Understanding our relationship with Prabhupada’s words, The Monk’s Podcast 114 with Garuda Prabhu

Podcast:

Summary podcast:

Video:

Transcript

This is an AI-generated transcript and may contain some errors.
Hare Krishna, Guru Prabhu.
Welcome back to the monk’s podcast. Hare Krishna. Delighted to have you here now.
Oh, it’s wonderful to be here with you, Chetan Charanjee. Yes, Guru. So, Prabhu, I thought of today discussing, based on what we have discussed earlier also that how do we understand our relationship with Srila Prabhupada’s works? is it that Prabhupada is our preeminent Acharya of our movement.
So, how do we relate with all his works? Because when we read, some things make immediate sense, some things transform our heart. Some things we have to scratch our head to understand. Some things we find, this is just so difficult for me to make sense at all.
So, if we expect or demand from people that they take everything else as, everything in Prabhupada’s words works as equally authoritative, then it may make, sometimes make life, spiritual life more difficult than it needs to be. At the same time, if we, do we leave it to the individual to decide, now, how that, we want to have a very strong relationship with Prabhupada. He is, he has given us Krishna Consciousness.
So, how can we maintain a strong relationship with Prabhupada while also having a, as Prabhupada himself said, be intelligent, we need to be intelligent. So, intelligently relating with his works, especially as manifested in his written and spoken words. Wonderful.
An important topic indeed, Chaitanya Chauranji. Yeah, I would say it’s an important topic in many ways. Yes.
Yes. Well, you know, I would start first with the necessary understanding of the nature of Prabhupada’s discourse. Okay.
And I’m currently writing about this for a published work, actually two different published works, but in different ways, from different angles. And what I have determined over, you know, my 50 years of reading Prabhupada’s words and my academic training and background and working so closely with so many devotees over the years in helping them understand Prabhupada’s words, that really Prabhupada’s discourse can be understood at three levels. Okay.
And by articulating these three levels, we can better understand what our relationship is with Prabhupada’s words. And when we say our, of course, we are comprised of devotees at three different levels. Kanishka, Madhyama, Uttama.
Okay. And it’s not that we are Kanishka, Madhyama and Uttama, but rather I would like to suggest that sometimes we can act as a Kanishka or act as a Madhyama or even act as an Uttama. Yes.
I think in a previous podcast, you had mentioned that if we are guided by Uttama devotee, if we are inspired, then even a Kanishka can act at Uttama level. Yes. Yes.
We can rise, we can rise to these levels. It’s not that, you know, I am fixed as a Kanishka. You know, sometimes I can be very open-minded like a Madhyama, maybe even broad-minded by repeating Prabhupada’s vision of the way things can be universally understood and so on.
So, I mean, again, I think we have to be careful of the reification of these statuses of Kanishka, Madhyama, Uttama. They’re more fluid. They’re more mixed.
Let’s not be so categorical, which we tend to be in the West, thanks to, you know, Immanuel Kant, the philosopher who, you know, invented this idea of categories. You know, the category means that what’s in one category, it has nothing to do with what is in the other category. These designations are far more fluid.
You know, someone once asked me, they said, Garuda Prabhu, I would like to formally accept you as my Shiksha Guru. And my response was, well, Prabhu, you can do what you want, but what I’d like to suggest is this. When I state something that really inspires you and lifts you up in Krishna Bhakti, then I’m your Shiksha Guru.
But if I say something that’s stupid and uninspiring, I’m not your Shiksha Guru. So let’s do it on a sentence-by-sentence basis. Interesting.
So the idea is, you know, let’s not, you know, again, reification is dangerous. Yes, I, you know, in the last few years, again and again, I’ve been realizing this, that any system of taxonomy that we have, it’s always an approximation. Like if you make a map of a country, it will need category.
Here is America, here is Canada, or here is India, here is China. Actually, you go on the ground, the boundaries are not so clearly defined. Yeah, that’s right.
So similarly, when we have conceptual categories, we are basically like creating a map, a mental map, on the territory that is the reality. That’s right. So even when you talk about the modes, I think we may say that we may not be in the mode of goodness, but sometimes we can act in the mode of goodness.
That’s right. Maybe in the mode of goodness, but sometimes we may act in the mode of ignorance. That’s right.
So I had never thought of applying this to Kanisha Madhyama Uttama also. Yes. It is, and Krishna clearly says and one says that he actually states against the reification of the categories of the modes because I think 1410 he says that these are always in competition.
That’s right. Sometimes one rises and sometimes other rises. That’s right, exactly.
It’s a fluid thing, Chaitanya Charanjee. So, you know, so that is a consideration once we establish the nature of Prabhupada’s discourse. And I would suggest that Prabhupada’s discourse can be on three different levels.
The first level being the essential teachings of Krishna Bhakti, essential teachings. The second level are those teachings which are supportive and illuminating of the first level, the essential teachings. And then the third level are peripheral teachings.
They could be there or they could not be there. They’re often filled with perspectives, opinions, spontaneous thoughts. And one thing I need to also bring out about Prabhupada in his teachings is Prabhupada as a teacher.
I can see that he sometimes raises issues to be shocking, a little bit like a Zen master, just to shock us out of our normal way of thinking, get out of that box and dive into Krishna Bhakti. And so sometimes, you know, Prabhupada’s wit, his humor, his quick responses. I mean, I feel that Prabhupada was a brilliant orator.
He could be so quick on his feet. And it’s always fun to see how Prabhupada will respond to different questions, good ones, bad ones, mediocre ones, brilliant ones, whatever the questions. Prabhupada always had a response.
Never was he at a loss for words. So one thing we need to know also is not only was Prabhupada, you know, had his own teaching style that was, you know, full of wit and spontaneity and perspectives, which he may not have even taken so seriously in one level. But one thing we also have to know about his written works as well is that if you have, if you analyze Prabhupada’s assertions, philosophical assertions, in many cases, they’re not fully rational.
They’re not grounded in necessarily facts. Sometimes he uses hyperbole, making a relative issue an absolute issue. You know, if you analyze, you know, objectively, his various forms of rhetoric, you would be finding flaws.
So why does anyone listen to Prabhupada? I’ll tell you why. Because he is the most powerful ambassador of Krishna Bhakti, extraordinaire. And that because of that, he can get away with statements that are perhaps a little sloppy on their logical level or refer to some obscure doctor in Calcutta.
You know, I mean, really, who would do that? Now, can I get away with that? No, I can’t get away with that because I am subject to, you know, challenges of a rational kind, not just from God brothers and God sisters and my Vaishnava brothers and sisters, but also in the academic setting, I can’t get away with that. But why did people, why did my colleagues in the academic realm appreciate Prabhupada so much, even when they saw these things? Because most powerfully coming through this kind of rhetoric, which is very mixed, most powerfully, he transmitted the Krishna Bhakti teachings. That’s how he did it.
You spoke a lot. If I may just… Go ahead. I mean, spoke a lot means it’s just a lot of points you made in this.
Yes. So, this point that Prabhupada had his speaking and teaching style, that is a very significant point. I remember talking with Ravindra Swaroop once and he mentioned to me how Prabhupada was asked that, you know, why do you claim that the, say the sun is closer than the moon? And Prabhupada answered, why does Sunday come before Monday? And the person who asked this question was completely stumped by it.
And Prabhupada just laughed and went on with it. But he said, I can’t use this argument. Logically, I think it’s called a non-sequitur.
That’s right. Unrelated. That’s right.
So Prabhupada’s transmission of spiritual bhakti, his spiritual stature, even I would say his age, all this played a factor in people not questioning him when he was, when he made certain statements. So just to backtrack a little bit, for some devotees, it might seem even sacrilegious to consider that Prabhupada’s, that we might say that Prabhupada’s statements are not rational. Or that Prabhupada had a particular way of speaking which involved some things which are not, which are not perfect.
So how do we address that concern that that we are not, we are not disrespecting or leave alone offending Prabhupada by, when we are analyzing his teaching style or the content of his teachings. Okay. My job as a disciple of Srila Prabhupada and as someone whose beginning writing in the academics was appreciated by Srila Prabhupada, my job is to help people understand and appreciate Srila Prabhupada’s teachings.
That’s my, that’s my life work. So in, I think devotees who are very dedicated, I mean very, very dedicated, my, I bow down to all of them. The fear of being disloyal to Prabhupada by seeing Prabhupada’s, by entertaining the suggestion that Prabhupada’s writings or spoken words are in some sense not fully logical or rational or grounded in strong rhetoric and so on.
I understand. But if we have to see the way others could see Prabhupada and we have to use measurements that are commonly not just accepted but are intuitive. So now, that said, again, I have to resort to this kind of exceptional power that Prabhupada had that he could work through such non-rational or irrational or illogical types of statements because behind them he was making a point.
Behind them and through them was coming Krishna Bhakti. And it wasn’t just his age, you mentioned age, you know, I’m close to his age and I can’t get away with that. Okay, so, you know, I’m not far from Prabhupada’s age when he came to America.
So, I mean, if I start talking to you the way that Prabhupada talked to us, you might end this interview very quickly. You would have to announce to your audience, well, Garuda Prabhu, very nice fellow, I suppose, but he’s an irrational fellow and I couldn’t make any sense of him at times and you know, so on. Now, how, but you see what is consistent with Prabhupada is the way his transmission, his ambassadorship of Krishna Bhakti powerfully saturated everything he did.
So it didn’t, in one sense, it doesn’t matter what Prabhupada says. In a peculiar way, it doesn’t matter what Prabhupada says because the Krishna Bhakti saturated it. On another level, of course, there was intentionality behind what Prabhupada said and we can look at that as well.
But as someone in the academics and someone who’s a trained scholar, I’ve put my thinking very carefully to all of this. This is a very important perspective that we may view Prabhupada in a particular way but the world is not going to view him in that way and if we want to, if we want Prabhupada to be respected by the world, we have to help them see his wisdom and in one sense we can say that what we are doing is, not that we are disrespecting Prabhupada, but we are removing those obstacles or those statements that may cause people to disrespect Prabhupada. Okay, well let me respond to that.
