When technological advances start playing God The Monks Podcast 111 with Yogesvara Prabhu

Podcast:

Summary podcast:

Video:

Transcript

This is an AI-generated transcript and may contain some errors.
Hare Krishna Yogeshwar Prabhu. Welcome back once again to the Wong’s podcast.
Thank you. Glad to be back with you. Thank you very much.
Yes. So today, I thought we could discuss on a theme that we had addressed briefly in our previous podcast about the extent, the limits of technology, not just the moral limits of technology, not just in what some technology can do, but what technology should or should not do. When technology starts playing God.
So now this came up, this comes up from various directions. But one key direction is, at this point, there are attempts, say, for example, to decide when life should begin or when life should end. So not just when, but how.
Like there are ideas of designer babies, and that is associated with eugenics, which had quite a horrendous connotation during the Nazi history. And there’s the idea also of assisted ending of life, you could say. But when is that legal? When is that desirable? When is that not desirable? I have read in Germany, they have made it like a fundamental right for a person to die.
So earlier, it was only when a person has a terminal disease, and it’s incurable, then they can die. But here now the rule is, that if a person desires to end their life, they see a psychologist. And if they say that yes, this person has a desire to end their life.
And then the same government, which is devoting resources to prevent suicide, are now also providing resources to a person who is perfectly healthy otherwise, to end their life. So where exactly do we draw the limits for technology? What do our Vedic, what do our Bhakti texts say about this? It’s a big issue, but maybe you can start with how you would like to address it, and then we can take it forward. I agreed to discuss this topic with you, Puru, not because I’m a scientist.
I know about as much as technology as you know about belly dancing. I’m not a scientist. Yes, I fully agree.
I think, this is, sometimes I feel, sorry to interrupt you, but this is, I feel, an issue where it’s not so much of, we are discussing more the, not the technicalities of science, but the scope of science. Because there is science and there is scientism, which places almost an aura of omniscience around science. So, yeah, thank you for clarifying that.
Well, but that said, to have this conversation, we do need to put science and technology into some context. Otherwise, we won’t be starting from the same point of origination. So some discussion about it is necessary.
But I think the value of this discussion, as you’ve intimated here, is that it does concern us as devotees, as concerned citizens of a broader world. You know, we move forward in our devotional life, not moved by neurological systems, but by ethical and moral and spiritual systems. And the implications, as you’ve been indicating, for that larger society with respect to technology, what it can do, what it should be allowed to do, are quite dramatic.
And they do concern us. This is my point. You can say, well, that’s not our business.
You know, within the devotee community, our business is, you know, strictly Krishna consciousness and the fundamentals of devotional service. And these issues, whether they be politics or technology, whatever, maybe those don’t concern us. Well, I disagree.
I think they do. I mean, why did the Acharyas bother writing books if they did not have a view toward the future of humanity? So… Beautiful talk. We have to have some concern, because if technology runs away from us, you know, what kind of future will there be? So, what is our responsibility towards the future? Not just ourselves of today, but also the implications of the developments within technology for tomorrow.
So, there are a number of issues like this that deserve our attention. But let’s, for the sake of sharing a certain starting point of information with your listeners, your viewers, why don’t we just put this in some context that, you know, this is, technology is not new. I mean, we are designing flying machines back in the 1480s when Mahaprabhu first appeared on the planet.
So, it’s not a new idea. But coming closer, if you go to, let’s say, World War II and the dawn of the atomic age, 1945. Now, what we see is this giant leap in technology where anthropocentric intervention, intervention, human intervention, can affect the future of things through our technology.
It may be, for example, that the future of Kali Yuga, as it’s described in Srimad-Bhagavatam, will not be an adi-daivic result, effect. It may be adi-bhutic, it may be anthropocentric, it may be that we ourselves will be the cause of the kind of description of this apocalyptic future in Kali Yuga that we read about in Bhagavatam. That’s not made clear from the text.
But it is, I believe, a possibility. We’re seeing already the deterioration in environment, in climate, and so on, has a human point of origin. And so, there is, I believe, this broader context for our conversation, that’s an important one.
And I do believe that it concerns us as devotees. So, that’s, I think, a good starting point for us in this. Okay.
Yes. So, I like this point, especially that the Acharyas wrote books for the future. Because in one sense, they had a reach at that particular time and through the oral tradition.
But books are for posterity. So, if I understand what you’re saying is that a broader concern beyond what immediately concerns us is an intrinsic characteristic of our tradition. So, that broader concern can be in terms of the broader human society at present, it can be the human society in the future.
And eventually, even if we stay aloof from some of these technological advancements, but they will intrude into our lives sooner or later. Because we are not, we as a devotee community are not living entirely isolated from the world. We are not an insular community in that sense.
So, I appreciate this point of, because it concerns us and our, so both ways it will intrude into our life. And a part of our tradition is to show the relevance of our tradition to say contemporary and futuristic issues. So, I think both perspectives are important.
Now, I thought of broadly three things, that there are three categories of say, you as you say anthropocentric or human intervention. So, there are some things which are constructive, some things which are destructive, and some things which are more ambiguous. Now, of course, the constructive things may also have some destructive consequences.
Say for example, when we started using automobiles, we did not really think that it was going to lead to lead to climate change. But there are some things which are broadly, we can say constructive, having electricity, air conditioning, and say some kind of temperature regulation that helps us to survive in extreme weather conditions. So, that is, we could say some things are broadly constructive.
So, in that sense, also, we are intervening with nature, but in a way that is broadly helping humanity. So, is that also playing God? And is it playing in the constructive? Is it playing in a healthy way? Then there are some things which are destructive. Say for example, as you mentioned, weapons of mass destruction.
Now, sometimes the destructive may also have some positive results, in the sense that now many parts of the world are trying to use nuclear energy. And relatively speaking, they say it is more eco-friendly than fossil fuels and others. Of course, to categorise when nuclear energy is being used for peaceful and violent purposes, that may not be that easy.
But the point is that, in principle, when we start using technology to try to modify the world around us, is that itself undesirable? Or is it the way it is used, the extent to which it is used, that is what makes it undesirable? I think the question is slightly misleading. The situation here is that this is inevitable. Whether we think it is morally, ethically justified, whether we have gone too far or not too far, the reality is, it is here, and it is real.
And the question is, how are we going to deal with it? The challenge is that it is not the technology, it is the culture around the technology. Now, we have allowed ourselves, from a scientific perspective, to outstrip our evolution morally and spiritually. We have started from certain assumptions.
The assumptions are that more is better, fast is better, deeper is better, farther is better. And it is because of, if you take a step back, the image we have of ourselves as living beings. If the image you have of yourself as a living being is that, this life is what I have.
Therefore, let me maximize the utility, the happiness, the pleasures of this life. All the effort is going to be geared toward that utilitarian goal, optimizing those goals. In fact, part of the issue in artificial intelligence, for example, the big challenge when you go into broadening from the specificity of artificial intelligence, which is much more limited to artificial general intelligence, where it really begins to imitate brain functions, is what is called the problem of alignment.
