concerned about public perception. Now, sometimes people say, I don’t care what people think about me.
I was in America and I saw one student who had this t-shirt emblazoned, I don’t what the world thinks about me. But then, they are announcing that to the world. They care that the world knows I don’t care about it.
So, actually, we live in a social, we are social beings. Even as devotees, we can’t live in an isolated, transcendental bubble. So, we can’t say that I don’t care what the world thinks about us.
We do care. Otherwise, how will we reach out to people? But that does not mean that we change our core principles just because the world doesn’t approve. But if there are some avoidable misconceptions or avoidable preconceptions, then we need to take the endeavor to avoid them.
So, let me consider people’s perceptions of us. So, should we care for people’s perceptions? Yes, we should be mindful. But this is yes, don’t make the mind full of people’s perceptions.
That is not the only thing I think of that. So, yes, some things which we do, people may not like at all. But that doesn’t mean we can stop chanting or we stop worshipping the deities.
No, but if some things are preconceptions or misconceptions that are coming, and we can avoid them. There’s nothing wrong with that, to be aware of it and to do something to avoid it. So, Prabhupada complemented book distribution.
So, our books, they are well written, they have philosophy and people have serious books. These people are not just some impractical people, just some religious mass. And similarly, in our classes, in our interaction with people, people see that these people are intelligent.
So, the chanting and dancing may well be the first impression and that may be the first and positive impression. So, again, the same thing that happened in Mahaprabhu’s times, that happens today also. Broadly, we can say society can be divided into two broad parts.
There is what can be called as class and there is mass. So, mass outreach which Mahaprabhu did was just go around India, chant and dance and inspire everyone to chant and dance. He had a magnetic personality by which what he could do was extraordinary.
But along with that, Mahaprabhu also had a class outreach. If you see, in one sense, Mahaprabhu went to South India. But after he left South India, well, there is not much of a legacy of Gauriya Vaishnavism there.
He went to North India and Prakashan Saraswati was transformed. So, what happened after that? Well, again, Mayavadis came and Mayavadis started controlling. Prabhupada said that Varanasi is like the Vrindavan of the Mayavadis.
That is the headquarters. That is where all Mayavadis sit. But where did Mahaprabhu leave a lasting legacy? There, there was class outreach following the mass outreach.
Mahaprabhu spent time with the Goswamis. He instructed Rupa Goswami, he instructed Sanatana Goswami and they carried on the legacy. In Vrindavan, the legacy continued.
Then we have, apart from that, we also have Mahaprabhu’s conversation with Ramananda Rai and Jagannath Puri. There is a lot of literature that is written. So, in Odia, in Odisha in India, in Bengal in India, in Vrindavan in India, these three places, Gauriya Vaishnavism is still an active force.
And that is because Mahaprabhu created a class legacy. Now, class does not necessarily mean that people have an interaction alone. But people are influential in different ways.
And that is what we also need to do. There is mass outreach and there is class outreach. So, Mahaprabhu did both.
We also need to do both. So, if we do only mass outreach, lot of masses will come. But they will not stay because they are often driven by sentiment.
So, there is, there is a, I conclude this point. When they say that Bhaktas are sentimentals, there is a truth to it and there is a positivity. I will explain how that works.
That if you consider Bhakti and sentimentality. So, at one level, is it sentimental people who are attracted to Bhakti? Yes. It does attract sentimentals.
Bhakti does attract people who are Bhakti attracts philosophers also. Those who are non-sentimental, I am not using the word unsentimental. Because even devotees have sentiments.
But they are not driven or controlled by sentiments. So, it is true that is Bhakti for the sentimental people? Yes, Bhakti is for the sentimental people. But is Bhakti only for the sentimental people? No.
Bhakti is for everyone. Bhakti is the summit of enlightenment. It is the highest realization of the absolute truth.
And people need to be able to see that. Okay, common people will chant and dance and sing and that’s fine. In India, especially and all over the world, there is a resurgence of devotional music.
In India, there is a, India is well known in the world for Bollywood and the Bollywood music. But actually, the second biggest YouTube channel in India is a channel of Bhakti music. And it is bigger than some of the biggest Bollywood households.