We’re not exactly removing them, we’re translating them. Yeah, I would say that by translating, I’m not removing the statements but removing the obstacles. So statements which could become as obstacles, we remove the obstacles by translating them.
Yes, beautiful. I misunderstood. That’s right.
That’s beautifully put, Chaitanya Charanjee. Yes, the removal of the obstacles is to try to bring people to an understanding of Prabhupada’s ambassadorship. The way he saturated everything.
Look, Chaitanya Charanjee, I emailed you earlier this morning saying, do we have a meeting today? So there’s Garuda, you know, absent-minded professor or whatever. Okay. Now, I was absorbed in working on one of my books that is late to the publisher and so on.
And that’s fine and well, and so I like to think of myself as absorbed in various Krishnabhakti activities and that’s fine. So I forgot one Krishnabhakti activity because I was engaged in another Krishnabhakti activity. Okay.
Now, someone in the mundane world will forget one mundane thing because they’re engaged in another mundane thing. Okay. Now, Prabhupada, on the other hand, is engaged at a very transcendent level.
And when he condescends, not in the pejorative sense, but literally condescends to our world, everything is saturated with Krishnabhakti. So it’s different. His, my mistake and his so-called mistake, these are different categories of mistake.
Prabhupada is well known for driving along Staro Drive in Boston and there’s a point in Staro Drive where it’s a kind of a fast road and you go up a hill a little bit and then there’s a quick dip down into a tunnel and on the bridge above the tunnel is a Coca-Cola sign and you only see it for a second, right? So we went so they went under and Prabhupada said, Goloka? Oh God. Okay. Goloka, Coca-Cola, Goloka, Coca-Cola.
Okay, now if I did that, someone would turn to me and say, no, Guru, that was a Coca-Cola sign. Now, when Prabhupada does it, there’s a presence, there is a fullness, there is a kind of transmission of something very whole, very mystical. Now, it is for those of us who understand that we have to translate that meaning and that power.
Beautiful example, so this categorical difference, so the fear you could put it this way that our fear is that if we look at some mistake, something which is mistaken in Prabhupada’s words, our fear is that we are treating him like another human being. And we know that he is categorically different. But what we are overlooking in that fear is because of that mistake, others may treat him like that and they will miss out what he is offering which is distinct.
In that sense, we need to so we need to I like the word translate in terms of explaining and while you were speaking I was also thinking in some ways Prabhupada himself has given us the mandate to do this. If you see in that Bhagavatam 5th Canto, 1st Chapter tadvaag visargo janataag vipalavo says that every word in these glorifications of the Lord may be filled with mistakes. That’s right.
But it’s exactly the similar word to saturated in that filled with spiritual potency meant to bring about a revolution in the misdirected lives of people. That’s right. Prabhupada in the Purport also says that our attempts to present this in the English language which is foreign for us will be will be difficult.
Yes. We hope that thoughtful people will see that this is a science of spiritual values and then they will accept the essence. So Prabhupada also wanted his editors to edit his books.
Of course we could go into how far they have gone in editing and that’s a different subject. Don’t get me started. The point is that Prabhupada didn’t claim perfection in his English language.
And he wanted his disciples to bring his words to a standard level of English and going back to your earlier point is there are certain forms of measurement which are standard or which are also intuitive. So what is grammatically correct and what is not grammatically correct that is something which is in one sense evident for anybody who knows a bit of grammar. So we have to make sure that Prabhupada is Prabhupada’s words are aligned with a normal grammatical sense.
Yes. So language is relatively easy to understand but when we go forward from that to logic or reasoning somehow it seems to cut too close to the nerve. Yes, that’s right.
Because language is a skill and somebody might be that not good, so good or not so good. But when we see Prabhupada using certain arguments so we may feel that the arguments, how can you question those arguments? So what you are saying is that rather than focusing on the argument, focus on the point that is being conveyed or that is the central for which the argument is a tool or aid. That’s right.
So when we are differentiating like this, at that time what we are actually doing, going back to your earlier point of say categories being reified. So if we reify, if we make Prabhupada’s words, all of Prabhupada’s words are perfect. Yes, they are perfect in the sense that they are transmitting Krishna Bhakti.
But some aspects of them like the language or in some cases the rhetoric, we need to be able to help others see beyond those to the perfection of the message of Krishna Bhakti. Yes. Yes.
Good. Now, yes, my mistakes are not of the same status as Prabhupada’s so-called mistakes. When he makes a mistake, he is mistaking one part of Krishna for another part of Krishna.
When I make a mistake, I am taking one part of the material world for another part of the material world. There is a big difference. Let me put it this way.
When a three-year-old makes a mistake, like loses the car keys because he may be playing with the car keys, and when his father loses the car keys, he is losing them in a different way than the toddler is. The toddler is playing with the car keys and has no idea what he is playing with. The adult knows exactly what the car keys are.
And when he loses them, he is losing them because he is busy taking care of the toddler and everything else. He has so much more. His kshetra is far more, far greater, far more a level of responsibility than the toddler’s little narrow world.
Prabhupada’s vision was a world vision, was a transcendental vision. When Prabhupada makes a mistake, and I don’t mind saying he made mistakes, they are of a totally different order of being. I’ll tell you a mistake that Prabhupada made.
Prabhupada made the mistake of trusting his disciples to take care of children in the gurukula. Disasters happened. Let’s not try to throw that under the rug.
Disasters happened. It was either too much of a responsibility, which is understandable at times, of course, and at the worst, sick people, people who have a sickness of pedophilia were able to take advantage. Now, Prabhupada from his transcendent viewpoint, at some point he had to make a decision.
Do I move the growth of the movement in this direction, or do I not? Can I trust my disciples? Are they mature enough, or are they not? He made a decision to trust them, and we failed him. Yes, we failed him. And whatever transcendent vision Prabhupada had, we were not able to rise to it.
In fact, let me ask you, how have we ever been able to rise to any aspect of Prabhupada’s transcendent vision? I don’t know that anyone has reached it fully, but we can come closer or we can come further away. Sometimes it’s so far away, it becomes destructive, self-destructive to the very movement that Prabhupada wanted to construct, not destruct. So, you know, Prabhupada also entrusted us with his vani, his written and his spoken vani.
Are we adequate hosts and caretakers of his vani, the way he said he would be eternally present with us? Are we really, you know, custodians, proper custodians of Prabhupada’s words? We have not been, in my unhumble opinion. The thing that we need to do is to create bhashya or commentary on Prabhupada’s commentaries and continue the bhashya tradition that we’ve always been. Instead, we’re writing memoirs.
Wonderful! I’m not saying we shouldn’t write memoirs. We’re writing, you know, independent commentaries on sacred texts and so on, including myself. Doing translations of works for various audiences and so on.
We’re writing about biographical things about Prabhupada. Wonderful, wonderful works have been done. The only thing we have not done, the only oversight, the major oversight that we have been, you know, having is the non-continuation of the bhashya tradition.
Vishwanatha Chakravarti commented on Baladeva’s writings and Baladeva commented on Rupa’s or Jiva’s writing. Jiva commented on Sanatana and Rupa’s. I mean, there’s a bhashya tradition here.
Then there’s commentary on Sridhar Swami. You know, there’s a lineage here. And each, you know, Vishwanatha never commented on Hitler because Hitler wasn’t around then.
So those are peripheral teachings, right? The peripheral teachings can be applied, and that’s fine. But sometimes the peripheral teachings are desha-kalapatra, sensitive, place, time, and circumstance sensitive. And they need to be modified.
They need to be illuminated, corrected, or, you know, understood, whatever. But they’re not the essential teachings. The essential teachings never change.
But the peripheral teachings can change and modify and be, how would you say, you know, creatively exploring the possibilities of commentary. Yes, that’s a lot. Thank you for sharing this.
First of all, the law of the child and the adult, losing a car key, it’s such a beautiful example. And Prabhupada was thinking of far bigger things. So, Prabhupada was thinking of expanding Krishna consciousness and in one sense, okay, he entrusted responsibility to devotees.
I remember a letter from Prabhupada where he encouraged book distribution. So, it was young mothers were being told to go for book distribution, leave their babies at home. And Prabhupada said, why are you leaving your babies? You should be taking care of them.
Yes, that is Seva. Yeah. So, in one sense, Prabhupada expected that level of whether you call it common sense or responsibility or intelligence.
Maturity, whatever, yeah. But in one sense, we could say that there are certain level of articulated instructions of Prabhupada, which are largely at a transcendental level or he’s explaining transcendental message. And then there are certain level of, you could say, sattvic instructions or sattvic expectations, normal human responsibilities or normal human sensitivity, which Prabhupada presumed would be there.
Yes. But he may not have articulated them, but the absence of that he was, well, if he encountered that, he was taken aback by that. Yes.
So, in one sense, so, taking that same example further, if I understand what you’re saying right, you took the example of the Gurukul to illustrate that that when Prabhupada gave a legacy, so, even if we assume that the Gurukul that was functioning wonderfully or let’s take a temple as functioning wonderfully during Prabhupada’s times, but the temple requires constant maintenance, sometimes it may require reconstruction, sometimes it may even require some kind of renovation, so many things could be required. So, the original purpose of the temple needs to be fulfilled. And for that, now we don’t want, we will never remove the deity from the temple in the name of renovating.
But, if say, legal considerations change, you need a bigger door, you can’t have a door here, you need to change that, so many things can change in the temple, but the central purpose of the temple will remain the same. So, similarly, we can say that if we consider Prabhupada’s words to be also like a temple, then we want to keep the deity that is Krishna, that is there in Prabhupada’s words. But, if certain doors are becoming very difficult for people to access, maybe we close those doors and open other doors.
That’s right. We need to explain why are these doors being closed. Yeah.
So, certain rational arguments or certain arguments may have worked at a particular time and certain arguments may not work at another time. So, that’s like a door that was working at a particular time, but not working now. Right.
So, continuing the Bhashya tradition in the sense means that we help, we ensure that the temple of Prabhupada’s works remains accessible and attractive as we would want a physical temple to be. Did I? Yes. Excellent.
