Единство и сотрудничество (эфир с Махатмой прабху)
Bhakti Vijnana Goswami · 2020
Chapters
Preserving unity amid diverse opinions
Yes, we can start. But may I suggest that we start from the second part, not from the criticism, but from the, you know, from the second part, which is more positive. For positive, if we could do it. Окей.
International Historic has many spiritual masters with different rules and opinions on different topics.
How can we preserve the unity of our society and continue cooperation when faced with such perversity of opinions and moods?
And how can we avoid situations where the other devotees are split into different groups according to their beliefs. Why are we facing such a polarization of opposite opinions?
Maybe in some sort of an open forum where all controversial issues can be discussed. So, Mahārṇava Prabhu, please start. I'm gonna make a statement. I don't know if you agree with this. You tell me.
Said, how can we avoid this? And I'm not sure we can avoid this. And the question was a little rhetorical because he was also suggesting how we could deal with this. Which I agree with you. Discussion. That's important.
That's important. Krishna says: Don't run away from this discussion. The discussion is controversial.
Diversity as a natural principle
Krishna says: Надо избегать это обсуждение. During Bhakti-siddhānta's time, we had a problem with diversity. We all thought Krishna consciousness just meant we're all the same. And the fact
that we weren't agreeing, devotees thought, well, there must be something wrong. There's too much diversity. To think there is no diversity is mya. To think there's no diversity is māyāvāda.
The fact that there is diversity, that's normal. So, we have two things that you're discussing here. One is the principle of Guru, and one is the person of Guru.
So the principle is the same, but the individuals are different. Have you ever seen a picture of Śrīla Bhakti-siddhānta laughing or smiling? I've never seen it. We see many of Prabhupāda laughing and smiling.
They're different persons. He was in As we know, did many bhajans. And Śrīla Bhakti-siddhānta was not a musician. He didn't play harmonium or mṛdaṅga any of it. So,
if the difference is over details, that should be accepted as normal. If the difference is over siddhānta, then we have a problem. And I think sometimes we argue over details as if the details were siddhānta.
I think one of the things that we probably need to accept is that the diversity is healthy even if we don't always agree exactly with everyone. Так, give me an example. I am not a rhetoric. You're a hater.
But many of the things the ṛtviks say are very valuable for us because they talk about keeping Prabhupāda in the center. And ISKCON wasn't so good at keeping Prabhupāda in the center. At least we can become better at that.
Overcoming personal animosity in disagreements
So we don't agree with their conclusion, but it's not that they don't have valid points, some valid points. I think that maybe underlying this question is bigger problem.
What we see is that when we disagree, it has a potential to destroy relationships. We start to dislike people who don't agree with us. Have you ever thought like that?
Somebody has a certain opinion about something and you think, how could that person think like that? That's so stupid. Only emotionally dysfunctional person would ever think like that.
Or only a person who's got no academic education would think like that. There's so many things you could think. It? That's where I think a huge danger lies.
It starts to escalate into aparādha, or a serious criticism, because we don't agree. And that's where the disruption is taken.
And a lot of times when there's disagreement, it's just that one devotee is focusing on a particular aspect of an issue or of a siddhānta. And there's room for, often there's room for various understanding.
And the challenges that it poses is our, excuse me, our ability, lack of ability to try to understand another person's point of view, even if we disagree with them.
And understand it and empathize to some degree without condemning and offending. Not everybody will think the same, and not everyone is the same.
The spiritual world is bigger than even two opposing opinions, if we must be correct. Thinking of something really funny today. Sometimes we just don't like somebody because of their opinion about something.
Five years you didn't like the person because they didn't agree with you, now you've changed your opinion. Now you like him. It's funny and it's superficial. What I would say if I were to succinctly answer this question.
Cultivating maturity and tolerance
And say we need more maturity. And more tolerance of one another and appreciation of one another. One of my god brothers said it nicely. He totally disagrees with one devotee's opinion about the female diksha guru issue.
And he told that devotee, he said, you know, even though I totally disagree with you, I appreciate you as a sincere servant of Prabhu. And I think that's a mature way to deal with this.
This issue gets very interesting when a guru has an opinion and a disciple doesn't agree with it. He agrees with the opinion of another guru. Этот topic gets even more interesting. That's why I say maturity.
Maturity is very important. And I was just reading a letter of Bhaktisiddhānta Sarasvatī Ṭhākura. Unfortunately, can't quote it exactly, but used this word.
Maturity is one of the ingredients that is necessary for us to be able to work together.