So, Bollywood music channels also. And it is, I think, among the top 50 YouTube channels in the entire world. And significantly in this top 50 channels, there are seven Christian music channels.
And there are two Islamic, Islam does not have so much music. But there are, so the point is that religious music, religious singing, this is something which attracts a lot of people. And we as a human have the resources to tap that potential and we are looking at it.
However, most of these people who hear religious music, they will hear religious music for some time and after that turn off and then start hearing sensual music. This is entertaining, that is also entertaining. This is stimulating, that is also stimulating.
There is not much difference. So, if we want to go beyond sentimentality, if we want to go beyond Bhakti, this makes me feel good. Yes, Bhakti makes us feel good.
But Bhakti also makes us become good. It transforms us. For that, we need to complement the sentimental with the philosophical.
And people who are thoughtful, people who are reflective, people who are intelligent, they also need to see that in the devotee community, there are intelligent people, there are philosophical people, there are people who engage with mainstream social issues and they can address those social issues in a responsible way. I was here for one month now, in the last maximum time I spent in UK till now. And I was looking, talking to this devotee that I don’t understand the history of our movement here.
So, UK is the place where our movement in the western world has got the maximum mainstream acceptance. In India, it is called as a very respected brand now. Many politicians and industrialists, they want to work with us for various social initiatives.
Apart from that, in the rest of the world, it has not happened so much. But in UK, it has happened remarkably. And one of the reasons is that the devotees here have invested time in connecting with the mainstream.
Not just chanting and singing, but when you go into mainstream initiatives, you are invited to say, there is a general Hindu festival. So, we go and speak over there. And we don’t just preach Krishna consciousness over there.
We talk values which make sense to the audience, to the politicians, to everyone else. And then you say, this person makes sense. What this person speaks is actually sensible.
I was speaking with him. I asked him, when you go to the parliament, we are asked to speak, what do you speak? He says that if I am asked to speak on Diwali, he says Diwali is a festival of gratitude. And we are grateful to our country because it has given us the freedom by which we can practice our tradition, our religion.
Now, this is something which a general British person also appreciates. You have your tradition and you practice it over it. So, we have to find out ways in which not every interaction with everyone has to be a direct preaching interaction.
That can also happen, but that may take time. Saru, Chaitanya Mahaprabhu didn’t directly start preaching on Diwali. First, he established a relationship and that relationship was based on shared concerns, points of agreement.
So, for a politician or for any mainstream forum, they are not really concerned with our religion, but they are concerned with the mainstream concerns. So, if we talk in their language, we speak things which make sense to them, then we build bridges. So, this is not outreach but pre-outreach.
And that pre-outreach is very important for creating a foundation for outreach without too much conflict or disruption. So, Mahaprabhu, the masses, the classes did not, but a large number became devotees. The few who became very influential, the few who don’t become, but they become favorable, they are also influential in their way.
Prabhupada also, later in his life, would look forward to meet with the leaders of society, intellectual leaders, religious leaders, social leaders, and he has conversations with them. And we see that Prabhupada, in those conversations, starts shining a ray. Prabhupada discusses rational philosophy with them.
And the purpose is not to convert them. The purpose is to get them to appreciate. If they become devotees, that’s great.
But if they don’t, they just appreciate bhakti philosophy. That can also go a long way. Krishna Prabhupada started the Atiyar Institute.
Instead of scientific outreach, his purpose was it should increase the prestigious score. Scientific outreach does not mean that the scientists have to start shining 16 rounds. If they do great, if they don’t, they just start appreciating.
Bhakti philosophy has quite a rational basis to it. One statement like that from them can open the minds of many more people. There are some people for whom you open the doors so that they come to bhakti.
But there are others who open the doors for us to take bhakti to others. Those who are opening the doors, they themselves may never become devotees or they may just become favorable. But they may open the doors for us to take bhakti to hundreds and thousands of people.
And the greatest example of this in our movement’s history is here in UK itself, George Harrison. Now in one sense, George Harrison was a devotee. Prabhupada didn’t push it.
Like sometimes somebody is ready to open the door for us, but we are not concerned that they have opened the door, we are trying to pull them inside the door. I don’t want to come in. And then we pull them and they feel they are pushed and then they close the door for us also.