Very good. This is your talent, Chaitanya Charanjee, the ability to repeat what is said and make it very well articulated and summarized. You do a very good job of that, I have to say.
Thank you, bro. Happy to be of service. Most people can’t do that.
So, that’s really quite, I enjoy that very much in our meetings and in other ones that I’ve heard you give. So, now the thing is, like Krishna with Arjuna, Prabhupada gave us the sort of processes, the various processes of devotional service in sort of absolute terms, in very finite terms. But like Krishna with Arjuna also, he was very personal and understanding and in some sense customized the teachings.
So, we see this with Prabhupada. Prabhupada gave us the books and then he wrote thousands upon thousands of letters. I don’t even know how many letters he wrote.
He wrote more letters than I’ll ever write in my lifetime. And in those letters he customized very sensitively and lovingly the process of Krishna Bhakti. So, each person could take it up.
Yes. I’ve seen this that Prabhupada’s letters, they, it’s a very different experience from reading his purports. The same person but it’s a significantly different experience.
Yes. We see a very in some ways when we read Prabhupada’s books, we realize his, like his head was in the sky. Yes.
When we read his letters, we find that his feet are firmly on the ground. Yeah. He is accessible.
So, what you are saying if I understand is that just as Prabhupada himself customized his writings in his books through his letters, so similarly we also need to customize Prabhupada’s message in a way that it can be accessible and applicable for people. Yes. Exactly.
So, just going back to one point which you made earlier. So, I had made this point with one devotee and he said, do you think you are a better preacher than the founder acharya of our movement? Do you think you know better than the founder acharya what will attract people and what will alienate people from Krishna? We should simply repeat Prabhupada’s words and we should have faith that Prabhupada is wiser than us. Now, sometimes when you ask, when somebody asks a question like this, that question is in one sense not meant to invite a discussion.
It is meant to terminate a discussion. Right. I mean he phrased it in a provocative way but maybe I will play the devil’s advocate and phrase it and maybe you could address that.
Yes. Prabhupada first of all told us to preach according to our realizations. If you are simply repeating Prabhupada like some kind of parrot then and not the shuka parrot that we shuka sweetens the teachings but the mindlessness of a parrot that can imitate extremely well.
We are not necessarily preaching according to our realization. Sometimes to repeat what Prabhupada says of course is part of our realization. Our realization is to repeat what the spiritual master has said but the idea is to repeat not in an imitative way but in a following way.
Not anukara but anusara. To absorb the ideas of what Prabhupada is saying and then to put them in your own language. That is more powerful.
If we speak simply by imitating Prabhupada and simply by quoting Prabhupada that’s not bad but that’s kineshta. When we have absorbed the teachings through experience and through repeated practice and reading and we are able to put it in our own language in a way that powerfully can be received by others then that is madhyama type of preaching. An uttama can truly absorb what that person needs to hear.
Can be totally tuned in and sensitive to the thoughts and feelings of another person and administer something from the whole of Krishna bhakti teachings and customized just for them. I would say that’s uttama preaching. That’s beautiful.
So uttama is not just attuned to Krishna and completely transcendental in that sense uttama is also attuned to that particular soul and what they need to move closer to Krishna. You see as long as I’m suffering from ahanka self-centeredness centered on myself then I’m going to be overly concerned about being according to my mind’s understanding loyal to Prabhupada. Forget about the other person to whom I’m speaking first and foremost is my need to be loyal to Prabhupada.
Well that’s self-centered, isn’t it? Really? Whereas the counter action of ahankara and this is my neologism is anyakara being centered upon to actually be full and complete enough in yourself to where you can leave yourself and focus on another to find out what is their need what are their thoughts what is in their hearts then to administer taking from the whole palette of Krishna bhakti and giving them exactly what they need. That’s uttama. It’s selfless.
It’s selfless. My God, you are really radically altering conventional conceptions here. Conventional ones but not Prabhupada’s.
I agree. It’s there in Prabhupada’s teachings but unfortunately it’s a bit subtle. Yes, definitely.
The point I was saying is the need to be loyal to Prabhupada that could also arise from ahankara that might also arise from bhakti. Yes. In one sense I will repeat what Prabhupada said and nobody can find fault in my repetition of Prabhupada’s words.
So in one sense I want to be patted on the back for how faithful I am to Prabhupada. Yeah, I call that kanishta clinging. Kanishta clinging.
Kanishta clinging. The kanishta clinging to Prabhupada’s literal words or clinging to what? Yeah, to Prabhupada’s words. That’s right.
The clinging to Prabhupada’s words because that feels safe and I’m concerned about myself here. You see, I want to make sure and you know what? At a certain level that’s okay. A beginner naturally is that way just like a child clings to his parents jacket.
They hold on to the jacket. They’re little. They hold on.
They’re clinging. But if I’m still clinging to my parents when I’m a full grown adult, you might say to me, Garuda, why are you still the mama’s boy? That kind of thing. There has to be growth in Krishna Bhakti.
When there’s not growth, then there’s a stunting of development. There’s a retardation of development. And if we’re not developing, we’re staying at one place and we’ve been just stunted.
We’ve not grown. I was just thinking of what you said, what that person needs. One example of Prabhupada came to my mind.
It’s humorous, but I never thought of in this context. Prabhupada was once asked by a hippie that Swami, what is the spiritual world like? What is the bliss of the spiritual world like? And Prabhupada said, it’s like an ocean of LSD. Now, where in scripture will you find that somebody might consider it offensive? How dare you consider it offensive? Right.
Then someone will take that from the outside saying Prabhupada is promoting the use of hallucinogenic drugs. Oh God. Okay.
You see? See, there we go again. You see? Prabhupada will use the shock treatment, right? A little shock treatment there. And yet within the shock treatment, there’s a lesson.
There’s something to be learned. But if you take that statement in its literal fashion, the devotees of the Hare Krishna movement are seeking an ocean of hallucinogenic bliss. Oh God.
This is a good example of what you said earlier Prabhupada’s Zen master like shock teaching. That’s right. It did serve the message for that person.
Somebody who’s attracted to LSD, I can get so much LSD, I’ll go there. That’s right. In one sense, if you want to be loyal to Prabhupada and faithful to Prabhupada, we can also be faithful to this aspect of Prabhupada.
He is being very creative in what you said about drawing from the vast palette of scriptural teachings. He’s not even exactly drawing there and there. He’s actually taking the principle from there and drawing from the experience of his audience.
That’s right. Earlier you said about this sorry, what is it? That rigid categories and flexible. So sometimes we think of faithfulness to Prabhupada as almost like one, doing one, functioning in one way only as being faithful to Prabhupada.
But Prabhupada himself had many different aspects. Yes. And faithfulness to Prabhupada will also include faithfulness to Prabhupada’s flexibility, Prabhupada’s resourcefulness, Prabhupada’s creativity.
And if we are not, we are neglecting that aspect, then are we really being holistically faithful to Prabhupada? We can be faithful, but we won’t be holistically faithful. Yes, exactly. Why don’t we seek to make Prabhupada proud? In other words, when the child imitates the parent, the parent can be, you know, proud and be humored.
Oh, look how nice they’re imitating. Okay. But when the child has grown and matured into a strong adult, that’s even more pleasing to the parent.
Look, I’ve been successful. Right? And so, you know, Prabhupada is like a father in the sense that he wants to see his disciples evolve and grow and think of ingenious ways to present Krishna Bhakti. Not that he established the be-all and end-all of all presentations.
Sometimes devotees will say to me something similar that you are challenged by with those provocative words. So you translated your own Bhagavad Gita with the world famous publisher, Garuda. So what? Why did you do that? You can do better than Prabhupada.
You see? Look, my father went to Duke University which is considered one of the best universities in the country. But I went to Harvard. He was proud.
He didn’t say, Graham, I went to Duke. You have no right to go to Harvard. He didn’t do that.
Any guru wants to see his or her disciples blossom in ways that he or she could not or did not. An example of this clearly is when Prabhupada created the Bhaktivedanta Institute, Sridharmadhar was, I think, a chemist. I think.
Yeah. Yeah, chemist. And then I think Madhava was a, maybe he was a chemist also.
Sadaputta was a mathematician. So was it bad that Sadaputta knew more mathematics than Prabhupada? I mean, was that a bad thing? I mean, no, he engaged these forms of expertise and said, now you take this. Life comes from life.
Now you take your disciplines and show this. Take levels of expertise. Look, Prabhupada says on page 268 of the first canto, the Bhagavatam, I even remember the page number.
How often do I remember the page number for anything? I don’t even remember my birthday. And that’s numeric also. On page 268, Prabhupada repeats no fewer than three times.
Whatever the discipline, archaeology, psychology, English literature, history, whatever the discipline, it is Hari Kirtan when it is offered to Krishna. When something in your discipline reveals the nature of divinity, this is Hari Kirtan. Did Prabhupada ever say, don’t ever become an expert more than I am? No, we all develop different expertises.
There’s nothing wrong in that. Make Prabhupada proud. You’re raising the relationship in terms of a parent.
That’s beautiful. So, in some areas, it could be that Prabhupada’s disciples can may become, Prabhupada’s followers may become better than him. Say for example, nobody will claim that they have greater devotion than Prabhupada.
But in areas of speciality in the world, like you said, Prabhupada never said that I am a scientist. He wanted his disciples to, not a scientist in the formal sense of the word, he wanted his scientist disciples to explain their language. That’s what he wanted B.I. to be.
So, now, taking this again in a specialized field like math or any other field that’s relatively easy to understand. But can we say that logic is also a specialized field? And Prabhupada knew logic and he used it and he was brilliant as you said. It was delightful to watch him think on his feet.
But at the same time, logic is a specialized field and somebody who has specialized specifically in that field, they may notice certain things which others may not notice. Just like somebody is not very good in English, they may just hear a particular talk or read a particular message or a particular article. They may not find any English flaws in it.