Another thing I've seen, which we should try to avoid, is that in our disagreements with another devotee, sometimes we degrade ourselves into a kind of tamagun consciousness and become antagonist of that idea.
We kind of take a diversion from Vaiṣṇava etiquette in our attempt to have a quote unquote siddhānta vāda. And we can become tamasic in our behavior. And that is supreme paradox.
We're trying to come to the truth and we just descend into tamas to make our point. Can't work that way. Sometimes devotees will ask this question to only devotees. Not just prapathi sakhas, but only devotees.
ISKCON has had so many problems. How is it that you're still able to stay in ISKCON? And the main answer, maybe the only answer, is Prabhupāda.
Because it's such an austerity to deal with all these differences in the feeling. But that's the austerity for all aspects to undergo. Alright, you must have this experience.
Like, you have your own group, you sit down, you have a meeting, you make a decision. But if you want to make that same decision with the GBC, could take eighteen years. That maybe no decision. Right?
So that's the austerity of dealing with a diverse international.
Prabhupāda asked us to work together, which means there's gonna be some compromise. There's gonna be some austerity. But that's what it that's what it means. It's only inconvenience.
You know, this last suggestion in this question was should we discuss these things, these issues publicly? If the discussion is done by qualified people, and it's well researched, and they're not... And balanced? Yes!
That's very important. I think that would be the good thing to broaden our perspective.
Flaws of forced social uniformity
I want you to take over. Thank you very much, Mahātma Prabhu. I don't know if I can add something to what you have said.
First of all, I wanted to say that it's a great honor for me to speak together with Mahatma Prabhu whom I know for many years and respect.
Actually I've known him from listening to the tape which he recorded, Kṛṣṇa tvadīya-padapaṅkaja-pañjarantam. And I was listening it again and again and again. His angelic voice and very feeling bhajans, Brahma-saṁhitā.
And then I met him in Alachua and several times in Māyāpur. And I really appreciate his very deep approach to things and very real. Okay, why don't you translate? I'm sorry. You don't have to translate that.
No, no, you have to.
I really appreciate Mahātma Prabhu's very, very real approach to different issues which we have. So, I don't know if I can add something to what he has already said. But perhaps I can speak about the same thing from a slightly different angle of vision. I've been born in The Soviet Union and lived a good part of my life in this very special, social, experimental state, so to speak.
And the essence of the whole idea of communism was to make everyone equal in all regards. No diversity!
Appreciating variety in spiritual life
I still remember very peculiar scene when you enter a shop in The Soviet Union and you only see one variety of product on all the shelves. It's just the same, same stuff. Totally useless. Nothing else, just no variety.
And there was a very, I would say, sincere attempt to make people think the same, which was very consistently applied in this experimental state. But it failed.
So, as Śrīla Prabhupāda very aptly says in this famous letter to Atreya Rishi Prabhu, Atreya Rishi I think, that the attempt to make everyone the same is Māyāvāda. Mayavad taken from the philosophical realm to the social realm. Make everyone exactly the same. And the temptation to make everyone the same is very strong because it's indeed as Mahatma Prabhu said, it's a psychological need of people.
It's a very artificial way to solve this problem of variety of irritatedness to make everyone the same means to make everyone think the same. So, and why is it māyāvāda?
Because the psychology of Māyāvāda philosophy is that one thing I'm God, and therefore everyone should think the way I think. And we're trying to establish ourselves as the center of the universe by forcing everyone else to think the way we think.
But if we are divorced, it basically means that we not only recognize the variety, but we also appreciate variety. We not only tolerate the variety, we appreciate the variety. We really enjoy the beauty of variety, including the variety of opinions.
I think John Paul Sarter, the famous existentialist, philosopher existentialist, he said that the very existence of somebody else is a scandal. It's intolerable thing that somebody else with different opinion exist, there to exist.
It's like, sometimes, I ask, if you could fix somebody, like we say in America, I'd like to fix this first. Yeah. So, you know, you think, how many people in the world would I like to fix? It's a long list of people.
Starting with the GBC. You know who I would fix?
Essential unity centered on devotion
So they always think like So, this way of thinking is totally opposed to the devotional way of thinking. The devotional way of thinking is we're happy to hear that somebody else has different opinion.
Of course, as Mahatma Prabhu rightly said, this variety of opinion has to have certain, how to say this, borders. It's not limited variety in the sense that there should be some essential unity.
General De Gaulle, one of the first president of France after the Second World War, he said that it's impossible to rule the country which has 233 varieties of cheese. So when the variety becomes too unwieldy, it becomes chaotic, it becomes really not nice either. Therefore, if we want to establish this principle of unity in variety, we have to very clearly understand what is this essential unity which we have to have. And it's actually not so difficult to establish this if we, you know, understand that Krishna is the center, that Krishna is the supreme personality of god.
