When someone we guide errs, how do we judge whether to discipline them and how much?

To understand a person's character is a very difficult thing. When somebody does something bad, how much should we hold them responsible? For the first level is that, you could say that, let's start from the, when we deal with people. On a positive side, we can give them empowerment.

Empowerment means like we we authorize someone, you can give classes. We authorize someone, you lead kirtan, you take care of these devotees. That is, we give empowerment.

Now, on the negative side, we give punishment. Now, somebody may think that not giving empowerment itself is punishment. But punishment could be, see empowerment is giving something positive.

Punishment is taking away something. So, if you say, somebody is misusing their phone, then you may say, okay, you don't use the phone. Or you don't use a particular kind of phone, whatever.

Let's say the example of taking away something. So, broadly speaking, at a basic level, we should set expectations for empowerment very clearly. Now, of course, these expectations have to be realistic.

But if we set expectations clearly, that if you want to do this service, you need to be up to standard. And then if they're not up to that standard, then you cannot do this service. So, once we make that clear, then it doesn't feel as if that person can't say that you are against me, and that's why you did this to me.

So, now, how much punishment to give to someone, that is a different question and that has to be very carefully considered. But in general, empowerment cannot be given without a basic level of impulse control. That is the way it is everywhere in the world.

Now, if, for example, if a policeman is short tempered, then if there is a good accountability system, if the policeman is short tempered and is beating up innocent people, beating up colleagues, and the policeman may be put on a desk job, where you don't even have a gun, you don't have physical power, you are monitored, because if a policeman go among citizens and beats up, and the policeman writes a report that that person beat me first, who is going to watch that? But that empowerment, that you go and represent the police department in the outer world, that can be stopped. You do a desk job, it's not that you have to be fired immediately. Firing would be like a punishment.

But empowerment, we can always have clear standards for that. So, I think this is not difficult to decide, to some extent. I could give many other examples.

If somebody is a preacher, and they are going to, and they are doing congregation preaching, and they start speaking inappropriately with some women. Not just glance, but talk inappropriately with someone. You know, a preacher or a brahmachari preacher, even a rasta preacher also cannot speak like that with a woman.

Then if you are going to do that, then you have to, you cannot be a preacher. You can be a devotee, but empowerment requires a certain level of impulse control. So, that we can set expectations, and we can adjust accordingly.

Now, if you go down from empowerment to punishment, that is where things become dicey. What is positive, we may take it away from you. But how much is it that the negative we give to you? That becomes a bit of a subjective thing.

Because at one level, everybody is practicing bhakti voluntarily. So, in the normal legal system, how it is that, you know, if you have done this wrong, you are punished in this way. But in bhakti, how much punishment can we give? If we are too hard on the person and the person gives up bhakti itself, then what is happening is, at least if they are practicing bhakti, there is some chance that they may overcome the conditionings.

But if they give up the practice of bhakti itself, then they may, their conditionings may only become worse. So, in this case, on the empowerment taking away, so there is a general difference is that when somebody is doing something wrong. So, is the wrong affecting others or affecting them, themselves, or one's self? Now, we can say that what affects one's self will also affect others because our consciousness gets contaminated.

That is true. But there is a slight difference over there. It's like, say, again, if somebody tries to approach a woman in the community and tries to have some affair.

On the other hand, if somebody watches some porn. Now, both are violations at one level, at different levels. But they are not the same.

Now, the second is causing harm to others. The first is harming oneself. Now, harming oneself is, is that something which would disqualify a person from being a devotee? Well, maybe not.

But should that disqualify them from particular leadership roles? It depends. It depends on, okay, if somebody is doing that, is that leading to? Now, I'm just giving a broad principle. I'm not advocating a policy over here.

I'm talking, I'm just giving example of a principle. That, that how much is that affecting their interaction with others? That is that leading to them giving evil glances to people? Is that leading them to certain things? So, we have to see. Say, if somebody steals Mahaprasad in the temple.

Now, that's not a good thing. But okay, they steal Mahaprasad. But if somebody is, I mean, if somebody goes into some gharastas, how they steal food over there? That will be a bigger problem, isn't it? Somebody goes outside and you go for, they go to an ordinary shop and they steal food from there.

They become a shoplifter. That will be a far bigger problem. Now, we say, obviously, we don't eat food which is not offered to Krishna.

But again, I'm giving an example. So, what is harming someone individually or internally? That may not require that strong inaction. That also requires, but that may not require that strong inaction.

But if something is affecting others harmfully, then that definitely requires strong action. So, with respect to the severity of punishment, I think multiple factors have to be considered, talking with that person to see whether they are feeling some regret and whether they are actually trying to reform themselves. Now, reform may also take some sign because some conditionings may be quite severe.

But then, are they ready to try to reform at least? Isn't it? So, generally speaking, the where we put them over in this range will depend on how much regret they have and how much reform they are ready to make. So, now, if there is no regret and no reform, then there has to be severe punishment. But if there is regret but no reform, because sometimes that means somebody may say, I really want to overcome my anger.

But they keep getting angry and they keep speaking horrible words to others. Then what do we do at that time? Then definitely some amount of radical reduction of empowerment has to be there. You can take up some service like graphic design or something.

No, you don't have to interact with anyone. People send you by email what needs to be done or WhatsApp and you do that. Don't interact with anyone.

It is possible to engage people like that. It is not easy. But it is that now they should also be ready to accept that.

So, fortunately, with so much being done through technology now, lot of people can be accommodated with their conditionings also. But unfortunately, technology can allow them to succumb to the conditionings also. It is like we talk about Ajamil going into the condition.

It is like Ajamil going into the conditions or the condition coming to him. But in this case, now with our gadgets, the condition is always with us only. We don't have to go into the condition.

The condition is always with us. There are many, many thinkers who are actually saying now that our technology has become too strong for our morality. And what are the implications of this? See, was the human mind and the human will designed to resist this level of temptation? No, that is so much temptation being bombarded on someone.

There was recently a case where, you know, again, I am not using this to judge anyone, like porn addiction. There is an article, there is an 11-year-old boy who was admitted to a porn addiction center. At the age of 11, puberty has also not come.

It is enough for somebody at 11 to get addicted. And so much addicted, his parents couldn't do anything. He was not ready to go to school.

He just spent time constantly on that only. So, this is somebody who grows up in that environment, like what we call as Gen Z. Gen Z, they are hyper-connected. They are constantly online.

It is sometimes, it is parents, when I go to America, parents say, you know, our children don't listen to us. Children are distracted by technology. I tell them, yes, but don't just think that your children are difficult, are being difficult, that they are in difficulty.

Actually, growing up in today's age, with so much technological distraction, it is not easy. It is extremely difficult. So, we also need to be understanding.

And ultimately, we are responsible for our actions. But when the conditions are constantly with us, and how do we protect ourselves? Or what can we do to protect others? So, these are difficult questions. I can only give pointers, but I don't think there are any clear-cut answers.

So, two pointers are that empowerment should definitely be with clear expectations. And then from that, punishment would depend on whether that person is harming themselves or others, and how remorse, how much remorse they have, how much regret they have, and how much reform they are showing. Okay.

Thank you.