So not everybody has to come into the house of bhakti. They may not be ready. So somebody who is pushing George Harrison, who will do the job? Prabhupada says no, no need for you to do that.
You continue what you are doing. And you add some devotional songs about that. There is a conversation of Prabhupada with George Harrison which is not there with Chandra and Krishna and the happy book itself.
Because that’s a long conversation. That one time George Harrison comes to Prabhupada and he says, Prabhupada, when I am singing devotional songs, I am seeing so many people are becoming displeased with me. He says, why is that? He says, basically, if somebody is a musician, they are expected to excel in their musical performance.
So when he got too much into bhakti, then what happened was, he started composing songs which were too devotional and they were not of the kind people would expect. Not of that quality. And he started getting very negative reviews.
And one time in a big Madison Avenue, his performance, and people started jeering him. And he started saying that, he told Prabhupada, I feel for every one person I am bringing to Krishna, I think a dozen people I am pushing away from Krishna. Just to understand this context, say in India and UK, cricket is quite big.
So suppose there is some big, it’s a big cricket player. Say in India, somebody like Kohli or here, whoever it is. So the biggest cricket player is there and there is the biggest match, the World Cup final is there.
And then the World Cup final, say India plays very poorly, India loses the match. And after the post-match interview, the interviewer comes and asks, what happened? And say, India’s star player, say Virat Kohli, suppose he is a devotee. And he says, actually, you know cricket, it’s all Maya.
So chant Hare Krishna and be happy. So chant Hare Krishna and be happy is a valid instruction. It is an important limb of preaching.
But speaking it at that time would be the worst form of anti-preaching. When people think this was a good cricketer, star cricketer, and because of Hare Krishna, they got ruined completely. So there is a time for preaching, there is a time for not preaching.
So Prabhupada told George Harrison, he says, you do what is required. You compose songs, which will, basically, I am paraphrasing what Prabhupada said, Prabhupada said, you compose songs, which will reach, which will bring people to Krishna. Then what he started doing was, he started composing some ordinary songs, what we may call mundane songs, and in between, you play some bhakti themes.
And then soon it became popular. Because I say, oh, George Harrison has come out of the Hare Krishna culture. There is a face, and thank God, he has come out of the face.
So he, if you read his interview and chant Hare Krishna and be happy, you see that he has devotional understanding, and he calls himself like a closeted devotee, conceived devotee. So there are different forms of outreach. And he opened the door for millions and millions of people to be exposed to Krishna.
And because Prabhupada didn’t pull him into the door, what happened was, he was able to reach to more and more people. We were able to reach to more and more people through him. So that is, that is the dynamic of Kala’s outreach.
It’s not so much about pulling those who are in the class, but also getting them to open the door, so that they can help us to reach various people. So I’ll summarize. I spoke three main points.
First was the philosophical perspective, that the Mayavadis, the Brahmavadis simply say, at Brahman, there are personal and impersonal aspects are there, but the personal is not what we prefer, the impersonal is what we prefer. Now the Vaishnav understanding, which is based on scripture, is that the personal and impersonal are both aspects of the same absolute truth. Like the same Gulab Jamun, experience at the level of smell or sight or taste.
Like the same absolute truth, experience at the level of eternity or eternity cognizance, eternity cognizance and existence. Like Brahman, but the Mayavadis, what they say, at the level of Mayavadis, they say, Brahman is not only the highest reality, it is the only reality. And Maya, sorry, and then Bhagwan, Jagat, Jeeva, all of these are Maya, which need to be transcended.
Bhagwan is just a useful fiction, which needs to be transcended. And this is offensive. And they think that anybody who is worshipping Bhagwan is a sentimental person, less intellectual person.
And that was the conception that they were having when they built Mahaprabhu. That is the second part of the historical aspect. Yet I explained how as Bhakti became more and more influential, the Mayavadis also started recognizing that it is not just sentimental, there are philosophers also practicing it.
And Mahaprabhu, we talked about how Mahaprabhu, when he was reaching out, he started with a point of interference, sort of commonality. He didn’t say, yes, you are wrong, you are offenders. There is no incident of Mahaprabhu telling a Mayavadi, you are offensive.
