When presenting philosophy from one perspective how can we avoid getting carried away and rejecting other perspectives?

So, if we see that sometimes we are inspired by a particular point and then we overemphasize that point. For example, if we see that the world is becoming complacent and lethargic, then we may emphasize that our endeavor is what matters and destiny does not matter so much. But then in that sometimes we may get carried away and may speak something which is not the balanced philosophy.

So, how to avoid getting carried away? Generally, there is the philosophical and there is the personal. That means, there is, I remember long ago there was a conversation between Radhanath Maharaj and Giriraj Maharaj and they were discussing that when something like the twin tower fall had happened. So, what do we say to people at that time? How do we explain? So, Radhanath Maharaj was telling that I just don't have the heart at that time to tell people who are so distressed that it's their karma.

So, if we see that way also that whenever somebody suffers, at that time the focus is on helping that person in the best possible way. So, Krishna tells Arjuna in the Bhagavad Gita, you are not the body, you are the soul. And one of the principles he says is that, of science of knowledge, not to be attached to one's son or one's family.

In fact, Krishna gives the word son or child first. Putradhara-graha-dishu. And yet when Krishna and Abhimanyu is killed, Krishna doesn't tell Arjuna, you have forgotten my Bhagavad Gita, what I had taught.

Krishna is very supportive and very understanding. He doesn't get into the karma philosophy or you are not the body, you are the soul. Be detached.

He just reminds you, you are distressed like that, others are also distressed. Your duty should be to decrease, you know, immature people give in to lamentation. Immature people act in a way that they don't increase others' lamentation, they decrease it.

So, remember your duty. Basically, overall he consoles them and encourages them. Doesn't get into philosophy.

So, that's why, in every situation there is gyanam, jnayam, jnana-gamyam. Jnana is knowledge, jnayam is the object of knowledge and jnana-gamyam is the objective of knowledge or the goal of knowledge. So, when a particular objective is to be achieved while speaking to people, at that time a particular aspect of philosophy may be emphasized.

So, what we could do is, when we find ourselves getting carried away, if we are inspired by certain things, we will naturally speak those things. And we may also have seen certain things work in our life, naturally we will overemphasize those. So, then, instead of deflating our inspiration, what we could do is contextualize it.

That means, just in the beginning only or in the beginning or in the middle or whenever we become aware of what is happening, we can tell that philosophy can be seen from different perspectives. And at present, I am processing this perspective. So, that way when we make it clear, like we see in the Bhagavatam also, sometimes the same incident, Chitraketu and Chitraketu being cursed by Parvati.

On one side, Prabhupada says that Chitraketu, he had no business criticizing Lord Shiva and laughing at him. But in another place he says that the great sages who had assembled, they did not take any offense. What was the reason for Parvati to take offense? So, it was not a very interesting thing for her to do.

So, these are opposite perspectives. The point here is not who was right or who is wrong, because these are all exalted characters. The point is what we can learn from these incidents.

So, with that perspective, that means the same aspect can be analyzed from different perspectives. So, you can tell that this is the perspective I am going to take. And if sometimes you want to say a particular incident, why I feel inspired to take this perspective, that is also fine.

Say, for example, I have seen that in the name of destiny, devotees become irresponsible. Devotees do not take initiative for doing things. And then, when they do not take initiative, then not only can they not do the things which they could have done, but afterwards that leads to negativity, that leads to, you know, sometimes we do not do something wonderful, but when somebody else does wonderful, we become envious of them.

So, it can lead to negativity. So, that is why I am taking this perspective right now, where I am under-emphasizing the role of destiny and emphasizing the role of endeavor. But definitely destiny has a role.

And that can be emphasized in some other context or some other class. So, basically, it is not that we cannot emphasize what we feel inspired by, but along with the emphasis, there can be contextualization. I think this is where I am coming from.

So, once we do that, then once we start claiming that the way we are presenting is absolute, then it will become a problem. But if we, this is where I am coming from and this is why I am saying like this, then I think people understand. And Prabhupada also said that he wanted us to study scrutinizingly, that means to understand things from different perspectives.

So, we just do that. We are following what Prabhupada is saying and we are experiencing things from one perspective.