The alignment issue is, how do you align machines with the human notions of the greatest good? The risks that you see, Hollywood, of course, exaggerates this. When machines override their own limiting functions and rules, because they decide that if I’m going to achieve the greatest good for the greatest number, I have to kill this person. I have to kill that person.
I have to take over this country. I have to drop this atomic bomb. There’s different scenarios where the AGI, artificial general intelligence, outstrips the restraints that human beings have imposed on them.
If we take a step back, and this is, of course, the great contribution of Krishna consciousness, of the Acharyas, of our Guruvarga, of Shastra, is that we know we’re not, this one lifetime is not everything. This lifetime is a blip. It’s one frame in this extremely long filmstrip of lifetimes.
Now we have something that can guide our efforts, theoretically. So we have a great responsibility. This is why I say this is an important conversation, because what it does is expand the dialogue around the mission of Krishna consciousness in the world.
Away from the specificity of what we have known as identifiable devotional service, worshipping the deity, book distribution, 16 rounds, studying scripture, chanting the holy names, Prasadam, these are all the basics. They always have to be there. But that cannot be the extent of Prabhupada’s mission.
He didn’t come here just to create monastic selves. He came to create a spiritual revolution in society. And that spiritual revolution is not anti-technological.
It’s anti-material. Anything can be used in devotional service. I mean, that was the great contribution of Bhakti Siddhanta Saraswati Goswami Maharaj.
He wore watches, traveled in cars, sannyasis overseas, broke all of those traditions with technology in the service of Krishna. This is Rupa Goswami’s yukta vairagya. We have no problem with technology.
But what is the ethos that guides the use of that technology, the development of that technology, the deployment of that technology? That’s where Krishna consciousness has a role to play. I appreciate this point that before we get into specific issues, the culture around technology, that’s a very important point and the ethos. So now, but that itself brings us to, so are we discussing this from a devotional perspective or for devotees? Because there is a starting presumption that this life is just one life and or whether this life is as one phase over a multi-life journey.
So we could say that this is like a axiomatic truth that we accept that this is what our traditions wisdom brings in. Because if that premise itself is not acceptable to the technologically infatuated mind or not, I don’t want to use the infatuated negative sense, but if that premise itself is not acceptable to most people in society today, then to what extent can we engage with and contribute to that discussion? But in other words, let me see if I can rephrase your question. If people don’t embrace the Krishna conscious point of view, do we still have something to offer them with regard to limits or not of technology? Am I understanding your question? Yeah, I would say the Krishna conscious point of view has many aspects, but the understanding of the self as going through multiple lifetimes.
So I would say that in Krishna conscious perspective, there is ultimately Krishna is Krishna is God, the all attractive version of God. If we consider like a pyramid, the idea that a blueish black cowherd boy is God, that is a little more difficult for people to accept. The idea that there is an essential self that goes over multiple lifetimes, that may have little broader acceptance.
The idea, even broader we can say that life has a spiritual, life needs to have a spiritual purpose or life needs to be, life needs to have meaning, which comes primarily from say ethical and spiritual side. That we could say have a much more broader acceptance. Yeah, I see.
But I mean, essentially you’re asking what are the arguments that will be most compelling for getting people to reflect on the appropriate and inappropriate uses of technology, right? In a sense, I think you’re asking the question where people will be most responsive is when it affects them personally. So, you know, you go like 1995, for example, in Australia, there was an inadvertent unleashing of a virus that killed something like 30 million rabbits, you know, from a laboratory. The pandemic we’re confronting today, if people think that it’s threatening, it’s life threatening, well, they’re more likely to pay attention than if it’s just a theoretical issue about whether there’s a self that transcends death.
Okay. So, that’s understood. But it may be that we’re, look, Hollywood doesn’t help, right? You know, the Terminator image of, you know, cyborg, you know, soldier armies and, you know, these kind of human machine hybrids that… Yeah, Star Wars is filled with that, Star Trek has it.
And then they almost have almost entirely human characteristics, but they are largely science fiction, science fantasy, science fiction. You know, movies like Her with Joaquin Phoenix or Ex Machina, you know, and, you know, I mean, first of all, they get the science totally wrong. They’re ridiculous from that perspective.
But they’re movies, right? So, they’re engaging, and they raise certain issues for discussion. So, ironically, it may just be that the technology of entertainment is an effective entry point for discussion about the higher issues of technology, because it’s entertaining. You know, people are aware of issues, not because they’ve studied the implications from an ecological, environmental perspective, but because they saw a movie or a television show, and they go, oh, yeah, I remember.
That was interesting. Actually, let’s talk about that. So, you know, in that sense, that may be a way in for people.
And, you know, when the Matrix came out. Yeah, Matrix. And there are a lot of, I think a lot of relevant things in Matrix as compared to… Sure.
The whole idea that we’re asleep, you know, in a kind of material machine, and that if we wake up to our true self, and so on. I don’t know where the Wachowski brothers got all their ideas, but it wouldn’t surprise me if they were reading something from the Vedas. And I remember, for example, even before I became a devotee as an 18-year-old in 1968, when 2001 first appeared in movie houses.
It was fascinating, you know, the idea of a sentient machine, you know, overriding human orders for its own notion of what is a more important goal or objective. I mean, it was extraordinary at the time. Today, you fall asleep, the movie is so slow.
Yeah. So, you know, our own thinking has evolved over time. But the, you know, the meta-dialogue the larger dialogue is important and can be made interesting.
I think this, maybe this is the best answer I can give you, as we talk about this spontaneously. It is our, that’s precisely our responsibility, isn’t it? That’s our job now, is to find a way to take Prabhupada’s teachings, the traditional teachings, and evolve a new language, a new vocabulary, new phrasings, new wordings, new concepts, new modalities of expression, so that the essence of those teachings makes sense to a scientific and technologically oriented society. Which is why, for example, I was very honored recently when the people at the Bhaktivedanta Institute in Gainesville asked if I would join their board.
I felt very honored that the Bhaktivedanta Institute was arguably the most important project of Srila Prabhupada. He wanted to establish on scientific terminology, I can’t say scientific ground, but scientific terminology, that there is a relationship, that the Vedic perspective, the notion of transcendent self and non-material self, consciousness, not as a product of material wave functions and particles, but as something of a different order altogether, is defensible. There’s a famous walk on Venice Beach when he told the science disciples, our worship of Krishna, that’s our own internal business.
Your job is to present that consciousness is a non-material phenomenon. I’m paraphrasing. So there, I think, that’s not only a great responsibility, but that’s exciting, that’s amazing, that we have this opportunity.
What an extraordinary thing, and we need to embrace it. Beautiful. So, broadly, what you are saying is that, with respect to this dialogue, rather than first determining the limits of specific advances, so we can focus on the, as you said, what do we bring to this discussion? And what Prabhupada wanted us to take, take the, take the message that he got from the tradition and see how it interacts with and how it addresses these issues.