But if somebody is sufficiently well versed in English, to find some English flaws in it, then we as Prabhupada’s followers, if they find something in Prabhupada’s words, we have to make sure that those English flaws don’t obstruct people from reading the core message. I was reading one book on English punctuation. So the author says that for me, whenever I see anything not punctuated properly, it’s like a torturous rod piercing into my head and heart.
I can’t hear. So for somebody who finds something logically not to the mark that they might expect, then that might block them so much that they will just not be able to move forward. So it’s our responsibility that we don’t let that block them from accessing Prabhupada’s core message.
Yes, exactly. Even to that point. So you know, actually this is a temple example.
There are many traditional temples in India which the tradition was you climb up and go to the temples. And that was considered austerity and people would do that austerity. But now almost all those temples have buses going up.
Buses or cars or trucks going up. Like Tirupati. Like Tirupati.
So is it that we are compromising over there? No, for those who can’t take the climb, we are making that accessible. So in one sense if we focus on the principle of accessibility, then flexibility doesn’t seem like are we watering down the standards of the temple by not expecting people to climb up? No, we are not watering down the standards. So similarly, if we focus on the principle of accessibility, then what you said about anyakar, so what somebody else might call as a deviation or a compromise, it’s not actually a compromise, but it’s compassion.
And not having, not doing that is actually being uncompassionate. Yes. Precisely.
Beautiful. Just like I invented this term anyakar. Yeah.
So people say, Gurudev, who are you? I mean, this is like hubris. What did Prabhupada say? We could invent new terms. But getting to your point, speaking to your point about grammar, Prabhupada says, not according to the grammatical rules and other rhetorical rules, but I mean to say, thoughts and the effects of such revolutionary literature is not required.
Not the grammatical. The so-called rascals, they are concerned with grammatical, but those who are actually worker, he calls it worker, they are concerned with the thoughts. He says, then those who are actually sadhu, even in spite of these defects, because the only attempt is to glorify the Lord, then those who are sadhu, those who are devotee, they hear it.
And then finally, he says that is the central point, not the language, but it does not mean that it should not be correctly written. Correctly or incorrectly, if it is spoken by realized soul, that is important. Those are direct words from Prabhupada.
I’m not summarizing or paraphrasing. I’m reading from a letter that he wrote. I’m sorry, a dialogue, a room conversation.
Another point struck me, Prabhupada’s use of the word rascals is so casual in a sense. Rascals are concerned about other things. Now if somebody is concerned about grammar, we would normally not consider them to be rascal.
So, Prabhupada in one sense is very, you could say, liberal in his use of the word rascal. Yeah. Yes.
I would say that is one word which also requires a commentary. What Prabhupada means when he uses the word rascal. Yes.
Or what about divine and demoniac natures? Demoniac. If I see to someone, like a colleague who’s smoking a cigarette, I said, you’ve got a demoniac habit. I mean, that’s too strong.
Now in my own, look, Sura is godly and a Sura then would be translated for me with the negative. You translate a negative in Sanskrit with a negative in English. Ungodly.
Ungodly is not so bad. I mean, it’s not good. It’s not god.
But demoniac. Demoniac is when I torture you with the cigarette. Demoniac is when I physically abuse and kill you.
That’s demoniac. But to say that it’s a demoniac nature that most people have. So I translated that as ungodly.
These are ungodly habits. Okay? And we can take up godly habits. Yeah.
So you see, language can be distracting. Our job is to translate Prabhupada’s English. As Prabhupada translated the Sanskrit, we need to translate his English.
We need to create official Bhashya. As they put out the Bhagavatams, they should put out the commentarial tradition. The new commentary.
This is the next frontier, Chaitanya Charan. No one’s doing it. And this is what needs to be done.
And now it’s hitting us back in the face. Oh, Prabhupada appears to be a racist. Prabhupada appears to be a misogynist.
Prabhupada appears to be a conspiracist. Prabhupada appears to be this and that and the other and the other. Prabhupada wants us all to seek an ocean of hallucinogens.
It could be going on and on. It’s crazy. The craziness will go on until ISKCON has the vision to pursue a strict Bhashya project.
And that’s why I like the idea of a Bhashyapedia. Someone said, well, who will be the authority to write that? It could be a collective effort, a committee, a group of people, and then reviewed by a GBC subcommittee. It could be, take the best minds that can write well and articulate things and do this translation process.
So, you know, Bhagwatam 111. So maybe you would add a paragraph. And then maybe Ravindra Swarup would write a paragraph.
And then maybe, you know, who knows, Anupama might write a paragraph. I mean, and then once you get these paragraphs all, you know, sort of compiled, then a committee goes through them, gets rid of this part, adds this part, and so on. That’s a massive project, Ro.
It is massive, but what else can address? It’s like the Constitution of the United States. To not have Bhashya, it’s the same as saying that there should be no amendments to the Constitution. Many people find the word amendment as quite discomforting for provoking words.
Amendment means two things. One, it can mean that you change it or you elaborate on it or both. But the Constitution stays.
And remember, the Constitution has essential teachings, supportive teachings, and peripheral teachings. And within peripheral teachings, sometimes there’s some wild perspectives in there for pedagogical reasons. It’s a teaching moment.
Hmm. Like the ocean of LSD. That’s a teaching moment.
This is very important about comparing the Constitution of how Constitution is considered a sacred document for a country. And it’s very sanctity for it to be preserved. It requires to have amendments in the sense of elaborations.
So, going back to Prabhupada’s own words or Prabhupada’s own words when you talk about Bhashya pedia. And Prabhupada did say also, isn’t it, that my disciples should write commentaries on my books. Yes.
That was also an instruction of his. So, in one sense, we are not, we are actually being loyal to Prabhupada only by writing on his books, writing commentaries on his commentaries. So, another point which you made, it struck me, see when you are using I think the word ungodly for demoniac.
So, it is also, and you have used the word translate literally also, translate repeatedly. So, in one sense, we can even say that the English of 1960s is not the English of 2020. And in fact, Prabhupada’s English was also not even the English of 1960s.
It was the English of 1920s. Colonialist English. That’s right.
So, if somebody translated, say, translated a book from Sanskrit into English or Bengali into English, nobody would consider that offensive. And, you know, it’s a service. We are making it accessible.
But I think the problem comes here because it’s the same language. What is the need? But it needs to be understood it’s not the same language. Right.
I am here in Maharashtra and I grew up in a culture where we would sing bhakti songs. There are many rich tradition of Maharashtrian bhakti saints. They would all write in Marathi.
But much of their Marathi is not understandable today. I would say depending on which saint is writing and in what mood he is writing. That’s right.
20-30% of it can’t be understood. Sometimes 80% can’t be understood. It’s Marathi but it’s not Marathi.
That’s right. I would say that applies to every language. So, if we that’s why I think the word translate is a very precise word.
Very apt word. We are actually translating Prabhupada’s words from a language that was almost 100 years old now. That’s right.
Especially if you use colonialist English in one sense colonialist values are strongly frowned upon if not reviled in today’s world. That’s right. In some ways the language the words of that language will be associated with those values.
That’s right. Even if the person who is using those words has no colonialist values within him. The very usage of those words will create that negative impact on people.
In some ways we as a movement have already started doing this. Prabhupada used the word cult quite liberally but we are not using that word cult now. I don’t think anybody will use the word cult no matter how faithful they are to Prabhupada.
Nobody will say that. Exactly. So in one sense you are talking about the Bhashyapedia.
In one sense we can say devotees giving classes on Prabhupada’s purports say everyday’s Bhagavatam class is also like a commentary on Prabhupada’s commentary. But of course we can say the level of understanding, level of maturity, level of expertise of the devotee may vary. But if we have the best devotees, the most well informed devotees come together, then we will have something very invaluable we could say.
Yes. It’s so needed. It’s the next frontier of writing that has been severely neglected and that is as severely needed.
Since you are bringing this up in this discussion, I am sure you must have brought this up with the leaders of our movement. What has been their response? Is it too much of hot potato to touch? I don’t know. I mean part of my critique of the editing that’s gone on in BBT is that they are trying to squeeze new language that Prabhupada never spoke or that they claim that Prabhupada spoke into the books.
You can’t change an author’s work. Maybe some proofreading changes and the mistakes will be taken out but you see this is a symptom of the problem. The symptom of the problem with the question of editing is that we don’t go in and we change Prabhupada’s books.
Rather we comment on Prabhupada’s books. You never change an author’s words as so-called faulty or mistaken or whatever the discourse may be. You don’t change what an author wrote but you comment on it.
I have a nice little book of Shakespeare’s sonnets and it’s called No Fear Shakespeare. You like that? I like it. And what he does, you know what he does? On the verso page which means left side, he’s got his own sort of modern English sort of way of stating what Shakespeare originally said on the recto page or the page on the right.
So you got the original on the right and then on the left you have a rewording of the sonnet. Okay. Very good.
But imagine the criminality on a literary level if I go in and start changing Shakespeare’s wording in the original and claiming that this is better and this is really what Shakespeare would want and then I put it out as a second edition of the sonnets. That’s what’s been done with Prokopetsky. Yeah.
You see, changes have to be made under the author’s authorization. So the symptom of this over editing is it’s a symptom of our neglect of actually working to produce works that illuminate and no fear Prabhupada. No fear Shakespeare.
No fear Prabhupada. Bring out what Prabhupada is saying in a way that’s very beautiful and powerful. That will be a great service to Prabhupada in my unhumble opinion.
Unhumble opinion. Yes. There’s nothing humble about me.
So in one sense, we could even say that the editing was well-intentioned but it is it is inappropriately executed. Misconceived. Maybe we could have a separate discussion on editing but you gave the example of editing to illustrate the point that because we have not done the work of say providing a commentary on Prabhupada’s books so that it is felt and that need is being addressed in some ways which are which are actually as you said misconceived, which are improper.
So now when we talk about you mentioned we talked about the Kanishta Madhyama Uttama which was quite clear in terms of understanding how we are approaching Prabhupada’s words but can we elaborate a little bit on the three categories you said that essential, supportive and peripheral. So one way of understanding the peripheral is like you gave the example of Prabhupada’s statements on Hitler. None of the previous Acharyas have talked about it.