I'm his servant, I'm his dāsa and everyone else is also his dāsa and Śrīla Prabhupāda is his representative. You know, there are few essential points which establish this essential unity.
And if somebody else agrees to these very essential points, then the emotion which can connect us on a very deep level is the emotion of respect. Respect basically means that I respect his right to sing differently than I, than me.
Because otherwise, there is no meaning in respect. If I respect you but you have to think the way I think otherwise I will not respect you. It's not respect. God, Krishna gave us freedom, and freedom is the essence of us.
And Krishna respects our freedom. And in the same way we have to respect other people and the opinion of other people. At a genuine level, genuine level.
Respect as the social foundation
So I personally think Mahatma Prabhu started his little talk on this topic by saying that Unity is not possible. And I understand what it means. We cannot really, you know, eliminate variegatedness from the society.
It's not possible. But at the same time, the unity is possible if there is respect. Respect is a unifying principle in any society.
If we take any society, then the unifying principle is respect, the principle which destroys any society is disrespect among the members of this society.
And when respect is there, then the dialogue is possible, then the culture of, you know, this in a proper friendly way is possible. If respect is not there, is not possible.
So, you know, if we want to establish this culture of unity and diversity, then the basis, the foundation of this culture is respect.
And the culture of dialogue when we hear others and when we, you know, because we want to be heard, we should hear others also.
Therefore, Krishna says in Bhagavad-gītā that among the arguments I am Vada, I am the respectful philosophical discussion for the purpose of finding the truth.
As opposed to jalpa, vitaṇḍā, when people just arguing to establish their points without really respecting the opponents, opponent point of view. And that's very tamasic.
As Mahatma Prabhu rightly said: By doing this, you degrade yourself to the level of tamas. Because the discussion in the style of vada is sattvic discussion.
The discussion in the style of jalpa and vitanda belongs to tamagun and rajagun.
And if you adopt this means of establishing your ego as the most important thing in the world, then you degrade yourself to the level of tamagun or rajagun at best. So I already spoke too long.
Maybe Mahatma probably can add something.
One of the most interesting things about Vetunda, which devotees may not know, it's a form of arguing where you don't even have an argument and your only goal is to destroy another person.
You don't even care to make a point, you just want to destroy them. Yeah, that's shalpa. Totally, totally, it's more like
It's like the scientist, the atheistic scientist is trying to destroy Krishna with their scientific so called data or their theories. We're trying to destroy another devotee with our arguments.
It's like we're trying to kill them. Not that we would, but that's arguing and a lot of arguments.
Sometimes I notice that when devotees are arguing about something, on occasion they lose sight of actually what would please Prabhupada and they get caught into the, you know, what is the sedanta?
And, wait a minute, didn't want this? Oh, yeah, but we have to discuss this verse. It's like that gets pushed to the side. So, have to be careful about that.
Cooperation as a fundamental principle
Because that can easily happen. You know, survivories have feel that sedanta is higher than cooperation. I cannot get compromise to cooperate in this situation. But one of
my god brothers, sireshwar, said: pravahat mahavakya was cooperating. So that cooperation becomes the highest сиддата. Махабакья means the great state.
So, cooperation then becomes the сиддата. You know, sometimes in the name of trying to represent Prabha's teachings, we do something that he doesn't want us to do. So that's the paradox we have to be careful. I offend you or I give up Vaiṣṇava etiquette or I don't want to cooperate in the name of establishing siddhānta. That's a paradox.
You know, there's an interesting thing that Prabhupāda did. When some devotees got along, Especially if he saw that they couldn't get along. They couldn't. He didn't even try, he didn't even try to get them to get along.
He just said, you go to this country, you go to that country. That way they get along by being away from something. So it underscores the difficulty in Kala-Yuga getting along, but many times Prabhupada didn't even try.
He just, they couldn't work together, so get them their own zone or their own country and they'll be okay. Their own kingdom. Their own kingdom. And respectfully work at a distance.
This is what you mean when you said that the spiritual world is big enough to accommodate contradictory opinions. I think we could look at that statement on so many levels. Definitely that's one of them, yes.
There was a discussion on Prabhupāda's Disciple Conference, quoting the story of Jaya and Vijaya where it says, this definitely proves that no one can fall from Vaikuṇṭha. And then immediate comment on that was the complete opposite thing Prabhupāda said, we were with Krishna and Vaikuṇṭha and we fell.