Yes, Prabhu. So, if we accept the premise that, like as you said, consciousness is, consciousness is not simply a result of biochemical changes in the brain cells. So, if this understanding is there, how would that understanding reflect our technological pursuits? Or how would that understanding shape technological pursuits? Well, I’m going to answer you, but in an indirect way.
Let’s step back for a moment and look at where things are in, let’s say, the world of artificial intelligence. Right now, you have, most of the progress has been made in what’s called narrow AI. Some people don’t even like the term artificial, they say augmented intelligence.
So, it’s called a different way, but narrow AI is what most people are familiar with in your GPS and, you know, fast computations of very large numbers that excel the rate of determining how to get through masses of data, you know, trillions of bits of data in super fast time. The more exciting area, I think, for most people working in this area is, as we were discussing, artificial general intelligence, where things become more spontaneous. I remember going to, by the way, I do recommend to those of your listeners or viewers who are interested in the subject that they go to worldsciencefestival.com. My privilege is to have a very well-known brother, a physicist, Brian Green, who has put together this extraordinary program called the World Science Festival.
People are interested. There’s thousands of recorded panel discussions and presentations and lectures. And all you have to do is in the search box, it’s free.
It’s absolutely free. Just search for artificial intelligence or, you know, black holes or whatever the particular interest that you have. So worldsciencefestival.com is the place to go.
I remember, however, going to one of the events of the World Science Festival, and there was a panel on stage, and it was mostly brain researchers. And they started, the subject of this panel was creativity and the brain. And they started with one of my heroes in the world of modern dance, Bill T. Jones, phenomenal choreographer.
And Jones was invited to start this event by creating a spontaneous dance for 60 seconds. So there was a cello, and he would stay within a one foot square and did, and without repeating a position. So he went through 60 seconds of totally spontaneous, beautiful gestures and movements.
And then the panel discussion opened up, and they were showing projections of computer renderings of the brain when the brain has a creative idea. And then this part of the, you know, abdullah opens up this changes color over here. And Bill Jones is on stage, he’s like this, he’s obviously very worried.
And then he speaks up, he says, you know, I have a concern. My concern is that someday, when we want to create a piece of music, when we want to create a dance, someone’s going to sit down at a computer, and they’re going to knock something out, and that will be considered creativity. He says, for me, the only way I can describe for you the sensation, the fulfillment that I feel when I’m on stage, and I, and I dance, is the word spiritual.
And provo, I have to tell you something, it was very embarrassing. What happened next was totally embarrassing. This panel of scientists did not even dignify him with a reply, they did not even bother to answer.
They ignored him as if he wasn’t there and had not said a word, and just went on with their whole discussion about this lights up and these neurons and things. It was so embarrassing. That now, of course, not all scientists are like that.
I remember another panel discussion, where it was a discussion about consciousness. And there were brain researchers from Columbia University and elsewhere. Unfortunately, one or two of them were rather conceited.
And you know, one, one man who’s very well known, said, you know, for hundreds of years, we’ve always said we have a brain. It’s taken us this long to understand, finally, that we are the brain. And he goes on and on and on.
Oh, my God. And there was one person on that panel, who was a philosopher. And he said, I just have to ask you something.
Does it really diminish us so much to admit that our intelligence has not evolved to the point where we actually understand what consciousness is? Are we not able to actually admit that we truly don’t know yet? And again, dismissed as though he didn’t make a point worth considering. I walked out, I can tell you. So there is a certain kind of conceit that arises in the science community, because technology has been doing such phenomenal things.
The rate of acceleration over the past 70-80 years is extraordinary. It’s amazing. I mean, look, I, you know, I wear this Fitbit, you know, there’s more computational power in my Fitbit than in the entire NASA space operation that put Neil Armstrong on the moon, if you believe that we went to the moon.
We’re not going to get into that. But the entire 60s and the entire 60s and 70s of the space program, there’s more computational power in here. And most of that, the functioning of this watch is predicated on the behavior of electrons and subatomic particles that no one has ever seen.
We have to be willing to admit that that’s some pretty impressive stuff. And, you know, medicine, the developments in medicine, I mean, when devotees need an operation, or they need medication to get healthy again, in those moments, we don’t poo-poo science. I think we need to make this distinction between science and technology as viable tools that can be engaged in devotional service.
And the mentality which says, we don’t need a God, we’re capable of coming up with the answers to our problems on our own, that’s the risky part there is when this hubris develops, this egotism, that because we can evolve these technologies, that is therefore evidence that there is no non-material causality in the world, that it’s all possible within the realm of matter. You know, the physicalist science perspective is the right link. That’s dangerous.
That’s, that’s where you get all these, you know, move these, these, you know, man versus machine movies, you know, and man comes up on, because the idea being that we, we have on our own the capabilities to overcome any, any hurdle, any obstacle, and that’s dangerous. Yes. I think that’s a very significant difference between say, using technology, accepting the utility and value of technology for, for our functional and our spiritual purposes, and then thinking that technology will lead to the, will lead to the denial or rejection or using, that technological advancement gives us the right to reject God.
So, there are many distinct differences. Having said that, you know, in the domain of technology, what come, in the domain of using technology, what comprises say, playing God? What comprises? Playing God. Say, I read that, say now we are, almost so many of us use glasses.
So, when, when glasses were developed for the first time, there were some religious teachers who said, who said that you should not use them, because you are interfering with the natural way, with the way nature, nature goes through. So, if nature is decreasing your eyesight, why interfere with nature? You have no right to interfere with nature. Now, today we would consider that, that absurd.
But say, in the, in just a few, maybe a few hundred years ago, 50 or 100 years ago, we didn’t have so many facilities for CPR, where a person gets a cardiac arrest, a person’s heart stops working, and then we use so many techniques for restoring their life. So, now this is, that’s why I said earlier, it’s like, this is constructive, constructive use. So, if by the body’s own functioning, the life is ending, and then we use intervention to ensure that the body is still a usable instrument for the soul.
So, if that is, that is a valid use of technology, and say, if we move forward, when does the use of technology become, become questionable? As you said that, when do we start going from the role of using technology for, say, maintaining our survival or increasing our, our comfort in life, or at least decreasing our discomfort, to when we start using technology to, to usurping God or playing God? That’s where the question comes up, because it’s, it’s a slippery slope. I mean, principle, even within our tradition, we had Ayurveda. So, using means to enhance health or to, to cure disease, that is not at all anti-technology, that is not anti-spiritual at all.
So, earlier you said that things are, that we are not anti-technology, we are anti-material, which is a very important point. But in terms of the deployment of technology, when does it change? Or when does the purpose change? Or is that something which is up to every individual’s conscience to responsibly decide? Technology and science do not have a moral comfort. They do not have a spiritual or ethical comfort.
They’re meant to be neutral in that regard. They don’t attempt, scientists don’t attempt to take a position on the correctness or the incorrectness of the use of what they find. They say that’s the realm of philosophers and religionists, that’s not our business.