Just started, he respected them as sannyasis, put himself in a humble position. He reinforced their conception that, yeah, this person does intelligence, that’s why he is following his guru. He is self-rejected, he is self-rejected.
So, he endeared himself by his behavioral abilities. And then his intellectual brilliance came, that has knocked them out completely. So, outreach is not just about intellectually convincing others, it is also about opening the hearts of others.
And the last part, we talked about the contemporary part. So, here I discussed how, if people see us only as chanting and dancing on the streets, then they will think that we are less like a jolly bunch of impractical people. So, we need to be able to present ourselves in multiple ways.
Just as Mahaprabhu had class out, mass outreach and class outreach. So, we also need class outreach. And class outreach, that was left in the lasting legacy of Mahaprabhu’s mission.
And so, class outreach may not be very widespread, it may not reach a lot of people and it may not transform a lot of people entirely. There are some people, for most outreach, we open the door for people to come to Krishna. But class outreach may be, we just stay connected with people who are ready to open the door for us to take Krishna to others.
And that is what has been historically done in UK during Prabhupada’s times, Suryodhana’s and even now. And that’s how we have, not just significant outreach, but also a significantly favourable environment for outreach. And that is also a success of outreach.
Thank you very much. Hare Krishna. Are there any questions or comments? Thank you, Chaitanya Chakraborty.
Very fascinating lecture. Thank you. At the point of philosophy, Vaishnava philosophy, you both were discussing recently and I think you might be the first person to answer in a very succinct way.
There is this different, within Vaishnavism there is Vishtadvaita of Ramanuja, Dvaita of Madhavacharya, and Dvaita Dvaita of Nimbarka and Sudha Dvaita. That could be a whole seminar in itself. But could you help me to understand in a succinct way the difference between these different philosophies, the different Vaishnav philosophies, if it’s possible in the time we have.
Yeah, it’s difficult. It’s a little bit technical. I’ll put it a little bit in a historical context, rather than technicalities.
I’ll put it in a historical context and then a little bit technicality and talk about it. See, like I said, in general, if a person has a particular misconception, it’s not immediately possible to change their conception completely. It is generally gradual.
So, the idea is that, if you consider the pendulum of philosophy, that there was historically Advaita war that started from the 7th century. Now, it was so influential that everything is one. Brahman is the ultimate reality.
Now, Advaita also came because Buddhism had spread very widely and Chandra Chai used Advaita war. It bring everybody under the Vedic fold, a large part of India back under the Vedic fold. And in many ways, Shankaracharya’s Brahman was very similar to Buddhism’s Shunya.
So, basically, he brought people from outside the Vedic fold to the Vedic fold. Now, after that, you could say the pendulum swung this way. Now, here, when the pendulum came, this is Vishishta Advaita.
So, Vishishta Advaita. So, that is the idea that everything is one, but there is a difference also. Advaita is there, but Vishishta, qualified one.
So, the defining metaphor of Shankaracharya, not the mini metaphor, but all the defining metaphors was that the sky exists everywhere, Brahman exists everywhere. And sometimes the sky, you can call the sky, the air, whatever it is, it’s put in a pot. A small pot is a big pot.
If you want to break a pot, get a small pot and hit it against a big pot. So, eventually, the collision is big enough. Not only the small pot will break, even the big pot will break.
So, they said, first when you hit the small pot against the big pot, the small pot breaks. And eventually, the big pot also breaks. So, the idea is that small pot is Jeeva, the big pot is Brahman, is Bhagavan.
So, when you practice Bhakti, the Jeeva’s sense of dissolves. And then eventually, the small pot breaks. And then the sense that there is Bhagavan, that also dissolves.
And then all that exists is the sky everywhere. Or you can say air or whatever you want to say, either. The Khamma, in Sanskrit, is translated differently in English.
So, that is the defining metaphor. The sky is the reality and the sky is contained in small, pots or boxes, and the boxes, pots need to be broken. And now, Shankaracharya, now in Ramacharya, now he has critiqued Shankaracharya in many ways, Shankaracharya’s teachings.
So, the defining metaphor of the, of Vishishtadvaitavan is the body and the soul. That they say, in one sense, the body and the soul are the same. Because the body and soul are a composite unit when functioning in the world.