So that could be one way of understanding that it’s peripheral. I’m also part of the Shastric Advisory Council and we wrote a paper on hermeneutics and this is an elaborate discussion that we have also had some hermeneutical principles there to understand how to see Prabhupada’s words. But what criteria would we use for placing things in which category? Essential, supportive and peripheral.
So how would we decide that? Because say somebody might place something which is peripheral as essential. Somebody might place… It’s done all the time and this is terrible. I’ve heard devotees put forward the importance of varnashrama dharma as more important than bhakti itself.
Yes. This is upside down. And see the damage done by taking something peripheral or something supportive as if it were essential this destroys bhakti.
If someone says only these kinds of people can do these kinds of service that’s not bhakti. You cannot limit the absolute unlimited capacity of bhakti in persons. Can you explain what you mean? Say for example… A woman cannot be a deeksha guru.
Well we do have some limitations. Say that a person a person non-brahmin initiated cannot worship the deities. But you are saying that the person can become brahmin initiated and worship eventually.
Anyone can. So you have to acquire the necessary qualifications and you follow the process to acquire the qualifications. Claim that intrinsically someone can never acquire those qualifications that is contrary to the principles of bhakti.
Correct. Beautifully put. Okay.
To say that someone can’t do X service because of Y body is absurd. Okay. Now there are some people that deity worship may not be their proclivity even if they are brahmin initiated.
Deity worship for me is not something I’m talented in. It’s not something I’m even attracted to doing for my service. But going on a book distribution is.
You see, distributing Prabhupada’s books this is my love. Or someone might say the opposite. I remember in the old days when there was so much push for book distribution back in the old days and it was very exciting.
But there were some people that were clearly not suitable for that. Did I ever tell you the Did I ever tell you about the time that Sadaputa and I were given a box of Macmillan Bhagavad Gita’s. And we were told to go out and distribute Prabhupada’s these big, heavy very heavy Bhagavad Gita’s, right? About a thousand pages.
So Sadaputa and I go out and we hit a shopping center. And I parked the car and I said, Sadaputa, you go to that end and I’ll go over to this end. I’ll take one box and you take another box.
And we stayed there all day long. And then at five o’clock or six o’clock in the afternoon we decided to go back to the temple. And we were both incredibly charged.
We each distributed one Gita in the morning to a person with whom we had a three hour discussion and one person in the afternoon with whom we had another three hour discussion. We each experienced this. We were very just fired up and just we loved it.
We got back and the Sankirtan devotee asked us how many books did we do? We very proudly said among the two of us we did four Bhagavad Gita’s and that these four people were going to go home and treasure the Bhagavad Gita. We knew it in our bones. Well, needless to say we were never put out on book distribution again.
Because quantity was more important than quality. And Sadaputa and I, of course, are both teachers and we’re intellectuals. So when we distribute a book, now I still distribute Bhagavad Gita’s now by the hundreds every year to my students and I still make them read it and I make them examine it and I make them understand it.
So I’m distributing Bhagavad Gita a whole lot better than I did back in 1974. But they took us off the book distribution because that wasn’t our proclivity to go out to shopping centers and distribute books. See, it’s called book distribution not book education.
We mistook the one for the other. You are seeking a lot of foundational pillars for many devotees today. So we were not expert at distribution but we were good at education.
So you are giving this example if I understand it right to show that in bhakti different devotees if they are personally inclined or inspired they may take some services and not other services and that’s fine. But by mandate if somebody is deprived of some service that is where you are saying Yes, you cannot limit Krishna Bhakti Seva and you were giving this as an example for I had raised the question that sometimes the peripheral may overshadow the essential. So your essential is that every soul has the right to serve Krishna and the peripheral is that based on certain criteria like in the case of gender that then a particular soul cannot do a particular service.
So is that how you are saying the peripheral may be considered to be central, essential and overshadow the essential. Yes. So Mahaprabhu Garanga himself said I am not a sanyasi, I am not a brahman I am not a grasta, etc.
He went through eight things he is not. Four ashrams, four varnas. And yet he was strict sanyasi because that supported the essential teachings of bhakti, essential practices of bhakti.
When your ashram truly supports and nourishes one’s ability to access the absolute realm of Krishna bhakti then it is truly supportive. But if I am a sanyasi because I love getting all the respect. People ask me what I want to eat and I look, well, then you know something else is going on.
Something else is going on. So now if ashram becomes more important than bhakti seva then this is topsy-turvy and then the whole process is ruined. When you say that a woman cannot do this because she is a woman in bhakti that does not work.
You are undercutting the absolute power of bhakti and now you are in a different tradition. You are in a tradition that promotes things that are higher than bhakti and asceticism is often by other Hindu traditions considered higher than bhakti. You know this is I think female diksha guru is a volatile subject and especially in India there is some concern or even opposition to that and maybe we can have a separate discussion on this.
Yes. But there are for some people just to contextualize this for some people they may feel that the customs that were practiced in India say where there were certain standard gender roles and those customs are supportive of bhakti. So for example if and I am not saying this is true I am just saying that this categorization could be challenged.
So for somebody in the western world where gender equality is at least a universally accepted value even if it is not a universally practiced value. So there the gender leading to disqualification of a person gender becomes almost like a peripheral issue and the gender disqualifying a person becomes like a major issue. How can you do that? But say in Indian culture there are certain expectations within the cultural context.
Of course India is also changing and India is a large country. So when you say Indian, current Indian culture also are we referring to the culture of Mumbai or are we referring to the culture of Punjab or Bihar or which part that’s also a question but broadly speaking. So if somebody says that that seeing women giving Brahman Diksha will create a lot of opposition and objection in people’s minds.
People who are very traditionally grounded where they are also Bhakti traditions in the other Sampradayas but they didn’t do this and seeing us do this will make them make them to treat us as non-bonafide or as deviant and in that sense having them avoiding that in the Indian cultural context by having women conform to traditional gender roles in some aspects especially with respect to giving Diksha then that could be supportive for Bhakti. Now we see Prabhupada in the, I am not taking a position like that because we are not discussing the female Diksha Guru issue. We are discussing the categorization of peripheral supportive and central essential.
So Prabhupada in Vrindavan when the Vrindavan temple inauguration was there, he said the chanting of the holy names is the real inauguration but then he had the local priests come and they had the temple inaugurated according to the strict rules or standards that were expected for temple inauguration and Prabhupada said this is for, this is for in a sense PR. This is our real inauguration, the chanting of the holy names but that is what is required. So in one sense the challenge for a global movement could be that what is required to make people receptive or what will be supportive for the central teachings of bhakti can vary radically across countries and across cultures or across countries.
So the categorization may be this essential support in peripheral rather than that being mandated by one central body may be it is best decided locally in terms of certain things. So in some ways because I I was born in terms of my Krishna consciousness, I grew up in a very very rigid Brahmachari ashram for the first 10 years and then last 6 years I have been travelling abroad and in fact I was spending, before the pandemic I was spending 8-9 months abroad and I was trying to focus on western outreach as per my spiritual master’s instructions. So in one sense I understand the Indian ethos and I also understand the western ethos.
So I feel to some extent the problem is that the sometimes Indian again this is again big issue, the cultural wars within ISKCON we could say but the Indians are responding to Indian standards and their perception of what is happening in the west and western devotees may be responding to their perception of what is happening in India. But every temple or every centre has its own distinct challenges and devotees are trying their best to negotiate those challenges. So again going back to your point of categories not being absolute.
Rigid. So we could say that this categorization of what falls in peripheral and what falls in supportive, that could vary. Of course we can say if somebody starts saying this falls in essential then that would be a problem.
So can we say these categories are also more flexible and not so rigid? The essential teachings and principles of Krishna Bhakti are pretty rigid. They’re pretty absolute. Yes.
And I think that at the supportive level yes there can be variation. I mean we saw that with Mahaprabhu. He said he wasn’t a sanyasi.
Well he was a sanyasi while he said he wasn’t a sanyasi. Thank goodness Prabhupada wasn’t so rigid about the supportive dimensions connected to traditional bhakti because if he was I wouldn’t be sitting here as a bhakta. You have to be born in India.
Sanyasi can’t cross the ocean. Vedic sanyasi can’t cross the ocean. What about Tamal Krishna went back to school which is considered very I mean a lot of devotees told him he shouldn’t do it because he was a venerable sanyasi but he transformed scholars minds by doing that.
I finished his book here for Oxford University Press. Now the point is this. Imagine if he didn’t go back because everyone was pressuring him not to go back then we would have lost all of that great impact.
Now it’s not that I would go to a sanyasi and say you should go back to school or you should be an academic no again everyone’s relationship with the absolute teachings of Krishna bhakti needs to be respected. Everyone’s relationship you are saying relationship here in terms of for that person what is supportive and what is peripheral that will in one sense shape their relationship and that person needs to be given the freedom to decide that. Because of the nature of bhakti you know to say that for example women cannot be gurus well they are gurus they are teaching all the time in temples yeah I mean shiksha is far more important than deeksha.