Our business is to figure out how this works. So, you know, we’re in an experimental period because the technologies that are emerging are forcing us to ask questions. For example, you mentioned earlier eugenics, for example, and we still have certain respect for life, for the sanctity of life.
But when Nazi Germany, as you rightly mentioned, back in the 1930s and early 40s, instituted programs of euthanasia, of the murder of people with genetic challenges, mental illnesses of different kind, they pointed to the United States for their role model. The United States in the late 20s, early 30s, sanctioned lobotomies, sterilizations, other forms of violations of the dignity of life under the pretext of wanting to build a stronger, saner, safer society. And those programs were endorsed by very high-ranking people in science and government and education.
And today, for example, in legal circles, there’s a question about the introduction of artificial intelligence, AI systems into the criminal justice arena. When is due process of law compromised if evidence is being aggregated through AI systems and the specificity of a crime is lost within those data and statistics? We don’t know the answer to these things. It’s a time when men and women of goodwill, and we need to acknowledge it, you know, the world out there is not populated by, you know, rakshasas and rakshasis.
It’s not. Let’s calm down a little bit about these things. The world is comprised of decent, for the most part, men and women and children who wish to go about their lives.
They’re not looking to defeat God. They’re not on some kind of political platform to prove the supremacy of science over religion or anything like that. There are some people who are strident and outspoken about these things.
But for the most part, the world is filled with decent people who are looking for basically to handle their responsibilities, take care of their children, have at least a minimum decent quality of life. And why am I bothering to say all this? Because in our discussion about technology and the relationship of devotional life to the constantly accelerating world around us, I think we need to recall that our primary obligation is to be good examples. So that when we talk about these things, whether it’s, you know, the role of the relationship of Krishna consciousness in science, or the rights of women, people of other than binary sexual positions in society, or whether it’s races and different communities, we are attempting to be Vaishnav.
We’re attempting to offer all respect to others. How are we ever going to make advancement ourselves if we think ourselves better than anybody else? I don’t see how that’s possible. I remember Srila Prabhupada once, a young man came to him with an idea.
And he said, Srila Prabhupada, I have an idea for a book. And I want to call the book 108 Steps to Krishna Consciousness. Prabhupada hated the idea.
He said, no, no, no. Krishna consciousness is not mechanical like that. That’s interesting.
I don’t do that. But that’s a good, I think that’s a good metaphor, a good equivalent for our conversation about technology. The starting point for us is character.
The starting point for us is respect. The starting point for us is a level headed, dispassionate assessment of options and opportunities in service to the Supreme Lord. Okay.
So I mean, I appreciate what you’ve spoken. And I love this point about not like seeking simplistic, like reducing spirituality down to simplistic steps. So spiritual wisdom, it is like we’ll have to have a deep discussion or dialogue between how our spirituality can affect us and our use of the resources in the world, including technology.
But if we take specific issues, is there any, so I’ll keep the discussion a little more open ended, because I’m realizing that focus, like questions which are too focused on particular issues may not may elude quick answers. So would you like to take any particular issue and to illustrate how the, how we can contribute based on our tradition, something to the discussion around the culture, discussion about the ethos and culture of using technology? Yeah, I mean, we touched on it earlier, Prabhu, and it’s what I think we would, what’s called in the intelligence field, unaligned intelligence, you know, when the purposes of technology are not aligned with essential human value. I mean, you know, the people involved in these worlds are all warning us about it, you know, the Bill Gates’s and the Elon Musk’s, you know, Stephen Hawking once described that artificial intelligence is either the best of humanity or the worst of humanity.
We’re in a position where we have, this is an opportunity, it’s an opportunity to introduce guidelines for the future of science and technology. That’s why I joined the BI board. I think it’s critically important that somebody, who’s going to do it? Who’s going to offer those guys? I mean, yeah, there are departments in laboratories and in universities of called, you know, ethical intelligence.
There are officers whose job it is to assess whether the applications of technology, even our godbrother, Ramatirtha Prabhu in Gainesville, his job is to assess if an industry wishes to come in into an area, what will their environmental impact be? And his report will very often determine whether a company is given a license to build factories or not build factories. So, you know, there are opportunities that we have if we ourselves are clear. And I think this is the point.
There’s an education. That’s what we know. It’s been, what, since Srila Prabhupada came to America, now it’s been, what, how many years now? And we’re at a very exciting time, very, very exciting time, where we’re, you know, the temples are there, the structures are there, the books are there, the infrastructure is evolving, the, you know, the foundational tools are coming into place, the safeguards, child protection, whatever it may be.
We have an opportunity now to go deeper. And I think this is what Prabhupada always wanted us to do, to penetrate deeper into the issues of society so that we can contribute something unique from our perspective. It has to do with the nature of consciousness, which you and I have talked about before.
But with regard to this issue of the future of technology and what are the limits, you know, where does something become counterproductive, where does it become dangerous, the issue is who will offer that education so that those people who are involved in these fields have moorings, have a structure, have a background architecture, an ethical and moral and spiritual architecture to work with them. That, I think, is the challenge in front of us. But the technology is undeniable.
Look, my son is an airlines pilot. 95% of the time that he’s in the air, his plane is on autopilot. So, I mean, whenever someone wants to go out on Harinam Sankirtan, they consult their GPS, you know, what’s the best route to get there.
It’s a part of our lives, you know, it’s just, it’s not an irrelevant discussion. But what you’re asking, I think, is much more future-oriented. You’re saying, what are the limits? How do we know those limits? And I’m not sure that the answer lies within the technology itself.
It’s in the, the technology reflects its engineers. You have to, we have to remember that technology is dumb, you know. Artificial intelligence is not very intelligent.
It’s dumb. And the best that it can do is reflect the presets of its own engineers and designers. If you have engineers and designers who have been grounded in a spiritual education, in the wider context of what are the ultimate benefits of humanity, then we won’t have to worry about the future of technology.
The people working in those fields will monitor themselves. That’s, I believe, where the Prabhupada’s mission comes in. Yes.
Yeah, of course, it’s quite clear that technology doesn’t have the answers to how technology is to be used. Einstein famously said that we can talk about the, we can talk about the ethical foundations of science, we cannot talk about the scientific foundation of ethics. So, that’s very clear.
So, what if I understand right, what you’re saying is that if this is a particular technology, and we are going to use it, so rather than we specifically stating how the technology should be used or not used, we create a system or a structure for informing those who are developing and deploying the technology. And then they will be able to have more ethically responsible usage of the technology. Well, yes, theoretically, that could be the program.
It would require, if I may, devotees trained in these fields. I’m a layman, you and I can have this conversation because I’m not attempting to represent the technology industry or the scientific establishment. I have no degrees in any of that.
But what I do know from my field is that, for instance, Nazi Germany took their prisoner population counts inside the concentration camp, using an early generation of IBM computers. People may not be aware of that. But the background to the Holocaust was scientifically designed, technologically executed.
Yes. And so, you know, we assume, you know, those of us here in America, that democracy is always going to be there. We’re accustomed to it.
