While explaining the philosophy we sometimes come up with examples that we not have heard in classes. How can we know whether they are realizations or speculations?

Transcript

This is an AI-generated transcript and may contain some errors.
Question from Rambhudra Priya Prabhu.
Sometimes when giving classes, we get examples, analogies to explain certain points. And these examples, analogies, we may not have heard in classes or they may not be there in the books of our acharyas. But they are appropriate to explain the concepts.
So, how do we understand? Are these examples our realizations or might they be speculations which we are ourselves coming up with? Answer? No. Examples are always contextual. Principles are eternal.
And examples will always have to be given according to context. If we do not give contextual examples, then the eternal principles will not seem relevant. So, we can visualize that we are the teacher of Krishna consciousness is meant to act like a bridge between the eternal and the contemporary.
And to act as a bridge, it is required that the teacher be connected with, have internalized the principles which are eternal. But along with that, one has to give examples which are contemporary. So, without, if you look at the way Baldev Vidyabhushan analyzes and explains Vedanta Sutra or the way Vishwanath Chaturthi analyzes and explains Bhagavatam and the way Prabhupada explains Bhagavatam, it’s quite different.
And it is required to be different because the social context in which they are explaining is different. So, according to social context, examples have to be given. And in that sense, it is not just the, it is not something which is undesirable or deviant or speculative.
In fact, it is the imperative, it is essential for the teacher to be able to do that. Without that, the audience will not find things relevant. Now, while doing that, two or three precautions one can take.
One first, most important is that actually sometimes some analogy that we come up with may have certain flaws. So, whenever we come up with analogy, there is original concept, there is analogy. So, generally the best way to explain analogies is explain the concept, then explain the analogy, then explain the parallels between the analogy and the concept, and then reiterate the concept.
So, if you use these four steps, then it becomes very clear. So, now, every analogy has its limitations, because the analogy is material, the concept is spiritual. And that is why this is called, using analogy is called the metaphorical thinking.
So, if the dissimilarities between the analogy and the concept are more than the similarities, then that is a bad analogy. So, for example, in one of my articles, I have used the analogy of how lust, anger, greed are like viruses. They are viruses that come in the mind.
So, now, one of the, when I submitted this article to British International, one of the reviewers had objected that, you know, viruses in the computer are something which is artificially injected by malicious people or mischievous people. Whereas, lust, anger, greed are something which we ourselves inject. So, that is why using the analogy of comparing lust, anger, greed to viruses will seem to shift, will seem to evade, lead to evading of responsibility.
We will not be holding ourselves responsible to become lusty, greedy, angry. We will be putting a blame on someone else. If my computer has become filled with viruses, it is not my problem, somebody else has done something to it.
So, this sort of evasion of responsibility can happen. So, then I said, yes, that is possible, it can happen. But then, if you look at the overall flow of the article, that is not my thrust.
My thrust is that we recognize these are external to us, they are harmful to us, and therefore, we cleanse ourselves from it. So, my point here is that whenever we use an analogy, it will have its limitations. And if the dissimilarities are more than the similarities, then it is best not to use the analogy.
And if somebody points out the dissimilarities, then one has to, if the dissimilarities are actually there, then one has to accept that and explain that, yes, this analogy, every analogy is imperfect. And I am using this analogy to convey this particular point. So, every analogy is like a rubber band.
If I want to carry something very heavy, difficult to carry. But if I put a rubber band around it, rubber band forms a grip sort of, which I can hold it then afterwards. So, it helps me.
So, like that, analogy helps us to get a grip on something. But even if I put a rubber band around an object, the rubber band is small, the object is much bigger. So, like that, analogy gives us some grasp of a concept.
So, whenever there are dissimilarities, it is best if we, whenever we come up with an analogy, think a little bit more carefully and look if there are any dissimilarities, which sort of weaken the analogy. And if there are no, and if the dissimilarities are not too prominent, for example, if somebody says that just as an iPod is charged by a battery that is present. Similarly, the iPod runs because of the presence of the battery.
Similarly, the body runs because of the presence of the soul. Now, in one sense, this is a similar example, because immediately the problem that comes up is that the battery is charged gets discharged. And once the battery gets discharged, then you have to recharge it.
The soul does not get discharged. So, what happens in some analogies, in principle, you can say that that analogy is not wrong. It is just saying that what is operating and then what is the operational principle or operational cause, they are two are different.
So, in that sense, that analogy is also okay. But when a dissimilarity is very prominent in an analogy, then it is better not to use that. Because if we see the way Prabhupada uses it in car, body, he does not say that the fuel, the petrol is the soul.
If we are to compare that machine analogy, just like there is a, in an iPod, there is electricity coming from the battery or current coming, energy coming from the battery that is the running it. So, similarly, if you are going to use a car body analogy, then it would appear as if the petrol is, the car is not running on itself, it is running because of petrol. Petrol is also material.
So, Prabhupada does not compare the petrol to the soul. Prabhupada compares to the driver to the soul. So, therefore, it is not wrong to use examples which the audience can relate with.
In fact, it is a responsibility. Prabhupada himself writes that realization means to present things in a way that are understandable to the audience. So, in that he gives a qualification that one should not screw out an unintended meaning.
Screw out an unintended meaning means that the Acharyas are saying one, or the scriptures are saying one thing, and we come up with the opposite conclusion or conclusion. As long as you are not doing that, as long as we are making it clear that whatever is the central message that is only being explained using a contemporary example, and as long as those examples do not have too many or too glaring dissimilarities from the original concept that is being said, then it is perfectly okay to use that. And if we have certain doubts, it is always good to check it with some senior devotees.
And get a clearer understanding. But we should not, we do not necessarily have to, especially after we have some experience, maybe in the first few years of a spiritual life, it is good that we repeat what we have heard. But as the years progress, as our understanding of the philosophy deepens, then surely we can use examples which we infer from our reading and our observation, our understanding, to explain those eternal principles in a contextually appropriate and appealing way.
Thank you. Hare Krishna.