Suddenly they are loading up this deeksha thing yeah I think that’s a big issue you know the essence of the guru disciple point is the relationship is the personal shiksha is already happening in a big way that’s right there are some wonderful female preachers. Now there are plenty of females that don’t want to be up front and preaching so prominently that’s fine too why are we there are some men that are very much wanting to be more in the background doing humble service in the temple you should get out and you should be doing book distribution or you should be giving bhagavatam class you should be preaching in the university why are we telling people what to do now there is guidance there is guidance and there is shelter and there is evolving in seva sure but to limit them oh you can’t do this so you come from a family of business people so you can’t really be a brahmin no that has no guna karma vibhagash right in the gita right according to your qualities and your activities you can know a person so it depends on your nature now for my wife who is extremely intelligent and a brilliant writer you know she prefers not to be so up front but she is a teacher and she put together the first volume in the history of Vaishnavism of women’s you know of Vaishnava poetry and essays called Bhakti Blossoms it’s the first time in history that women have gotten a voice yes i’ve seen that book it’s a beautiful book and i wrote the foreword for it where i said this is historical this has never been done before does that mean she shouldn’t have done it who are you to do this you could say and why are women speaking up here with their devotional voices they should just be in the background what about Gangamata Goswami she’s on our calendar for decades no everyone’s afraid to talk about her i’m not i wrote an encyclopedia article about her Gangamata Goswami Goswami that’s heretical what are we talking about here it’s heretical Tamal Krishna Goswami went back to school as an undergraduate before he became a graduate heresy another heresy when i went back to school back in 1975 or 675 which was so everyone looked at me askance Garuda you’re going back into the slaughterhouse how could you now people are going back to the slaughterhouse all the time so if i understand right through all these examples the point you’re making is that instead of retelling people when you’re saying who are you to tell people what to do or what not to do what you’re saying is that what is supportive for one’s bhakti the individual should be deciding that exactly just because some devotee may not be academically inclined and for that person if they’re forced into the academic setting they might find it very difficult and for them it may not be supportive but that doesn’t mean it is not going to be supportive for others exactly it has to be on an individual basis not a kind of institutional control externally or internally okay so let’s take this forward now because i don’t want we can go into the say the role of women in our movement is also a big issue and maybe we can discuss that later but let’s come to some other statements although i have to tell you something for me it’s a non-issue when you’re looking at the absolute teachings of bhakti it’s a non-issue it’s been made an issue when there is no issue okay i just i’m just trying to aggravate you for some people that statement will be a bigger issue than the issue itself i know i know that’s why i’m saying it so i can get away with it that’s right okay so just going back to because in one sense there are in Prabhupada’s words we’re talking about Prabhupada’s words our relationship with them there are some things which are directive what you should do what you should not do but there are many things which are descriptive or illustrative so for example recently i was teaching the Bhagavatam and the sixth canto that said that Chitraketu had 10 million wives now we had an elaborate discussion is 10 million a literal figure now when i grew up when i was introduced to Krishna consciousness this is inconceivable ask no questions just have faith now for some people accepting that 10 million yeah okay they may not have much difficulty but for somebody who is a little more rational how can one human being have 10 million wives and Krishna expanded to 16,108 forms to have 16,108 queens Chitraketu didn’t have any mystic powers at least at that time later he got if he had mystic powers he could have just used the mystic powers to have a child he couldn’t do that so now we could say that the 10 million is indicative that he had a large number of wives and the point of the story is not how many wives he had the point was despite having so much material facilities he couldn’t have a child the point of the story is largely to talk about the futility of seeking material happiness the temporaryness of material relationships so we could say that from the perspective of that story the essential message is one thing if somebody starts saying that you if you are not having faith in the 10 million count then you have no faith in the Bhagavatam and there is no hope for you in Bhakti then they are making something which is which is not essential as essential now for some people it might be supportive some people they might treat it as peripheral so that categorization could be individual so can you give some examples like this rather than going into controversial sociological issues because we as devotees when we study Prabhupada’s books there are times when how do we make sense of this overall you felt this is a good example of this customizing the decision of peripheral and secondary or supportive okay so there are when we go to Shastra we are reading it either as Kanishta, Madhyama or Uttama so levels of receptivity levels of understanding you know the hermeneutic has to be adjusted and the guru knows how to do that the guru knows how to guide one’s understanding and appreciation and reading at different stages at one stage it will say something it will say x at another stage it will say y at another stage it will say z there is no you know formulaic resolution to this it’s all about the individual it really is what their capacity is what their level of appreciation would be whether they need to take whether they understand the structure of symbolism the structure of the symbol as opposed to allegory and as opposed to literalism and I mean these things and there are hermeneutics which by the way most devotees don’t know in terms of the Jaimini Sutra and the commentaries to that by Prabhakara and Prabhakara all of these things I’m trained in by the way and in ancient of hermeneutics and the commentaries of Prabhakara and Kumara Labatta and Vedanta and the way they’re applied to Vedanta Sutra Bhasha so you know and then I’m trained in Western hermeneutics as well I’m trained I’ve had that in the last century I had the two most famous scholars world famous scholars in the field of philosophical hermeneutics as professors so I’ve done the Western hermeneutics and I’ve done the Indian hermeneutics and this is what I draw from and my conclusion is in the simplest of terms you’ve got to work with the individual who is negotiating a level of understanding that draws from the body of knowledge and yet absorbs that but is allowed to yet still expand one’s horizon or we call it Kshetra in the 13th and 14th chapters of the Gita right our sphere of awareness is the way I translate Kshetra sphere of awareness that’s what we have to be sensitive to or not I can be I can be my sphere of awareness can be so narrow and so cloistered that I can’t leave it. I’m trapped within my own sphere of awareness and my own conditionings and then this is Ahamkara but when I can actually be so full of knowledge I can be sensitive to the thoughts and feelings of another person Anyakara and ultimately Paramanyakara the supreme other beautiful supreme other very nice ultimately you know if you see Prabhupada’s mission was to get people to come closer to Krishna so if you constitute to Krishna’s concerns then Krishna’s concern is not just that we repeat verbatim Prabhupada’s words Krishna’s concern is that we fulfill Prabhupada’s mission by getting that soul to come closer to Krishna that’s it so both Anyakara and Paramanyakara today I got two neologisms two neologisms from me yes I always like to surprise you a little bit Chaitanya Charan in our talks so anyway I hope this material was something worthy of reflecting on and thinking about Can you elaborate on last few sentences you said about based on your understanding based on training in both traditional hermeneutics and western hermeneutics you said that you three things broadly mentioned that you know you so we work with the individual we work with the individual means the teacher works with the individual is that what you are saying so you take the body of knowledge that is in scripture and then in a way that the student can internalize it be nourished by it be nourished by it and the fruit of it is that their sphere of awareness expands that’s right and for that to happen we have to come out we have to expand our sphere of awareness to understand what where they are at what level they are at yes so otherwise this is a very you know Prabhupada talks about realization in the first canto so he says that nothing untoward should be screwed out but things should be presented in a way that is interesting to the audience yes so we could put that in that interesting to the audience means that we expand our sphere of awareness so that there is some intersection between our and their sphere of awareness yes it catches them yeah only then it catches them and then ultimately the purpose of spiritual education is is not to make people narrow minded that’s right is to expand the sphere of awareness that’s right exactly beautiful and the guru the guide negotiates between the whole body of knowledge as he or she is able to grasp it negotiates that body of knowledge in transmitting it to the student and this is most powerfully done as a guru is him or herself going deeply within that awareness of themselves and then can give that as a gift to students I do this all the time of course within the university as a professor you know they come in so they take my class on eastern religions so I’ve grasped eastern religions of course every year more and more I devise ways of teaching it and giving it to them and they come into the course in various ways right some students are interested in the subject some students are taking it because they have to get the credits some students are taking it because they hear I’m a great teacher you know or they think that they can get away with you know less work who knows what they’re coming in for right but all of them no matter what they come in with I catch them they come into my net okay right yeah it is diabolical it is totally diabolical I get them and I see them light up with amazement at what’s being taught I like to surpass their original intentions and raise them up in my diabolical fashion to an inspired relationship with the body of knowledge that’s what we have to do as teachers that’s why so many people appreciate your amongst broadcast because you do this with so many people thank you that’s very kind of you but in one sense now I’m thinking about it this was one of the benefits for me when I was traveling across the world I was not only giving classes but I was meeting senior devotees and discussing with them those discussions were nourishing for me and when because of covid I couldn’t travel just as I thought that they said I’m giving online classes maybe I can get online association also so you’re bringing them to you you were going to them now you’re bringing them to you and we’re sharing with others also and I have many devotees have commented to me that many things which they had a hazy understanding or a narrow understanding that is significantly broadened for them so we could say that what we are doing you talk about the Bhashya Pedia that’s also a neologism I think so Bhashya Pedia so in one sense that would be a much more formalized and serious endeavor yes what to say what you are doing through your classes in the university or what we are doing through discussions like this this is also we are in one sense making commentary that’s right commentaries and making Prabhupada’s words accessible Prabhupada’s message accessible to people right but unfortunately it’s not referenceable to you know the media that say look at Prabhupada look at the teacher of the Krishna Bhakti movement their stance is very misogynistic they are this way they are that way their leader said this their leader said this about Africans their leader said this about Hitler I mean you know we have to have a you know a Bhashya is just no other way around it you can’t change Prabhupada’s books what are we going to do go in there and anesthetize you know the books sanitize the books you can’t do that so Bhashya is the answer and when you said this earlier are there commentaries on previous Acharyas works by subsequent Acharyas yes because if you see Baldev Diyabhushan has written Govinda Bhashya where he is commenting on the Vedanta Sutra but are there examples of Baldev ok I think yeah G. Goswami commented on Bhakti Samrut Sindhu there are books like that that’s right and we could say Prabhupada is in a very significant position because he has he has taken the Bhakti tradition into uncharted territory that’s why his works need overall in the devotees life in the devotees in the lives of devotees who come to the Krishna Conscious movement Prabhupada’s works will have far more relevance than say Rupa Goswami or G. Goswami they are great souls they are Acharyas but Prabhupada’s works will be far more relevant and accessible and important for them that’s why we need to not only continue but we could say expand we need a significant level of commentary on Prabhupada’s works that’s right exactly so do you feel this will happen at an institutional level or have other traditions done something like this or other movements or other because say in Christianity there are many the Bible is a central book and there are many charismatic teachers who come and go but I don’t think there is any teacher who becomes like a like a key link to the whole previous tradition have other traditions are other traditions in a position like this where they have to negotiate with with with their founders teachings say I think for example the Mormons their teacher has some some controversial teachings about polygamy and other things right so however do you have any idea how other traditions are negotiated with this well certainly the Christian tradition has a huge volumes like 12 volumes called the Interpreter’s Bible that’s the name itself yes Interpreter’s Bible it’s only in our tradition the word interpretation sometimes has a negative connotation of course Interpreter’s Bible is not considered you are speculating that’s right yeah now of course you know hermeneutics is essentially can mean the process of interpretation so you know and then means that too means how the ways that we can think about something a ways that we can think about something that comes from okay it’s reduplicative prefix right means the ways that we think about something the ways that we can think about something the levels at which we can think about something.