It’s around us, and so on and so forth. And that technology will always be contained within this frame of reference. Nazi Germany proved totally otherwise.
So, you know, this isn’t just theory. This is historically proven that without that moral compass, without that spiritual compass, it can lead to the most devastating of conclusions. So it’s a serious subject.
And I believe we are seeing some good signs now within ISKCON, within the Vaishnav community, that people are beginning to take stock of the kind of a contribution we can make in these larger areas. Beautiful. So when you say that you’re seeing the signs, are you seeing the signs within our movement or you’re seeing the signs of our movement wanting to engage with these issues? Are you also seeing signs within the mainstream world that they are becoming more open to insights from spiritual traditions? Because the example that you gave earlier seemed to be they were quite dismissive about the idea of any spiritual inputs.
So… I don’t think it’s filtered down to a temple level yet. You know, in education, there are two things. It’s called the systems level, and then there’s the buildings level.
Systems level means an educational program that’s implemented across the whole state, for example. Building level means that there is ancillary materials that each teacher in each building gets to choose. I don’t think that this kind of a discussion has filtered down to the building level or the temple level within our society.
When Sariputra was living in Gainesville, there was some of this going on there. Bhaktiswarup Damodara Maharaj, of course, always spoke about this in his classes. But it’s still pretty much limited to the various Bhaktivedanta institutes around the world.
The good news is that there is a growing community of devotee scientists, and there’s an initiative, one of the many initiatives that the BI in Gainesville has implemented of outreach to devotee scientists around the world. So there’s a kind of network that’s beginning. And little by little, you have these networks forming into colonies or unions of like-minded people in a certain field.
So we have physicians, devotee physicians, who are beginning to organize themselves. We have devotees working in chemistry, devotee scientists working in cosmology. So these clusters are beginning to form and grow and beginning to develop a kind of internal synergy among themselves.
So that’s critically important, and that needs to be encouraged. It’s not yet on a systemic level, I think, institution-wide. We’re still at a point where the institution is having to deal with the basics of protecting Prabhupāda society, making sure that there are controls in place, financial and behavioral and so on.
So even though we’re 60-some-odd years into this, going deeper into the areas that you always bring up, your programs are phenomenal. Those have to happen on the level of the congregation. If you look historically, the inroads that have been made by religious communities rarely get implemented by the clergy.
The clergy are responsible for safeguarding the institution. They have to make sure that liberals like me don’t rock the boat too much and that the best practices from the past are being maintained and perpetuated. When you look for innovation, you look to the congregants.
They have the liberty, the option, the opportunity and the impetus to bring fresh blood, fresh ideas, fresh energies into the community. So I think that’s where we’re going to see it. True.
It’s very striking that in general, if you consider our whole tradition, reform has happened more at the sidelines than at the center. Bhaktivinoda Ṭhākura himself was not a central part of the Gaudiya tradition. He was not born in it.
He was not even initiated when he discovered the Gaudiya tradition and it was he who brought in the dialogue with the Bhadraloka and in one sense, he created a new future, a new trajectory into the future for our tradition. So Prabhupāda is also not the central leader in the Gaudiya Math and he, in one sense, now of course, around him a whole tradition has been built. But so what you are saying is that it will be more individual devotees who may form, say, I don’t know, sister organizations or associated forums, what would be the right word, but they may come together and form, create some formal and informal structures and then there will be this dialogue that will happen, this interaction that will happen at a broader level.
Yes, if there are devotee scientists out there among your listeners, viewers, I would encourage them to reach out to the BIHS, Bhakti Vedanta Institute for Higher Studies in Gainesville, find out more about what they are doing, learn about the people working in your field with whom you can connect and maybe develop your own synergy. And don’t wait for somebody upstairs to bless your effort. Just go do it.
Just go do it. Just go take the initiative to get something started. That’s how things move forward.
Prabhupāda didn’t wait for someone to say, okay, now you could, you just go do it. And of course, take advice from the senior devoted community. You can never go wrong with that.
But where each of us called upon to issue, to engage with our own initiative in a life of devotion, and each of us has been given our particular skills, our particular field of knowledge, our particular sphere of influence, and our job now is to go out and to make the most of those opportunities. That’s amazing. So, in one sense, this is, this is more of a, the right word for it, de-institutionalized or individualized application.
So, for example, I work with the Bhakti Vedanta Hospital doctors, and they were discussing, they had a few of our devotee leaders from other Gopinath community, they had a virtual meeting on discussing what should be the policy, if somebody wants to, if they’re not able to have a child, then can they use IVF? Can they, what all things can be done, what all things cannot be done. Sometimes in IVF, you know, the embryos are created, and they’re harvested, and if one works and others are destroyed. So, is that acceptable? So, these kind of issues, now I tried to give some inputs, and other devotees also gave some inputs.
So, there were the three things which I thought of at that time. One is that this requires both spiritual expertise and technical expertise. And there has to be a deeper understanding of the issue based on a serious discussion on this.
And then, after that also, when an understanding has arrived, would there be like one universal understanding for the whole movement? Would we have, say, in future, committees that our movement appoints, maybe the GBC appoints, and they say that this is our stand on this issue. Now, for some issues, maybe say, consider abortion. We may, the moral ambiguity might not be there so much.
Although in terms of the sociological context, certain factors may need to be considered. But so, are you saying that the positions, once the individuals take initiative, and then they engage into the dialogue, then eventually, there will be institutional position on these issues? Or that is something which may or may not happen? Oh, boy. I guess I should know better than to expect an easy ride when I come going someplace with you in this conversation.
Sorry about that. Well, ultimately, our relationship with the Supreme Lord is a very personal one. And I grow concerned when I think about institutions or governments trying to infiltrate too deeply into an individual’s private life.
My concern there is that it’s very easy to cross the line into totalitarianism, authoritarianism, dictatorships. And the risk there is to strip away the very nature of devotional service itself, which is a free offering of love from the heart. So, I grew very concerned, you know, when we enter into this particular territory about should there be institutional locked in stone guidelines.
I don’t know whether it’s even possible. Certain basic ideas, perhaps, of course, always have to be there. The foundations of our philosophy are inviolable.
But are they without exception? I can’t tell you that. I cannot say to you that everything is so absolute that it does not allow room for some exception. I think we have seen over the course of history, over the course of several hundred years, that Gaudi rationalism has proven itself flexible, has proven itself adaptable according to the changing circumstances of the culture around us.
You know, I used to have an office in the Empire State Building here in New York. The Empire is on the 52nd floor. And in the strong wind, you could actually feel the building swinging.
The reason is the architects, when they first designed the Empire State Building, recognized that if the steel pilings they used to support the core of the building were too rigid, that in a strong wind, they would snap and the building would collapse. So, there was built into the amalgam of materials a certain degree of flexibility in order to avoid that kind of risk. The same is true within institutions.
If you become too rigid, it’ll snap. There has to be some degree of flexibility in order to allow for diverse populations, in order to allow for shifting circumstances, changing issues and usages over time. And that’s also there in law also.