Subjective interpretation of scriptural instructions
So these are realities, you know, of the big world of opposites that we live in. There's joke. It's funny because it's so true.
When a man reads the story of Kardama and Devahūti, he only remembers how Devahūti is supposed to act. When she reads it she only remembers how Kardama is supposed to act. Selective, what do they call that psychology?
Selective something? Selective. Mentality.
It's the same thing when Prabhupāda said that all the men should remain brahmacārīs and all the women should become married. And somebody asked him: Prabhupāda, how is it possible? And Prabhupāda said: You figure it out.
When I was a young devotee, I think as brahmacārīs, we only noticed the parts of the Bhāgavatam, quote unquote, the deep well parts. We wanted to stay brahmacārīs.
We didn't see anything like we asked the life is good within. Only the deep well existed. That's all we saw.
So it's definitely the reality that when we all read Prabhupāda's books, understand things. Not all of us, but some of us will understand slightly differently than another devotee, because that's the nature of subjective reality.
It's who we are. We see things in a certain way. So that's a reality we have to just acknowledge and live with. Prabhupāda was diverted by commenting that siddhānta would be please repeat. Oh, yeah.
We, we, when, it's not that every devotee who reads something Prabhupāda says is gonna understand it exactly the same way every time. And we have to accept that reality.
I have a 20 year old daughter, so I get to hear how she sees proper. Or cannot be sinus? You know, how her mind works. That'll be a good idea.
It just shows how according to our position, our knowledge, our age, our culture, we see things differently. So, Maharaj, your point about respect, I think, was to hit the nail on the head.
It's the ultimate unifying force. That was a point I made when we get to this point where I don't like you because you don't agree with me. So I lose my respect for you. Simply because you don't agree. It's very immature.
And I think one of the most telling things, at least for me, is the breakup of the Gaudiya Math because these disciples of Srila Bhakti Siddhanta were much more qualified than we are and they were challenged to get it.
And Prabhupada told us how sometimes he would be criticized for the strategies he was using in his preaching. So it just shows that it's so difficult to formulate a unified cooperative movement.
You know, when Prabhupada went to the West, and he was writing back to his Godbrothers, his mood was: Hey! I did it! It works! Let's come on over! Let's do this! This is what Bhakti Siddhanta wants. There is no response.
He listens to the
Prabhupada, even he went to the extent while writing to one of his Godbrothers, he said: I'm ready to become a member of your society. But you please, you know, help me in this preaching. I'll become a simple member of your society.
He was already, you know, acharya, you know, with such a success. Nevertheless, he was ready to, you know, to come to this level.
Establishing a culture of dialogue
This is such an important point because some people use Prabhupada starting ISKCON as an excuse for them to leave ISKCON.
By answering there are two points which are pointed out here: How to avoid the situation when devotees are divided into the opposing parties according to their convictions?
I would say that to avoid this situation we will not be able to avoid, I agree with this.
This situation will repeat again and again and again. But how to deal with this situation is to establish the culture of respectful dialogue.
You know, opposing parties will not be a destructive force within our society if there is a respectful dialogue and people appreciate, you know, the different points of view which other, you know, hold and, you know, coexist peacefully with other people, not fighting with each other.
So that's my answer to this. And then there is another question: Why there is such powerful or strong polarization of different opinions? Maybe we don't have an open forum.
I would say we have too many open forums and they're completely unproductive. It's not the lack of open forum or open discussion. It's the lack of culture of how to hold these discussions.
Forums are there, culture is not there. You know, when you start discussing these points, like, personally avoid all these contradictory, you know, things, all these debates. I don't like it.
And one of the reasons is that you try to say something philosophically and you encounter with such negative emotions so much hatred, you know. There's no question of philosophy.
It's just degrading your consciousness, even if you enter into these discussions. It destroys the very fabric of the society. Which is so interesting because trinatha pissuni jina. Yes. Yes.
Many times have we recited that Hearst? And it still seems to be floating here. It's hard to get it here.
A few months ago I was giving class and I was saying, when you talk about humility or respect or appreciation, we need to dissect it down and look practically. What does that mean?
If I'm respectful, what does it look like on the ground? Otherwise, it stays like such a conception, like I respect everyone. But in fact, we may be acting disrespectfully not knowing if you're aware of it.
I guess, I think one of the, at least for me personally, one of the fundamental problems we face is that as we're maturing in devotional service and becoming leaders, we're not always manifesting in necessary rational behavior and qualities.