This is hermeneutics. I used the word hermeneutics before anyone in the movement ever knew what it meant. And in fact, it was in the title of my first master’s thesis that Prabhupada himself read.
Yeah, you mentioned that and that’s true. Right. So it’s in other words, this is this is part of our tradition.
No, it’s a part of our tradition to comment on scripture. Yes. And on books of a commentator.
That’s also part. So interpreters Bible is a commentary on the Bible is the Bible. But but say commenting on the words of a particular teacher of a scripture that is like a multiple multilevel process.
Yes, that’s right. It is. And again, it’s according to what’s needed.
And Prabhupada’s books are in some sense a kind of secondary. They’re like they become kind of a they’ve taken the status of a of a kind of Shruti, a second level Shruti for us. And we and and we need to pursue Smriti.
You know, that’s the Bhashya. So Shruti means revelational. And Smriti means realizational.
Beautiful. That’s how I translate. Yeah, I heard of Shruti and Shruti as revelation, realization, revelation and realization.
But applying that semantic category over here. So that makes it so so traditionally authentic also. And yes, Prabhupada’s books have have assumed that status like that for our moment.
That’s right. So relatively speaking, Prabhupada’s books are Shruti and we need to provide Smriti. Yeah, in one sense, if we consider even in India, if the Puranas and Itihasas would not have been there, how many people would actually be able to understand the Upanishads? Exactly.
The tradition became widespread and especially at the grassroots level, primarily because of the Puranas and Itihasas. Exactly. But then the Bhagavata Purana technically is Smriti, but we treat it as Shruti.
Again, another example of non-reified categories. That’s right. I mean, again, you know, it’s you really have to look at things, relatively speaking, in an absolute way.
I remember in a previous podcast, you had made a statement, how to make an absolute statement about the relative domain. And that is an absolute statement you can make. Exactly.
Exactly. That’s how things work. Yeah.
Yeah. So can you repeat that? We’ve certainly gone on for over two hours here. Yeah, we’ll just finish now.
Can you repeat that last sentence, what you said about relative and absolute? Maybe you can just give a passion on that. Well, we have to acknowledge the absolute value of bhakti and the way it can take form in relative areas. And yet the absoluteness of bhakti will still be present in those relative areas.
Again, it’s about the saturation of bhakti. And this is where we began today’s talk, when I was talking about Prabhupada’s so-called mistakes. They’re not my kind of mistakes.
When Prabhupada used a mistaken idea, or he made a mistake, it’s different than when I do it. It’s different. He is the direct ambassador of Krishna bhakti and everything that comes, that was uttered from his mouth and written by his hand.
This is saturation. And if I said the identical thing, this is why it’s not necessarily good to simply repeat what Prabhupada says, but to digest it, and to then put it in words that do make sense for you, because you can’t get away with what Prabhupada did. And you know what? I mean, if I went to a meal, a restaurant, and you asked me, how was the food at the restaurant? I said it was good.
And then you said, well, but Garuda, didn’t you like vomit it? Didn’t you vomit it all up after the meal? I’m sorry for the gross analogy here. And I said, well, yeah, but it tasted good at the time. We’re not here to simply regurgitate.
We’re here to digest, turn it into energy, and then put out the actions. That’s a provocative example, visually. So what are you comparing to enjoying while eating and then vomiting out? So you’re saying just repeat without understanding.
I’ve heard people, I’ve heard devotees repeat what Prabhupada said to guests at Sunday feast lectures, and it just was like vomiting on them. They didn’t receive it. They didn’t receive it well.
It was insensitive. This is really a provocative exposé of the idea of parroting. Parroting might seem harmless, but vomiting out food can be harmful.
It was good. When I ate it at the time, it was great. So just because when I heard something, it nourished me, doesn’t mean that when I speak, it is going to nourish others.
That’s right. So I have to. You have to absorb it and then be sensitive to how they can absorb it.
Now, again, a Kanishita, I don’t expect them to do that. A Kanishita approach to people. A Madhyama approach, yes, I do expect it.
It’s rich stuff. This is very important stuff to consider, Chaitanya Charanjee. Really deep, Prabhu.
I was just thinking of one point I’ll conclude now. When we say about Prabhupada, needing to understand Prabhupada’s words, I’m not parroting them. At one level, Prabhupada said, I’m like a postman.
I have not added anything. I have not removed anything. I’ve simply given what my spiritual master gave me.
At the same, another time, Prabhupada and actor of devotion, lecturer in Vrindavan, he says, while commenting on, that was somehow the fixed mind of Krishna, Prabhupada says, I have practically invented this Krishna consciousness movement. There you go. So what Prabhupada was referring to was the essential teachings.
They have not changed. And Prabhupada invented the supportive ways and the peripheral ways. Exactly.
Okay. And when Prabhupada gave the peripheral, at that time, they might have been supportive, but now they might also become peripheral. So that’s right.
Individual. It can also be cultural. It can also be time wise, chronological.
Yeah, exactly. Yeah. So to be faithful.
So even this statement itself, that I have invented, I have invented the movement and I have, I have not changed anything. So this statement, these two statements itself, if we have to reconcile, we need harmonetics. That’s right.
So, so, yes, in one sense, if we also study Prabhupada’s books carefully, we will, we will be forced to come up with some hermeneutical, hermeneutical frame for understanding them. But sometimes for us, if we have not consciously thought about it or been guided by it, then our hermeneutical frame might be misguided. That’s right.
And that’s how we may end up with, as you said, vomiting. It’s not that a person who vomits is ill-intentioned or ill-motivated, is not a bad person, but by their hermeneutical framework, they might think, hey, this is, this is so sensational. Sometimes I see this, you know, sometimes in order to catch attention in a class, sometimes devotees may speak the most provocative sound bites from Prabhupada’s words and they may get attention, but they actually cause alienation.
That’s right. That’s right. And that’s the nature of an aparadha.
It moves people away from loving worship. It discourages people. We’re not here to discourage people.
Anything that discourages people is really something that needs to be looked at. My God. So, what you are saying is, so some people might say that the very act of interpreting or categorizing Prabhupada’s works is aparadha, but what you are saying is not doing it can also be an aparadha.
Yes. Take Prabhupada’s and repeat them without understanding, without understanding whether they are relevant, whether they are needed for an audience. And many people have done that.
You know, if we take some of Prabhupada’s statements about African-Americans or about other categories and we repeat them. Actually, there’s a subtle, there’s a subtle level of Adwaitin or impersonalist philosophy here. So I said to a devotee, a very advanced Vaishnavi, I consider her a sister of mine.
She’s very prominent in the movement. I said, all of Prabhupada’s words can’t be seen as merely equal. She said, I consider them all equal.
They’re said by Prabhupada, they’re all equal. I said, so you’re taking the phrase Krishna Bhakti Prema to be equal to that of a worm in stool. Now, what I can say is that on one level, because it came from Prabhupada, it’s all transcendental, but you can’t just leave it there.
See, that’s Abheda. That’s Abheda. Bheda comes along and says, but they’re all, they’re distinguishable statements within that Abheda.
Everything that Krishna utters in the Bhagavad Gita is transcendental, but there’s some things in the Gita, there’s some things that Krishna puts forward so passionately that they are more important. Bhakti is more important than Jnana. Jnana is more important than Karma, and yet they’re all absolute at the same time.
Don’t neglect the Bheda to promote Abheda, and don’t promote Abheda to the neglect of Bheda. Both have to be taken together at the same time. So yes, you know, a worm in stool and Krishna Prema, they’re both are saturated with Krishna Bhakti and Prabhupada’s teachings, but the fact is a worm in stool might be good supportive teaching or a peripheral way of expressing some level of, you know, degradation or humility or whatever, depending on how it’s used, right? But the fact is dwelling on Krishna Prema, I’d much rather dwell on that than a worm in stool, honestly.
So this is such a both a provocative as well as a satisfying conclusion you have got it. The example is provocative, worm in stool. I warned you that it’s very dangerous to have a discussion with me.
No, but it’s dangerous, it’s dangerously, dangerously interesting. No, but this Abheda and Veda is beautiful. So we respect all of Prabhupada’s words, because they have come from him, because they have come from his heart, which is filled with the intention of glorifying Krishna.
That saturation of Krishna Bhakti, so we consider all of them sacred. So in terms of source, we can consider them sacred. But at the same time, in terms of the content, in terms of the effect, we have to make Abheda.
Have to. Otherwise, we are now approaching, we have an Adwaitan approach to philosophy and to Prabhupada’s words, and that is simply blind. But Adwaitan approach is saying that all is one, that is what you’re saying.
So we consider all to be one. That’s it. So in one sense, if somebody has a oversimplistic notion of loyalty or faithfulness, yes, but actually, in the name of being faithful, they might be gravitating towards Adwaitism.
Right. And that’s Kanishka. My father, my mother could do no wrong.
The more mature attitude way, yes, my father, they might have done some wrong, but still, they are my parents, they did so much for me, I am forever grateful to them. There you go. I want to carry forward their legacy.
That’s right. So there’s a sense of appreciating your parents in an absolute way. There’s a sense in which you can appreciate your parents in a relative way, their strengths, their weaknesses, or get away from that analog.
Radhanath Swami’s teaching and Garuda’s teaching are exactly the same because they’re both teaching about Krishna Bhakti. Well, they’re not the same. He’s also preaching to a much wider audience.
I’m a little more selective, a little bit more, and I’m trained in different areas. He’s extremely talented, and we happen to be friends, but that doesn’t mean we’re the same. Guru is one, Prabhupada says.
You know why he says it’s one? Because it looks so different most of the time. That’s why. That’s why he has to say it is one.
You’re right. The assertion of oneness necessitates the acknowledgement of difference and distinction. The Bhakti Sutra says it’s one on the basis of one thing.
The grace of divinity comes through the Guru. How it comes through, that is different, distinctive. That it comes through is one.