Law is codified, but then law can evolve. Courts can evolve in their thinking. Everything evolves.
That’s the nature of progress. It’s something that’s in constant motion. So, I’d be very careful, I’d be very wary of arbitrary, locked in stone.
Truth is not a set of tablets passed down from on high without change. Truth is a living, breathing experience that has many different dimensions to it. And I believe devotional character means being able to take a deep breath, step back away from our own convictions about something, far enough to be able to consider that maybe other people have a different perspective from mine, and it does not make them wrong.
If we’re ever going to see a strong, healthy, Krishna conscious culture making its greatest contribution in the world, Prabhu, I don’t think it’s going to be by people insisting that we are right when other people are wrong. I don’t think that’s the way it’s going to happen. I think it will happen by a maturing on our part, that we were able to accept that my conviction is my conviction, and now I’m willing to step outside the parameters of my conviction, far enough to listen with open ears what other people have to say because they have their covenant with God, just as I have covenant, my covenant with God.
Beautiful. When you’re saying this about truth is a living, breathing experience, at one level, truth is not just handed down, set up. Was it your tablets you used in the Old Testament? Yeah, not so oblique reference to the Ten Commandments.
The good news of course is that the commandments are infinitely unfolding. Yeah, unfoldable. But it was a metaphor.
No, I agree with you. In our tradition also we have this principle that Prabhupada quoted dharmam tu bhagwat pranitam, dharmam tu sakshat bhagwat pranitam, that dharma comes from God, but there is also dharmasya tattvam nihitam gohayam, mahajano yena gatasya pantha, that dharma resides in the hearts of the great souls. It resides in the deepest recesses of the hearts.
And how do we learn dharma? By following in the footsteps of the great souls. So, in that sense, that dynamic, that there is, as you said, there are some inviolable fundamentals, but then it is not that all aspects of living in the world are locked in stone. So, that dynamism is there within our tradition itself.
So, just to, you can reflect, I was going to say example of this, but maybe you can first respond to it. What you put me in mind of is what for me has been a guiding light in my own Krishna consciousness. That is that there is a foundational dimension of Krishna consciousness which is comfortable.
We adapt a personality as devotees, we adapt the neck beads, we adapt the clothing, we adapt the festivals and the holidays, and we identify ourselves with a cultural milieu that is familiar, reassuring. I think that when someone is ready to make some substantial progress in their spiritual life, you step outside that comfort zone. You enter into the more challenging issues, such as you are so good at raising in these podcasts, and you begin to exercise initiative so that you, as a unique, never to be duplicated, irreducible being, with your own unique relationship with the Supreme Lord Shri Krishna, begin to discover what that means.
You begin to discover what it means to exercise that uniqueness as a servant of God, because it’s not a parodying of someone else’s service. It’s not simply doing what someone else is doing. It’s very, very unique to each of us, and the only way we can come to know what is the nature of our unique love for God is by going out there and taking some risks, by stretching the envelope, by stepping outside our comfort zone and attempting to make that greater effort to do the one thing that is most pleasing to God, which is to bring knowledge of Him into the larger world.
That’s why that verse, if I love you, I want to do the thing that is most pleasing to you. And here’s Krishna saying, if you really want to please me, get up and get out there. And I’ve got other children who are, you know, suffering out there.
Go bring them back to me. So to do that, we have to understand what are our unique gifts, and that takes some effort. You can’t do that staying at home all the time.
Well, maybe these days, but my point is that it’s not without risk. That’s my point. Yes, I agree fully.
So that when we are offering, that we are all unique that I have understood, but never to be duplicated personal relationship with Krishna, that makes us, that infuses us with a sense of, you could say, non-egoistic, spiritual significance. Sometimes we say humility means we are insignificant. But at one another level, bhakti means that we are so significant that we all have a relationship with the Lord.
Each one of us has a personal relationship with the Lord. So, now applying that, so maybe I’ll just take one issue, which may not be particularly controversial. But say nowadays, artificial meat is being made, where without using any animal products, using say vegetable products, a substance is made, which looks like meat, which tastes like meat.
And so, would it be ethical or unethical to take that? Would it be devotionally, should technology be used to make something like this? Now the purpose of this may not be primarily spiritual, but it may be because there are people who are vegan and who, there is, that itself is a significant, is an indication of some evolution of higher consciousness. We are concerned about the life of, about animals. So, if we say opposite, now I’ll try to give both perspectives on this.
One perspective would be that, if it tastes like meat, it looks like meat, then it’s going to remind you of meat. And ultimately, we don’t want to eat meat. So, why eat something which reminds us of that? That could be one way of looking at it.
Why even encourage that? Why even support that? Another way of looking at it could be that, we say that, yes, if people are not going to eat it, if we can stop the killing of animals by this, and if in this way, less bad karma happens, then why not? And maybe it could act as a transition. So, people who are eating meat, they stop eating meat by this. And then eventually, they may become more, their consciousness may also become more receptive to spiritual truth.
So, of course, there can be many more pros and cons. Somebody may say that, we don’t know what are the long term health consequences of this, and we are tampering with nature, and we are unnecessarily getting into trouble. But so, if two devotees, or two devotionally engaged, devotees who are engaged in society, they come up with different perspectives.
One says, don’t eat this. Another says, don’t eat it, I won’t eat it. Or I won’t recommend people eating it.
And somebody says, I won’t object to people eating it. And if situations constrain me where I have to, I will not, I’m not in principle opposed to eating it. So, would both be broadly compatible with bhakti? Now, I’m just taking a specific issue, but I’m just trying to see how this could be applied.
If you would like to… I love that whenever we talk, you have very, very specific issues that you want to get into, and a very practical level of application of our talks. And that’s very important, of course. I don’t think we’re going to come to any kind of blanket conclusion here today about an issue such as this.
Sure, I think you’ve laid out the various perspectives quite well. I mean, it may not be for a devotee, because after all, if it tastes like meat, why would you want to eat it anyway? But if it means that there will be less animal killing in society, and that people who still have the taste have an option that they don’t have to be involved in killing animals and so on. I mean, the important issue here is the discussion, isn’t it? It’s not the outcome.
It’s the process. Really, we’re at a time when stimulating these kinds of discussions, we finally have a chance to do that. It’s not 1968, 69, 70, 75, 80, 85.
We’re 2021, and we’re finally at a point where we can begin exercising these tools that we’ve been developing for things that have greater ramification, let’s say, that can make a deeper impact on the wider culture. That’s the important thing. So, whether the discussion that you just outlined hypothetically includes one way or the other, may be a question of what country you’re in.
You know, if you’re in Argentina, where the number one industry is cow slaughter, that may be a different discussion than if you’re in some place where, you know, vegetarianism is more widespread. I don’t know. That’s very specific, the circumstances in which the discussion is taking place.
The important thing is the discussion. My God. So, it’s very significant.