People see that and it's, it's, it's, what's the word, it's discouraging for people. Yes. Body is not, like you say, respectful dialogue, etcetera.
So, Maharaja, I was thinking, I've often thought a public display of respectful discussion sets such a good example for everybody. This is how we deal with these issues. Like we say, these are natural issues.
We're different. We see things different. But this is how we do it, humbly, and in discussion. This is what it looks like. I'm listening empathetically, I'm understanding, etcetera.
And we're trying to come to the one plus one equals 11. Take my idea, your idea. That's the most important thing. I say too much? This is I would like to ask you to speak shortly sentences.
You were making the point of the value of diversity. And I think that's such an important point to appreciate the diversity. Otherwise, we'll be out of balance. Like varṇāśrama, Krishna didn't just create brāhmaṇas.
We all think of it, but it's not create brāhmaṇas. I think implicit in this question was another question. When we see senior devotees disagree, how does the average devotee, what does he think?
How does he do it in the processing process? That's the only best that. Я думаю. And then even a bigger problem when one senior is publicly criticizing on YouTube some other senior division. Now what do you do?
Then it gets worse. When that devotee being criticized, is or even if the person criticizing is your guru. That makes it very difficult. What do you do then? This is the perfect carrot for us.
The māyā dangles are trying to be. Perfect carrot. There you go. And I think that's your point, Mahārāja. We have to come out of these controversies without committing offenses.
That's the the easiest time to make an offense is during these controversies.
Avoiding offenses during ideological disputes
It's just natural. Because nothing can destroy us like aparādha. Certainly, māyā would try to facilitate that.
You know, when you were talking about respect, the ability to appreciate the good in someone that I disagree with becomes a bit of a challenge depending on how much I disagree with them.
The more I disagree, the easier it is to see what's wrong with them, more difficult it is to appreciate. And we start demonizing the other person. The demonizing process starts.
So we need to recognize these challenges as amazing opportunities for us to commit offenses to the right guru.
And also, it's a great time to ask ourselves, What is going on inside of me if I don't like this devotee just because they don't agree with me? What is that saying about myself? It's a very interesting question.
Sorry, which place should I? What? What's What's going on inside of me that I would end up hating or disliking a devotee just because they think differently on a topic? I don't agree with how they think on the topic.
That's what Mahārāja was referring to. When you make these ad hominem attacks, you're attacking people's character because you get emotional and you're no longer talking about philosophy. And labeling other person.
We just start labeling him without, you know, really recognizing his points. Another thing I noticed is that what blurs discussions is the assumptions we make about the person we're debating.
I was accused of being a feminist because I asked husbands to be nice to their wives.
So now if we're gonna discuss varṇāśrama, from beginning they'll say, "Vamshavadan Prabhu, he's anti-varṇāśrama because he's a feminist."
So we can't have a discussion about varṇāśrama with me because they'll attack me, right? They'll begin based on assumptions. But the problem is, learned devotees sometimes do this.
Elevating details into rigid principles
So it's something we all need to be aware of in our own consciousness. I have a question to you.
Because oftentimes people who take this attitude within our society, they try to prove their attitude or their behavior by quoting Bhaktisiddhānta Sarasvatī, saying that Bhaktisiddhānta Sarasvatī, that was his mood, he was uncompromising, and by doing all this kind of stuff which we are talking about, you're just, you know, compromising.
So how would you answer to this?
So, is this, you know, the dividing line, fine line between the compromise with the truth and respectful dealings and trying to understand other points of view and accommodate other points of view and reconcile opposing points of view and something like this.
Let him translate, I'm sorry. I think it happens sometimes when the person who's arguing siddhānta elevates his detail to a principle. Starts criticizing people for adjusting principles, which is unfair.
Then one would think if it is a siddhānta, it wouldn't be controversial. So he wouldn't have to argue in the first place because we'd all be doing it because we all understand. Here's the sedanta. I'm absolutely not.
If it was actually siddhānta, a principal rather than a detail, there wouldn't be an argument. Obviously, there's concern that we deviate from the problem of it. I appreciate people who exhibit that concern.
But like you say, I think it requires a cultural context to be able to do it effectively. Otherwise, just turn people off. And everybody's, they don't want to listen to you because they perceive you being disrespectful.
It's also interesting because some of the people you're talking about don't want a dialogue. They want a monologue. They want a monologue, not a—
I have personal experience because working on the sabhā, we invite different people to discuss with us. Some are very vocal, but they don't want to discuss with the group. Which is interesting.
I think it goes back to your point, your respect. You know, I could have tremendous respect for you, but I could disagree with you, and I could tell you that. When it comes down, it's condescending. Like, what do you know?