We may say I am the soul, but I cannot function without the body. I need the body for functioning in the world. So, yeah, the body and the soul are one as a unit, but there is a difference also.
And ultimately, the soul is the ultimate reality. So, like that, their idea is that there is the material world, there is the Jeeva. So, the Jeeva and the Prakriti, both of them are like the body of the Supreme Lord, who is the soul.
But their understanding is this exists. So, that is, so it is basically, one is there, but there is a difference. That is qualified.
Now, from there, the pendulum went right to, there is something I need to do, sorry, pendulum goes to the other side, and there, that is Dwaitavad. So, Dwaitavad, Shankar Madhavacharya gave us that. There is no one as at all.
There are three basic categories of existence, that 13th chapter talks about nature, enjoy and consciousness. Basically, then Ishwara, Jeeva and Prakriti. So, Shankaracharya talks about Panchamma behaviour.
Sorry, Madhavacharya talks about Panchamma behaviour, the five differences. So, he said that Ishwara and Jeeva are different. Ishwara and Prakriti are different.
Jeeva and Prakriti are different. Jeeva and Jeeva are also different. And then Prakriti and Prakriti are also different.
So, he said there is no such idea of oneness at all. It’s all Dwaita, that is duality. So, Madhavacharya’s teaching has come very close to what is called substance duality.
There are different substances that exist. And they exist eternally. So, in his idea, liberation means that the matter is also eternal, but the soul becomes the same kind of a matter.
So, that was the pendulum going to the other side completely. Now, after that, there is Shuddha Dwaita and then we have Chinta Veda Veda. So, basically, Chinta Veda Veda brought the pendulum back to the middle.
And in many ways, our philosophy, Gaudiya philosophy is actually very close to the Sri Vaishnava philosophy. Although, officially, Mahaprabhu took initiation from the Dwaita Sampradaya, but theologically and philosophically both, we are much closer to Vishishtha Dwaita Vada than to Dwaita Vada. So, the pendulum is here, it comes here, it goes there.
Then it comes back here. Then it’s at a more stable level. Just get the pendulum from here, then because of the past momentum, it won’t be stable over there.
It goes from here to here, it goes here and it comes back. So, the commentary on the Vedanta Sutra, although it is a later commentary, it is considered an extraordinarily deep commentary, where he has taken the insights from the previous commentators, Shankaracharya, Namacharya, all of them, and he is based on that. And his insight is brilliant.
So, in the Gaudiya tradition, the defining metaphor, many again, but one of the defining metaphors is of the sun. The sun or the fire, fire gives light. The fire burns.
Now, burning is not possible without fire. But at the same time, fire and burning are two different things. There is the energy and there is the action of the energy.
Or rather, there is the energetic and the energy. The two are not different because there is no conception of fire if it doesn’t burn. And burning is not possible without fire.
Some form of fire has to be there. At the same time, fire and burning are different. So, like that, the Jiva can’t exist without God.
The fire is like God, is the energy, and the Jiva and Prakriti are like the energy. The Bhagwan is like the energy source and everything is the energy. But the point is that while one does not exist without the other, at the same time, there is a relationship of ordination.
That is, burning is a property that is predicated on fire. Similarly, the existence of all living beings, the existence of nature, but in nature also, is predicated on the existence of the supreme reality, that is the Bhagwan. So, that is the, there is a quick overview, but we will go into technicality some other time.
Can I just reflect on that? So, you said, so, at Vaitha, but they don’t distinguish between external, internal and marginal energies? Sorry? Did I understand that correctly? Yeah, they don’t, it’s all maya. Everything is one energy. No, they don’t have the idea of energy at all.
It’s all maya. It’s all maya, only Brahman is real. So, not only are there energy, not only there are no energies, even the energetic source is also maya.
Bhagwan is also maya, the external energy, internal energy, all of them are also maya. They acknowledge that scripture says these things, but they say, all such scriptural statements, which talk about duality, the difference between the jiva and the, between bhakta and bhagwan, all these statements are on lower level. They are, they call them laghu vaakya, a lower level statement.
Maha vaakya, are the great truths. And maha vaakya, although they talk about the one mess of it. Ramacharya challenges, this is like a very self-serving interpretation.