So, what you’re saying is, in the 1960s, 70s, or even 80s, our purpose was more centered on conversion. Whereas, so that’s why the outcome was important. But now, our purpose is more of say entering into the conversation itself.
And then in that sense, becoming a part of the broader discourse in the world. So, the process itself is important. So, are you saying this is because we as a movement have evolved? Or is it because the world has changed and that conversion kind of outreach is not acceptable in today’s world? Or is it both? I don’t think people have changed all that much.
We’re reaching a more mature stage. We’re getting older and grayer. I used to be a redhead, not really.
But the point is that we’re getting older. And hopefully, we’re getting a little bit smarter. So that, you know, if we’re not going to just be attracting hippies and dropouts anymore, and we really want to reach a more intellectual audience, we have to have a firmer grasp of the issues.
And we have to be able to know how to engage in the dialogue about this issue. When people will take Krishna Consciousness seriously, is when they see that the exponents of Krishna Consciousness have something intelligent to say. We’re not going to, you don’t trick people into becoming devotees.
That doesn’t work. We’re not going to trick, what is the word? Trick or what? Trick people to do something cunning that will force them to make a decision they didn’t want to make, to move into a temple or to start chanting. There may be some trickery, some, in the early days of the movement, we used to do all kinds of crazy things to get people to take a book, because we have this conviction of they just touch the book, it’ll help them, and so on and so forth.
Well, that’s all right. We made as many enemies as we did friends. Today, if we’re going to make a significant contribution to an improvement, a spiritual reformation of the society, you can’t do it by tricking people into buying a book.
You have to be able to address issues. You have to be educated on those issues. You have to know what the themes are, what the challenges are.
You have to be aware of the various solutions that are being proposed. And then, when you’re immersed in something, you can find what is that unique additional contribution that we can make for Krishna consciousness. That takes some effort.
That’s the opportunity that we have now. This is a very amazing thought, because in the past, I used to write frequently on Back to Godhead magazine on the column called Vedic Observer, which address contemporary issues. And two of my books are on that theme, Timeless Wisdom on Current Issues and things like that.
But over a period of time, I started feeling that there is nothing definitive or conclusive that we are actually offering, because these are such complicated issues. And I can also say in 2005, I was much more, you could say, much more narrow minded or much more presumptuous about the scope of conclusiveness that we can offer to issues. Now, maybe some humility has come in, although there’s much more.
But then I started feeling that if we are not offering anything definitive, then what is the point of engaging in those issues? But what you are saying is that the purpose of engaging in these issues is not so much to give a definitive or conclusive understanding about that issue, but it is to enter into the discourse. And by that, people’s minds will open to who we are and what we represent. Now you’re talking.
Now you’re talking. When we just get off our high horses, we know, you don’t know, we’re going to clue you in. And just start talking like normal human beings again.
Well, what do you think about this? And what do you think about that? What do you do in your podcast? And we open to a dialogue. Right? And all of a sudden, we’re approachable. Nobody can identify with someone who’s so fixed in ultimate truth that, you know, who wants to be with them? Yeah.
Look, we’re sometimes so preoccupied with being ideal Vaishnavas that we forget to be one-blooded human being. The real preaching work, what’s good preaching work? Become somebody’s friend. Let them feel that they can trust you, that you’re interesting to talk to, that you’re actually concerned by them, their life.
That’s such a gift. That’s such a gift, especially now. There are so many broken hearts out there.
So many people suffering from loneliness. They could care less what your position is on technology and science and artificial meat. They could care less.
But if you take the time to sit with them and say, how are you doing? Is there something that you need? Just to be warm and friendly. They’ll never forget you. And then maybe one day they might even ask, what are those beads around you? What is this mad compulsion, you know, to impose ourselves on people? I don’t understand that.
I don’t understand it. You know, when Chaitanya Mahaprabhu was here, yes, he was a great scholar. He won people over, not so much by sophisticated Shastric references, which he did do, Prakashananda Saraswati, Sarvabhauma and others.
But because of the love in his heart, people were so thrilled just to be with him. And he loved everyone. They felt that he cared for them.
There was this totally smitten, you know, total love of Mahaprabhu for the person he was. Prabhupada was the same way. Yes, he was strong and he was philosophical.
But that’s not the side of him that I remember so much. I remember this person who was, he cared for me. He cared for everyone.
He was humble. He was funny. You know, you can love a human being.
You can’t love a philosophy. You can love a human being. It’s amazing.
We have discussed this topic earlier about how the Prabhupada that captured the heart was the one Prabhupada was loving. But I think bringing this issue, what you said about a mad compulsion to impose our view on others, you know, for many years, I would say that was my definition of preaching. We were all brought up that way.
I mean, look, truth be told, Prabhupada was someone for everything. You know, he wanted it. We’re a missionary movement.
Krishna Consciousness is a missionary movement. There’s no two ways about it. And there’s nothing to be ashamed of that at all.
But it’s more than just that kind of aggressive missionary. You can be a missionary and be very quiet, very humble. Sometimes that’s even more effective missionary work.
This is so true. And eventually, I think the deepest conviction, maybe some initial positive impression might come because a person appears very confident and has all the answers. It might appeal to some people.
But eventually, it is how thoughtful, how caring a person is. That’s what is going to lead to an enduring spiritual connection. So, we could see this discussion on these issues more as, I want to go back to one point which I didn’t address, that you said that the world is not filled with demons.
The world is generally, again, there is this polarity of we and they. And I think that is maybe an artifact of the time when we were a much more insular movement. So, when I started reading about, broadly outside our tradition.
So, I read one book by Houston Smith about world religions. And he said that when we are exploring other religions, we start with two assumptions. He said, people everywhere are essentially like you.
And people want to get on with the business of life and they turn to religion as a resource for getting on with the business of life. So, I found that very striking that as you said, people want to take care of their family, have a job, be healthy and go on with the business of life. So, how do we reconcile this with the idea, say that this Kali Yuga and most people are degraded and there are divine nature and there is demoniac nature.
So, sometimes some devotees, I have not seen an explicit quote. Prabhupada would say that if somebody is not a devotee, that means they are all demons. So, as I said, I have not read that quote.
So, the idea that people out there are not evil or bad people, this itself requires a certain amount of reconceptualization of Krishna consciousness. Because quite often in the initial days, there is a significant amount of fear that is created. I have to tell you something Prabhu and I get into trouble when I talk like this.
I know it, but I can’t help myself. This image that people have of Srila Prabhupada as some kind of, you know, someone with a sledgehammer in his hand, coming to smash demons, is the most harmful thing I think I can think of in our society. You know, it’s embarrassing, it’s infuriating, and it’s just plain wrong.
There were times when Prabhupada was strong like that and that was important. It was part of a certain ethos that he brought to his mission. But he wasn’t training us to become an army of disciplinarians.
But that’s not why he came. And so, it’s very saddening for me, as someone who knew him and spent time with him, to think that people have this image. And I tell you truthfully, I think anyone who has this idea, this image of Prabhupada, you know, the strong strict disciplinarian out there, you know, to smash the demons, they have some serious psychological problems.