Who do you think you are? I'm a little older than you. What do you know? That doesn't work. There's no trust between each other. So it's natural. What you're talking about naturally, it doesn't work.
It only works with a few fanatics, but You know, also, there are devotees who are very outspoken without speaking. They just go do something that we can all see, and that speaks louder than words.
They might create an eco-village. They might create a community that's very harmonious. So what they want to say to the world, they're demonstrating, which is a far more effective way to do it. Yes, indeed.
You know, some people are promoting very liberal ideas, some very conservative ideas. Remember to say, how's it work? How's it going for you? Show us. We want to see.
We'll surrender if, you know, if you can show us, it works. Of course, we'll surrender. I think that's important. The other problem is you have a conservative approach. It works in India. Like, get on the bandwagon.
The whole world should do this. And you try that in the West and people will throw pie in your face. So, you know, we have to, you know, be even though I'm you may say this is a sedante. Yeah, okay, that's true.
But the application, we're doing it here. It's not gonna work at all. People will be checking. Mahārāja, I've watched your experience. You're experiencing that the arguments are...
A lot of them are sedanted or they're more just No, it's usually about the detail... It's usually about the ego, to establish one ego over another ego and that's it.
You know, you have certain nature, conditioned nature, and you try to prove that this is the only correct nature and correct attitude, and you're doing it at the expense of others.
I was thinking, you know, when you said about this, when you gave the example of people... Okay, sorry, sorry. Please translate.
When you gave this example about people who just don't, who want to be heard and proclaim their opinions very loudly, but become very insecure when it comes to the open dialogue.
It's very interesting because it really betrays the inner weakness of the people. If you're really so strong inside and have such a strong conviction, why couldn't you respectfully discuss it with other people?
It's possible.
Leadership responsibility in modeling respect
The whole situation is very sad. I think it's a moral responsibility of our generation of devotees or at least senior devotees in ISKCON to try to establish this culture of respectful dialogue.
Without this, the society will be just torn apart and will be basically destroyed by all these contradictions.
Because what I also can see is that usually the followers, they exaggerate, they don't follow their leader, They exaggerate what he does. They make caricature out of it. Really imitate and make the things worse.
You know, if the responsible, mature people are not capable of discussing it, what can we expect from the followers? We built a house in which only one opinion can that. I don't think so.
Well, at least the beginning of the solution is awareness that this is the challenge. The challenge we face.
I think we can all see that unless we master this, then it's very easy to faction into many movements, which is exactly the most feared of most. Just like you're talking about the leaders.
They have to exemplify respect and dialogue. It's gonna follow, it'll follow upon the next generation also. It's just gonna happen.
And if we don't, at least, I think the next generation is gonna look at us, there's a lot of things you didn't do. But, you know, don't follow the bad things, just follow the good things.
We don't know if we're gonna lead the next generation. We don't know how we're gonna evolve.
What we hand over may not be perfect, but at least if they understand what to do, they don't have to continue doing what we didn't do. That's important, though?
Historical lessons on organizational unity
Это, see, it will be much more difficult for the next generation to do it, especially if they didn't see the proper example among those people who were naturally unified because, you know, the further away from Prabhupāda, the more difficult it is. Now Prabhupāda's personality, his mood, his desire is a very strong unifying factor. If those people who under the, you know, this influence of Prabhupāda's desire. Because Prabhupāda was so strong and so outspoken and so vocal about this that all his disciples they know Prabhupāda wants the unity. Prabhupāda wants the unity not without diversity, with the diversity, but he wants the unity, he wants unify ISKCON. But then when it goes further and further and further, you know, this urgency or relevance of Prabhupāda's personal desire becomes little, you know, distorted or weakened by the time, influence and everything else. So I think it's the need of the moment for the leaders to understand that this is what Praupat wants. He by all means doesn't want the Gaudiumat scenario.
It's interesting, you know, I remember... That in Russian first? Okay, sorry. I'm really sorry. There was one of the leaders of Gaudi-Emat, of modern Gaudi-Emat, and he was glorifying the history of Gaudi Yamat.
And he said that this is what the split of Gaudi Yamat was the best thing which could happen.
Because all the different leaders they became independent and everyone did so many things, everyone became very, how to say, very daring and achieved something. But opinion of Praupad is completely opposite.
He said that the whole organization becomes useless, and everyone became useless because they couldn't follow the order of the guru to cooperate with each other. Sometimes I think that was divine arrangement.
So we would have that example in front of us. And don't do We know a lot to do, that helps.