It’s like a person has made a hundred statements, say these five are the most important. And while, which are the five most important, which agree with my ideas. There was one, we were having an interfaith conference once and I was a part of it.
There was a Christian pastor, he was telling how people’s views have changed. He was on a radio show and then one person came in the radio and said, I am a Christian. I don’t go to any church, but I am a Christian.
So, this pastor said, I respectfully ask you, is there any reason why you don’t go to any church? I haven’t yet found a church that agrees with my philosophy. So, that means, what Advaita Vaak does is, rather than studying the Vedic teachings and understanding the Vedic teachings, I already have a philosophy. Philosophy that everything is one.
And I find from the scripture, those statements which say only that and say, this is the higher reality. Everything else is lower reality. That’s why Prabhupada said, that kind of interpretation is not Bhagavad Gita as it is.
It is Bhagavad Gita as you want it to be. How could the stream of consciousness be conscious if it would just be like light and sound and so forth? That’s the mystery. Basically, their idea is that the stream of consciousness is the only reality.
That is also the Buddhistic idea. The Buddhists also, they say that the self is maya. They have something called anattavada.
But if the self is illusion, then who is actually perceiving? It’s just perception. It’s perception without a perceiver. That’s one of the arguments of the Vaishnavacharyas also that, if the sense of self is lost in liberation, then who is liberated? If I don’t even exist as a self, then what is the point of saying I am liberated? There is no I. So, that is a philosophical problem.
But their idea is that Brahman is simply existence. And this stream of consciousness that exists forever, that pervades all of existence. Their idea is that all perception and all object of perception, all are illusion.
And this stream of perception is the only reality. That is, it doesn’t make much sense in terms of empirical experience at all. Logically, it doesn’t make sense.
And scripturally also, there are a lot of verses which contradict that idea. Any other questions? Yes. Thank you for such a divine talk.
I took my daughters to a retreat with London Buddhist Center when they were little. And they spoke about the deity White Tara. Did I do a Mayavadi activity or did I do a Brahmavadi activity? And how would I know which one I did? See, if you take a children’s program of some kind of Buddhist program, how do you know that is Mayavadi or Brahmavadi? In general, one doesn’t have to worry too much about it.
Because see, there are many people who may be affiliated with Mayavadi organization. But quite often, such people are not so much Mayavadis as they are under some Mayavadi influence. That means, they may go to a program like that, they may even be regularly participating in some impersonalist organization programs.
But they may not be going there because of the philosophy. They may be going there because like the cultural atmosphere, the good people over there, there is some humanity in work. So, when people come to philosophy, I am sorry, when people come to a spiritual path, it is not, not many people come because of the philosophy.
Many people come because of many reasons other than the philosophy. And even Mayavadis, when they are speaking philosophy to common people, they don’t really speak Advaita, Mayavadis so much. They speak some basic philosophy, with respect to Buddhism.
Most people, they practice Buddhism because it seems so peaceful, it seems so non-violent. And their idea is that, this is, I can be religious, or I can be spiritual, but without being religious. Because I don’t have, there’s no concept of God over there so much.
So, it’s more like people want to come to support. And most people who join such organization like this, they are going there for the experience of Sattva rather than the experience of Advaita. Because they don’t even know what is Advaita or Shunya.
They just want to feel peaceful. And many of these monasteries or their ashrams or their temples, they do give people a sense of peace. So, you don’t have to bother too much about that.
Unless a person is downright preaching Mayavad directly. It is Mayavad Bhashya Shuni way. Mayavadis start preaching Mayavad, that’s the problem.
But otherwise, at the functional level, sometimes we may be up, we may be, we go to some, go to some such a get-together and maybe our relative, friend, acquaintance, they belong to some Mayavadi organization. Unless they are preaching Mayavad, it’s not, it’s not a very harmful effect. Prabhupada who had this, when Prabhupada went to America, he was staying at Mishra Yoga Studio.
And this Mishra was a follower of Shankaracharya, more or less Mayavadi. And Prabhupada stayed at that time for some place and then he went to the Lower East Side. Many years later, when he’s gone, we will establish this Mishra thing to Mishra Prabhupada.