Beautiful. So, for example, some devotees, their whole life is building temples, and thousands and thousands of people come to the temples. So, the grace of Krishna and Prabhupada is coming through their building temples.
Say now somebody like you is writing books. Somebody else is building communities. Somebody else will be doing padhyatras and athyatras and festivals, traveling festivals.
They are all gurus in the sense of the grace of Krishna is coming through the Guru. Coming through, transparent via medium, right. But the way it comes, the way it comes and even whom it reaches, it may also reach different people.
Exactly, exactly. So, that oneness and difference was present in Srila Prabhupada also. And that oneness and will manifest in a more, we could say overt way in his followers.
Because Prabhupada was so expansive. Yes. Prabhupada was so expansive.
So, some aspect of Prabhupada may inspire a particular follower of Srila Prabhupada and they will manifest that more and somebody else will manifest that more. So, they are all different in the sense that they are serving in a different way, speaking in a different way, leading in a different way. But they are one, they are all faithful to Prabhupada and serving Srila Prabhupada.
Yes. But the fallacy, Chaitanya Charanjee, that too often happens is they assume the oneness in Prabhupada’s teachings, that everything that he said was the same, without acknowledging the distinctiveness and the understanding of the essential teachings, supportive teachings, peripheral teachings, and within which the peripheral teachings one finds perspectivisms, I call them. And anyway, you have to look at both.
You have to embrace both. Otherwise, by embracing only one, you’re risking treating Prabhupada in a mundane way. Amazing.
So, most people will say that by embracing Vedas, we are treating him in a mundane way. But actually, by not, by embracing only a Ved, also we are treating him in a mundane way. That’s right.
And that’s our philosophy. Achaitya Veda is the essence of our philosophy. That’s right.
Exactly. This is wonderful, Prabhu. It’s a very, very, you could say, shastrically sound, as well as intellectually satisfying note to conclude the discussion.
Can I try to summarize? I don’t know how much I’ve said today. It’s been a lot of discussion. So, we discussed broadly on the topic of understanding our relationship with Prabhupada’s works.
And then we discussed how when we read Prabhupada’s words, some things just stand out and resonate with us, some things just be kind of difficult to accept. So, then you talked about two ways of classifying. One was in terms of the content that there are essential, supportive and peripheral.
And another is in terms of people who are reading it, the Kanishta, Madhyama and Uttama. So, these categories are not reified as the manual Kant, you said, who talked about categorization. Right.
So, now, these categories are flexible. And first fluid. Yeah, fluid is better than flexible.
Yeah, definitely. Yeah, things move up and down. So, that’s right.
So, with respect to Kanishta, Madhyama and Uttama, if somebody simply repeats Prabhupada’s words, that is a Kanishta level. A Madhyama level is more that they understand, they read Prabhupada’s words, understand the teachings and then express them in their own words. But Uttama is, they draw from the entire body of scriptural wisdom and they understand what the person needs and then give that to them.
So, Uttama is not just attuned to Krishna, but also attuned to the person. So, Anyakara and Paramanyakara, which you mentioned later. So, just as a person in the mode of ignorance can act in goodness sometimes.
So, similarly, even a Kanishta can act at a Madhyama, Uttama level with guidance. And for us to act at the Uttama level, then we have to look at Prabhupada’s teachings. And for Prabhupada’s teachings, so, the essential, say, one simple way to understand what is not essential, say Prabhupada’s statement about Hitler, Jigo Swami never talked about that is not essential for the practice of Bhakti.
So, they are peripheral. So, supportive, you give the example of Varanashram as being supportive. But if sometimes it is made into essential, then it can become a problem.
And then, so, one of the points you made was that how the Uttama is, has to be very, it’s, you talked about, with respect to even this Madhyama, sorry, this essential, supportive, and peripheral. You also talked there about Prabhupada’s speaking style, Prabhupada’s teaching style. So, Prabhupada was, sometimes used to provoke or shock like a Zen master.
Then he would think on his feet and he discussed that very volatile topic that there is brilliance comes out in his thinking on his feet. But just because things are improvised, there are times when there could be things which may be off from a factual or a logical perspective. And to treat everything as sacrosanct, as inviolably correct, we may say that we are being faithful to Prabhupada by that, we are protecting our loyalty to Prabhupada.
But to be more obsessed or to be more concerned about our loyalty to Prabhupada than to making Prabhupada accessible to others, that is actually a form of ahankara. So, we want to, if we are concerned about others, we may say that I accept everything that Prabhupada says. But we have to be aware of how others are going to see it.
And then we have to make it accessible for them. So, that’s the idea of translating Prabhupada’s works. So, translating means that make it intelligible.
So, it could be that 1920s language and 2020s language itself is different. And understanding that Prabhupada himself acknowledged that his command over English was not perfect. So, fixing English seems to be, we accept that.
To what extent editing has been done, that is okay, that is a different issue. But when we talk about reason and logic, sometimes Prabhupada’s arguments, we may say that’s cutting too close to our, to the nerve of our faith. But Prabhupada uses arguments to make particular points.
And if those arguments don’t stand with a particular audience, then we are not rejecting Prabhupada, but we are focusing on the purpose that Prabhupada has and ensuring that purpose is fulfilled. So, even logic is like a specialized field. And just as there are disciples who were more specialized in him than in math or in chemistry or whatever, somebody might be more specialized in logic.
And they can, they may find something objectionable in Prabhupada’s words. And to ensure that that objection doesn’t stop them from moving toward the heart of Prabhupada’s teachings, we need to present things in an appropriate way. So, just like if Prabhupada is interested in the temple, we would ensure the maintenance of the temple by maybe changing forms of accessibility, not over here.
We won’t remove the deity. Similarly, for us, we have to make the legacy of Prabhupada’s works also accessible. And you give the example of how in an academic audience, some of the arguments that Prabhupada used would never work.
But by, although you didn’t directly distribute books physically to people, but book education leads to book distribution in a way that actually leads to book study and book appreciation also. So, we talked about mistakes, that Acharya’s mistakes are categorically different from our mistakes. A child might lose a key because of being playful or irresponsible.
An adult might misplace a car key because they are thinking of so many bigger things. So, for Prabhupada, he is completely filled with thoughts of Krishna. And for him, facts of this world or perspectives about this world or logical arguments, they are secondary.
They are just to be used to get people to come closer to Krishna. So, even if there is a mistake in that, that mistake is not a flaw and we shouldn’t equate it with our mistakes. But if we claim that there is no mistake at all, then people who see the mistake will find it very difficult to progress forward and come to Prabhupada’s co-teachings.
So, we talked also about the principle of father, parent and child, father and son, that the father is actually pleased when the son becomes one’s own person and carries on the legacy of the father. So, a child imitating the father is nice, a small child imitating, but the adult continuing to imitate is not, is, the adult has to learn and speak on his own. Because this applies to us also in our spiritual life.
At a Kanishka level, we may imitate. But at a Madhyama and Uttama level, we need to assimilate and then share in a way that is accessible, attractive and applicable for people. So, we gave a provocative example.
At one level, we may say parroting is simply harmless, but parroting can also be harmful if it’s like, we take in nourishing food, but then we vomit it out. So, certain instructions may nourish us, certain statements of Prabhupada’s words, but if speaking them to others doesn’t, it alienates them, then we can’t do that. Instead, we eat the food, we become nourished and then we find out what will nourish the other person and serve them that food.
So, that requires us also to become aware or sensitive about others. So, you talked about hermeneutics is a big part of our tradition itself, the Mimamsa is there. And then the essence of hermeneutics mentioned in the later part is that we take in the whole body, we take in the scriptures, we center on the audience, center on the individual and then we provide things in a way that they can internalize and be nourished and their sphere of awareness expands.
So, if we are able to do that, then actually we are serving Srila Prabhupada. Otherwise, we may be, in the name of loyalty, be doing a disservice. So, we may do an aparadha to Prabhupada.
So, you talked about also having a Bhashyapedia that we need to, this is the next frontier in devotional writing, the elephant in the room that we are not addressing that we need to have commentaries on Prabhupada’s works so that these works can be accessible. So, if Prabhupada’s works are like Shruti, then what we write will be a Smriti by which people can understand and appreciate Prabhupada’s essential and glorious message of Bhakti. And toward the end, this was a lot of other points, but I don’t want this to go on and on.
But the point about Bheda and Abheda, I think that was very important that because Prabhupada has spoken his words with the pure intention of glorifying Krishna. So, in that sense, everything Prabhupada speaks is transcendental. That’s Abheda aspect.
But in terms of the content of what he has spoken and what effect it is going on people, there is Bheda over there. And if we don’t appreciate both aspects, Bheda and Abheda, if we embrace only the Abheda aspect, then we may be going toward Mayavada, where everything is one or we may even end up treating, having a mundane approach. So, we may alienate people.
So, the Bheda and Abheda means we respect the sanctity of Prabhupada’s words, but also we respect the sanctity of Prabhupada’s mission. And Prabhupada’s mission is not just that we repeat his words, but that we get people to come closer to Krishna. And for that purpose, it is our responsibility as faithful.
So, faithfulness, we need to, in one sense, nuance or broaden our understanding of faithfulness. As Prabhupada was creative, Prabhupada was resourceful, Prabhupada was provocative. So, like Prabhupada saying that notion of LSD.
So, statements like this both demonstrate Prabhupada’s resourcefulness in presenting in a way that is accessible, but they also require us to contextualize Prabhupada’s statements. So, being faithful to Prabhupada also means being faithful to the resourcefulness of Prabhupada, to the flexibility of Prabhupada and ensuring that we are also resourceful in carrying forward Prabhupada’s legacy. So, I’d like to add any last words, Prabhu? You did a beautiful job and I couldn’t have summarized it as well as you did.
It’s a wonderful thing to have such a stream of nectar coming and I wish I can keep many of these points forever in my heart. And I’m making a list of things which I wish I knew 15 years ago in Krishna Consciousness. Same here.
So, better late than never. Yes, indeed. Thank you very much for your enriching and