Sometimes when I look at these things, I just see human nature operating, and human nature tends to degrade things if we don't control them.
Prabhupāda expected us to be better, just giving it to our natural inclination for independence, non-cooperation and so forth. He wanted us to do better.
And one beautiful meditation that I like to share, and I think of offering, is that if we can cooperate, that will make Prabhupāda smile.
So this is directly a high level of bhakti because it's giving great pleasure to our spiritualness. Sometimes I have this drama in my hand. You go back to guide it. You've seen Prabhupada and he has a list.
Why didn't you do this? Why didn't you do that? Why did you do this? And you think of it now. What would say? You saw how there was a problem. You contributed to it. You contributed to the conflict. Why did you do that?
Why didn't you unify? I like to think like that in my head. What would say that I wasn't doing, that I should've done, or things I did that I shouldn't have done? And I think this is one of them. Why didn't you cooperate?
Why didn't you work together? Why were you independent? I have to make an admission, a confession. I'm very independent. For me to sit around in meetings, nothing's happening. I just want to just do it.
Get my people and do it. It's better not to do it in a way to do it with a bigger group because that's what Prabhupāda wants. You make them happy. Sometimes for me, is a great austerity.
You write a book, put it in the BVT, you'll get like five editors looking at it. So cutting it apart is not easy. That's my personal strength is knowing that, well, this is what Prabhupada wants.
So where is the question of success outside of that? There are interesting questions here in the list of questions. I don't know if we should go through it or continue churning this topic because this topic is endless.
But there are interesting points, so maybe we should answer some of the questions, try to answer some of the questions. Yeah, I think we made the points for this topic.
I think we're just putting the whipped cream on top of what is already there.
Accommodating diverse personal inclinations
So, yeah, we could go on. How can we understand what is to be considered a genuine and authentic interpretation of Srila Prabhupada's message, his will and what is not?
How should we understand the disputes between conservative and liberal devotees? Where is the so called golden mean? The middle road. I can say one thing. There's a place for everything.
I'll pause because I don't want to be sure. Just see one place. We talk about the wife serving the husband, the husband facilitating his service. Her place is home. And then some woman joins the movement. She has a PhD.
She's thinking of an academic career. And so, naturally, for her probably those ideas, traditional ideas of the commander and the housewife are not attractive.
And I think the problem is to make a big deal about either one. Either one is not a big deal. And when we make it a big deal, then we create a problem. It's just, they're natural.
Different women who have natural inclinations, and they can all serve Krishna. It's not a problem. Don't make it a problem. It's not. There are always going to be devotees who want to live a more traditional grhastha life.
You don't have to create them. They already exist. They want it. And who are they? And there are always gonna be devotees with whom you find modern life and preaching through that means more comfortable.
And don't make a big deal about either one to, you know, one at the cost of the other. He was okay with both. You know, book distributors and say, okay, we're taking you to the farm to milk cows for the rest of your life.
They all, not some may like it, but not all. Some will say, but maybe on the street, that's right. Different nature. That's okay. I have a story that I think you can explain this.
Once Prabhupada came to our restaurant in San Diego, and when he was leaving, we offered him a drink. Do you want orange? Want lemon? And he said, I want both. I'll take both. And then he explained his answer.
And Prabhupada asked him to do something new. And he said, so Prabhupada, you don't want me to continue doing what I was doing? And Prabhupada said, No, I didn't say that. I just want you to add this to it.
Do we need gurukula? Yes. Do we need Bhakti Vedanta Institute? Yes. Do we need book distribution? Yes. Do we need college preaching? Yes. Do we need seminars on this? Yes. Do we need living off the land, California? Yes, yes.
They're everything. We need it all. Side by side simultaneously. I think it's kind of part of the same discussion we were having, because I think it's the best. I think the whole world should do it, I think.
Everyone should milk cows because, you know, they milk cows and everything good comes. So everybody goes to the farm and milk cows. All right, it's good. We should protect cows, definitely.
But that's not the only thing for our... Я думаю, это продолжение того, о Who knows what Prabhupada said is the most important service. Anybody know? Like about five different things, the most important service. Isn't it?
Exactly. you know. Distribution of books, gurukula, varnashrama. Paintings for Krishna, doing dramas for Krishna. Simple living, high thinking. Cow protection. A couple. A lot of times I'll go somewhere to do a program, right?
And nobody's wearing a dhoti, nobody's wearing a sari. And I go, is this Kṛṣṇa conscious? I go, No. It's just how we are. Things happen, people are different. Things happen naturally.