And Prabhupada had lunch with him and they talked, they had a long discussion and they chatted. And then Giriraj Maharaj, he was serving Prabhupada at that time, he asked Prabhupada, I thought he was a Mayavadi. And Prabhupada said, philosophically, we argue like anything, but culturally, we are friends.
So, Prabhupada was not affected by Mayavad. So, that’s why we don’t have to consider Mayavad to be like a more malignant version of Covid. It is not like that.
Mahaprabhu was also respectful to Mayavadis. He respected, he offered respect to them. So, it is only when Mayavadis start preaching Mayavadis, that means that the sages are deriding the form of the Lord.
The form of the Lord is Mayavadi, they don’t go beyond that. Then that didn’t problem. But otherwise, that is just one experience which they had.
And mostly for them, it was the experience of Sattva, which may open their mind to something higher, something spiritual. Thank you. My last question.
I don’t know if I can, I sort of grasp everything. So, if you come down the slide, I want to talk about the communication. So, further down.
Down or up? Up for you. Yeah, that’s the way. So, Acharya’s Prachara.
So, I’d like you, it’s nice that you, I mean, this is the first time I’ve seen somebody talking about relational intelligence and intellectual intelligence. And when you are giving a talk, I think that’s quite effective. Can you talk a little bit more about it, so that we can be effective preachers? How we can connect the audience? How some more tips if you can give? Yeah.
Okay. So, how can we be more effective in our outreach? Well, sometimes we think that the people have some misconception, and I have to correct that misconception. And that is what, that is what outreach is about.
It is true. But that is not the only thing that outreach is about. Because we may think it’s a misconception and we have to remove that.
But people are not like computers. If you have, you have some wrong data, you just delete that data and put some new data over there. Even if people have opinions, people have conceptions, they form bonds with those conceptual opinions.
And for them to unbond themselves, it takes time. So, to put it another way, let’s say suppose somebody is on one tower or one peak. And say, this is the Bhakti Tower.
And then this is some other tower. It could be the impersonal tower. It could be the tower of worship of devatas, devata worship.
It could be some other religion. It could be even science, rationality. I’m saying the tower means, they are there and practicing that, they are well established in that in some way or the other.
So now, if we are to connect with them, sometimes we think all that we need to do is just destroy this tower. It’s true how impersonal it is. But if you destroy this tower, all that will happen is, if they are here, they will just fall down.
Or if they don’t want to, they want that tower to be destroyed, we will just end up destroying our relationship. And then they will go away from us. And this is what happens, that people think that we are just fanatical people.
That we think we are only right and everybody else is wrong. That’s not true. Our understanding is, even devata worship has validity.
Even impersonalism has validity. But it’s just that it is not the highest. So what we need to do is, if they are on one tower and we are on another tower, the first thing we need to do is build a bridge.
So that, that person who is here, that person starts exploring over here. So we build a bridge to get the person across. How do we build the bridge? By starting with commonalities.
Say, if somebody has come from India and they say, I worship this baba or I follow this organization, I worship this or I do that. Or somebody has come from a background, not necessarily from India, then, okay, it’s good that you’re spiritual. Not many people are so spiritually inclined today.
And it’s good that we also have a spiritual atmosphere. We also have systematic classes and education. We have beautiful teachings.
Please come and join. So basically what we do is, we don’t have to start by criticizing them, criticizing their misconceptions. We start by appreciating what is spiritual about them and expand their spirituality.
By this what will happen is, eventually as they experience Krishna more and more, when they experience Krishna, they will be attracted more and more to Krishna. Sometimes we think it is my responsibility to remove people’s misconceptions. And Prabhupada once asked, how do we spread Krishna kundalini all over the world? Prabhupada said, Krishna is all-attractive.
I just presented him, he attracted him. So that means we need to give people this experience of Krishna. There are many kinds of experiences.
It could be an intellectual experience like somebody who is in a very backward class. It could be a kirtan experience, a darshan experience. For many people, seva experience, prasadam of course, seva experience.
Nowadays, many people like to do some good work. I want to give back to society. I want to be a volunteer.
I want to be a part of something bigger than myself. So if somebody does, if you say you are doing food for life or something like that, somebody comes along and serves over. These are nice people.