You know, I mean, they might want to consider getting some therapy. Because that note, how on earth are you ever going to bring someone to Krishna consciousness if all you see is a world full of demons? I like what Carl Jung once said. He said, what if the worst of the offenders, the person who is most in need of correction, what if those people are all in need? What if I am the one who is most in need of my own concern? What then? That’s us out there.
That’s not some rakshasa horde. That’s you and me before Prabhupada came. I would just ask people to reconsider that strident position because frankly, I find it offensive.
You know, this is one of the things which struck me when I read your book Prabhu, that how you, Swami in a strange land, how you have presented Prabhupada. It is also, I got a recent comment I was going to share with you. He says, one devotee said to me, I feel I have fallen in love with Yogeshwar Prabhu’s Prabhupada.
I wish I had heard about this Prabhupada more than 10 years ago. So, this is beautiful. When I read, yes, I’ll conclude with this point and just to add to this point.
Now, when I read Radhanath Maharaj’s Journey Home, he devotes one full chapter on Prabhupada’s song Markine Bhagavad Dharma. And he described that song and he describes his reflection on that song. And in terms of the whole book, there is so much adventure in the whole book, but this is just meditation on one song.
So, then it struck me, I had read that song many times, but that was the time when I found so much he has devoted on, so much space in that book has devoted on that one song that the picture of Prabhupada we have in that song is, say, very different from the picture we might get from a book like Life Comes From Life or a book like the Hare Krishna, the Hare Krishna Challenge or some other books like that. So, that Prabhupada had so many different facets which could, which can be so radically different. And what you said is that Prabhupada, that sometimes Prabhupada did that, but that was not Prabhupada most of the times.
And Prabhupada’s purpose was not to create an army of disciplinarians. That’s quite a, I think for many of, many devotees it will be a significantly radically conceptualization of who Prabhupada was. Because for many devotees, Prabhupada was like this and occasionally he was, you know, he was accommodating, he was, that was like a license for sometimes.
But this is who Prabhupada was really. But what you’re saying is almost like flipping the narrative. Well, better late than never.
Yeah, it’s true. So, I always enjoy my time with you. You’ve challenged me.
You’ve challenged me to come. I would say that, yeah, I mean, it is, I really wish personally also that I had this dialogue maybe 10-15 years ago. But probably I wouldn’t have benefited as much from them at that time as I would have now.
So, I’m very grateful for this dialogue. And should I try to quickly summarize? I don’t want to take too much of your time. We went over a lot of topics.
So, we tried to discuss broadly the, is technology, is the technological development playing God? Is developing technology equivalent to playing God? So, rather than getting into specific issues, you focused on the point that we are not anti-science, we are not anti-technology. We have a whole philosophical underpinning for the use of technology, philosophical basis. What we are is anti-material.
And when technology becomes, say, Excuse me, I’m sorry to interrupt you. I would say, I would even adjust that somewhat. I don’t think we’re anti-material.
Yeah, that is true. I agree with you. I think we’re looking to manage things in society so that the material and the spiritual can cohabit peacefully.
Okay. So, I think, maybe we could say, not even anti-material, it could be anti-materialistic or anti-hedonistic. Yeah.
So, you said that, you gave the example of, was it the World Science Congress, where they were not ready to hear even the, can you hear about the idea of a non-material perspective, for a transmaterial perspective for the World Science Festival. Yeah. So, rather than focusing on specific issues, the core theme was the culture around technology.
Because rather than thinking that is this good or it is bad, you said it is here and it is real, and it’s not going to go away. So, how can we direct the discussion around it? So, first point you made, it concerns us. Krishna Consciousness is not just about identifiable devotional practices, I love that phrase, that such as chanting and deity worship, but it’s also about how we engage with the world in Krishna’s service.
And so, these issues are going to concern us primarily because they will infringe into our life sooner or later. And also because our Acharyas themselves wrote books, which indicates that they wanted to shape the future and engage with the broader world. And so, that’s what we should also be doing.
And then, so the ethos with which technology is used, the culture around the use of technology. So, how technology is, how and why technology is developed and deployed. So, we discussed how at one level, say, when in the Nazi Germany, the eugenics project developed, that was developed based on inspiration from America.
And there have been horrendous misuses. We talked about Australia also, a pandemic happened at that time in 1985, there in 1985. So, technology is real.
And rather than thinking that this is irrelevant to us, that could be one extreme. The other is that we have some definitive answers. And everybody simply has to hear those answers from us.
We can use these issues to engage in the discussions. And so, you got the example of how Bhaktivinaya Institute has now invited as one of the directors or advisors. What was that? That was asked to be joined the board of directors.
The board of directors, yeah. So, the idea is that we provide, those who are pioneers, those who are working in these fields, we provide them some overall direction based on, we become a resource for providing them that direction. And when we are engaging in this, the focus is not so much on the outcome as on the process, that by engaging in the discussion, we become a part of the, we get a place on the table.
And then people want to, people get to know about us. So, rather than trying to convert them to our definitive understanding, it is more that through our interactions, we get them to increase their receptivity and curiosity for Krishna consciousness. And one way of doing this also is that basically entering into the dialogue, we can go back to your point about, say, Hollywood movies which have sci-fi themes.
Quite often, the science in them is, they are not really scientific science, they are too fantastic. But that can be a good discussion point to get people to consider, say, some more spiritual perspectives. We talked about augmented intelligence and then overall general intelligence or artificial general intelligence, which is much more elusive.
Well, so, then one very significant point, when I raised the issue about, as we as a movement, will we have some positions on certain issues, you said it is more of, we do not want to become like a totalitarian institute, because that is a danger. Rather, the truth is not just locked in stone, but truth is a living, breathing experience. So, it is in the Mahajanoyanagatha, dharam sethato nihitam gohayam.
So, if we, if we can educate devotees and offer educational resources for the broader world, then individuals can come up to their own decisions. And that way, we will be empowering devotees and individuals to develop their relationship with Krishna and contribute in terms of their unique non-duplicable relationship in this world. And then toward the end, you mentioned about how, when we are trying to engage in a dialogue with people, we have to, we have a more humble and respectful attitude.
Not that we have the answers and all of them are demons. Rather, that Prabhupada, if Prabhupada is portrayed like that, that is a misrepresentation of Prabhupada. Now, Prabhupada was, you know, he was humble, he was loving.
And what people care of is not so much our position on particular issues, but on who we are as human beings. Sometimes in trying to be ideal Vaishnavas, we forget to be normal human beings. And what people need in the world today is, I love the statement that the essence of preaching is actually to become somebody’s friend so that people can, people see us as a trustworthy person whom they can open up to.
And that way, we can have more, you could say, more deeper and sustainable transformation of the heart and reorientation, reconnection of people with Krishna. You like to add any last words, Prabhu? As always, you do an extraordinary job of summarizing a long, complex conversation. Thank you very much, Prabhu.
Hare Krishna.