Reconciling dualities through devotional service
Go somewhere else, and every woman has her head covered, how many times Prabhupāda says you cannot force everything else? Cannot force, you're gonna have to do to inspiration in love.
Yeah, I want to add something to this. It's an interesting point. Thank you very much for what you said. I was thinking about this duality which is here described as conservative and liberal points of view.
It's a material duality, manifestation of the same duality which is there everywhere in the material world.
And if we take one point at the expense of the other and try to establish one position at the expense of the other, we just remain within this duality of this material world. We remain bound to this material world.
Because, philosophically speaking, the conservative point of view is the thesis of karma. This is karma mentality.
With all the consequences of this karma mentality, hierarchical structure, When it's being exaggerated or when it's misused, then the spirit of exploitation becomes very prominent for this position.
So, then opposite starts, the antithesis starts developing. That's liberal mentality. And liberal mentality, it's actually jñāna, it's alternative of jñāna.
First you have karma with all the traditional values, hierarchy and so so, you know, the spirit of... Anyway, whatever. But then Jnana, everyone is equal, liberal values, this and that. That's nothing but jñāna.
And if you take one of these extremes and try to make it absolute and say that this is only right and the rest is wrong, basically deny the whole point and you remain, as I said, within this material duality.
It takes good things from this worldview, traditional worldview, and it takes very good things from this liberal point of view and synthesizes it by the spirit of love. And that's an amazing quality of bhakti because bhakti reconciles the opposites into one unified whole.
So, if we follow bhakti, we will be able to reconcile these differences and get out from this mentality, from this materialistic mentality of two extremes, two opposite things. Otherwise karma and jñāna will always be fighting with each other, and always try to destroy each other. So, I don't want to be a part of this fight.
We want to reconcile this by the unifying force of bhakti. So, that's why Prabhupāda, you know, Prabhupāda, he was always, you know, somebody like... What's his name?
The one who gave Prabhupāda harmonium, this poet. Alan Ginsberg.
Alan Ginsberg was accusing Prabhupāda that he is too traditional and too conservative. And all these people in India, they were criticizing Prabhupāda and saying that he is too liberal. And Prabhupāda said, I'm not liberal, I'm not conservative. I'm just a servant of the Lord.
Prabhupāda was very liberal from one point of view, very conservative from another point of view, but he wasn't neither one of them. He was really reconciling this within himself, in his personality, by his bhakti. И если вы want to follow the path of bhakti, we have to somehow rather understand how to reconcile these differences and not to become, you know, either liberal or conservative. None of them are...
Neither of them is right. And, boss, Confidential. They're, you know. Because it's impossible to be, you know, the reality is both. Reality is not one or another.
You try to become only one, you will be forced to accept something from the other side. It's not possible. We also saw it from what you would always be thinking, how can we help people?
Although he was scared with his principles, he was very adaptive on this position. If this will help people, if it's within our tradition, we do it.
Let's say, if it's not against our tradition, then we do what we have to do to help him. The brahmacārī āśrama that was coming from Prabhupāda's heart to give women a chance to be Kṛṣṇa conscious. That's all it was.
It was just love. You're not gonna get him to have this conservative idea that no women live in the temple, because his heart would break if half the population couldn't be Kṛṣṇa conscious. That's how love.
Love is reconciling everything, synthesizing everything. And hatred, hatred is just dividing. And hatred is dividing. It's like Bhakti Sūdra said, I would sell the temple. You know, just take the money and print books.
It's not about the temples and the TV versus books, about what will help people the most. And Prabhupāda followed that example.
You know, one time, I think maybe it was, [devotee] was telling, this is not a good time to do this, this is a good time to do that. Prabhupāda said, If I followed all this stuff, I couldn't do it?
It could have a function if I had it followed, you know. You know. Now's a good time. Why? Because we're gonna go preach Krishna consciousness. So it's a good time. It's always a good time to preach.
When's a good time to surrender? Right now. Take a bath, yeah. Just surrender. You can worry about your bath. Yeah. It's appropriate time for us to finish our discussion because somebody is knocking in my door.
I have to be down in the temple. We've gone two hours. Alright. Yeah. Very good. Thank you. Thank you very much, Mahatma. Prabhu. Thank you very much, Mahatma. Was a pleasure to see you. Yeah, nice interacting with you. Okay.
Your wisdom, for sharing your thoughts and for being here with us today. We're off the stream, so bear in mind. So we haven't finished efficiently as well. Okay. Thank you. Hare Krishna. Hare Krishna. Bye. Bye.
Śrīla Prabhupāda-kī-jaya.