Not only challenging their mayavad, but they get good experience. And when they get good experience, what is happening is, they are just walking on this road. And eventually when they have come here, then that is the time you can break this bridge.
That means that is the time when they have developed sufficient faith in us, then their faith in something else can be challenged. Now, if we, before we build the bridge, only start challenging their faith, they will stay where they are or they will go further away from us. The worst thing that we can do is, they are half way on the bridge and then we break the bridge.
They are neither here nor there. Somebody is worshipping a devata, they start coming to Krishna. Everything else, unless I do it.
And then they become confused, you know, all these religions, religion business seems to be very confusing. Better let me forget this religion business, I will become atheist. And we have ended up doing a disservice to them.
So what we need to do is, that suppose somebody is, say somebody is in great cold, and they just have like a torn, tattered sheet, thin, torn, tattered sheet, well taken and protected from the cold. And then we want to give them a comfortable blanket. But they, the only experience of relief from the cold that they have, is that sheet.
And if we try to pull that sheet away from them, they will fight with their life for it. But instead, just put this blanket around them. And they will experience relief.
And once they experience that relief, they will say, this is so good. Do I need that sheet? Do I need that? So basically, that torn sheet is like any generic spiritual experience. What people consider spiritual experience.
I did some deep breathing. I did some laughter therapy. I did some aroma therapy.
People have so many ideas about spirituality in the world. And now, actually the point is, many of these things, when people are in rajoguna or tamoguna, they experience the sattva, they experience peace, and they think that is spiritual. So they have had some experience of relief from the agitations of their mind.
And that’s like, you know, you could find so many holes in whatever their philosophy is, whatever their experience is. But it’s the sheet. There are many holes in that sheet.
But that is the only sheet they have for experiencing relief from the cold, from the agitation of their mind, the anxiety, the cravings, the frustrations. So bhakti can give much better experience. So this thick blanket, again bhakti.
So bhakti spiritual experiences are far richer. So if you just give people the opportunity to experience bhakti, not that when they come to a temple, everybody is preaching to them. No, just let them experience Krishna.
Let them come and sit with you. Let them hear some class. Not that they are forced to do something, but just experience.
And they will themselves see that, hey, this is much deeper, this is much sweeter, this is much richer. And then they will, they will themselves give up their spiritual concept, bring their spiritual conceptions. So the idea is that, I conclude this point with that, you know, we know our responsibility is not just to speak the truth.
Our responsibility is to inspire people to seek the truth. We may speak the truth, but if we speak it in a way that people find it very agitating, people find it very disruptive, then they will go away from the truth. So our speaking does not necessarily have to tell the complete truth right at the beginning.
But if our speaking is inspired to seeking for the truth in them, then they will inquire, as they inquire, they will say, suddenly it just makes better sense, it doesn’t make sense. And they will move forward. So the idea is, understand where the person is, and what can get that person forward from where they are.
How can we create a seeking for the truth in me? It’s when we think, I will speak the whole truth to this person, then much of what we consider the whole truth, that contradicts their understanding of truth, and then they get confused, they become alienated. So we understand that the spiritual journey is a long journey, and it’s not that we have to take them across the whole journey. Just inspire them to take steps forward, and then they will move forward.
Thank you so much. How is Brahmakumari different from this? Is it the same? And you know, once you start going to specific organizations, it becomes a little complicated. Because two reasons.
First of all, that every organization has its own philosophy. But then not every organization organizes their philosophy in a very organized way. You know, one teacher might say this, and one teacher might say that, and one teacher might say that.
So somebody might take one aspect of the teaching and say all my words. There’s a point. So it’s unless they have a very well-organized, coherent philosophy, it’s very difficult to make a philosophical evaluation of who they are or where they are.
And more importantly, when people are joining a particular organization, how much they are affected by its philosophy is very difficult to see. So my understanding is that in general, just find where there’s commonality and build on that. If you want to, there can be a serious discussion and some serious study to try to understand what are the philosophical similarities and differences and where things are in alignment with scripture, things are not.
But in general, it becomes very volatile and polarizing. When you start specific things, start taking specific organizations and start making summaries and judgments about them in a very blanket way. Thank you very much.