HH BVPS Mahārāja: Right.

HH BVPS Mahārāja: It is just wherever you have living entities you have this.

HH BVPS Mahārāja: It is always fanatical.

HH BVPS Mahārāja: No, because they are authority. And if you are in a society from a background where you are anti-authority, then you can never support brāhmanas. You don't understand the position. Because when you say 'top', that means that is the control, that is the authority. Because we take it that the administration is the top. So the brāhmanas, then they will be that, and so we don't want to listen to authority because we don't want to be another brick in the wall. And so, we do our own thing. So that you will never get. And only because devotees are starting to get in their 60s and 70s, is there even any consideration of old people. But otherwise, you know, up to just a few years, no one cared about old people either. So it is only as you get more and more old people then that part will come up. But, guaranteed, brāhmanas will never come up.

HH BVPS Mahārāja: Yeah. I mean, he should know better, right? People don't like to think. I mean, what happened to Becket? Didn't work out for Becket either. Becket?

HH BVPS Mahārāja: He was the Cardinal of... Oh, boy, it's been a long time... Canterbury, yeah. Thomas Becket, Canterbury. Like that, Richard... Because he would always correct him because he is the brāhmana he is correcting the king. I think was Richard II. Was it Richard II?

HH BVPS Mahārāja: And so then one time he is sitting there, because he just got chastised by him, and his guards are there, and he said that 'Who is going to... Who can free me of this guy?' Like that. So the two guys said, 'Okay, we can do it!' and they went off and killed him, brought his head. He was not very happy. He was just upset that being the king he has this cardinal telling him what to do. But he would go along, they were best friends, but...

The point is that it is always there. It is always there in history. They always go down. I think Tolstoy went down with the ice pick, that's just how it goes. Pol Pot, he specifically went after anybody who was smart. If you wore glasses, you wear glasses because you read, so then you read, you must be smart, and even though they have glasses because there is something else, so he would kill them if they wore glasses. So I think, he killed like two million people. And then somehow or another he thinks that his state will go on nicely without any brains. And he went to Sorbonne. So he picked up his revolutionary ideas there in France. So that in history of just... [Laughter].

So that is the difficulty, is that because there is no sense of authority, therefore brāhmanas won't be... So only with those who have a sense of authority, then you can add in that. That's why in this, like you said, you will have a movement for women, but it is not a movement for these five. Do you understand? When all five are taken together as important, that is called human. If you just take one of them and make an issue out of that, that's just a mundane social-political position, that's all. Because it is just animals, you have to take care of animals. But it's not that the cows are important... Why the cows are important? Otherwise, cows are important because they give milk; milk is because that gives, refines the finer brain tissues; and milk is what you offer to Kṛṣṇa. Kṛṣṇa, of all the foodstuffs, the most favorite for Kṛṣṇa is dairy products. Like that. That is the thing in Vraja, it is all dairy products. Along with the dairy you have some grains or some fruit, or like that. So... But it is not about the milk and about the offering to Kṛṣṇa, or about eating it and the finer brain tissues. It will just be it's about the cows, and so we completely ignore them because we live in the city and we don't do anything for cows anyway. And so, by us ignoring them, in other words, by akarma somehow another everything will be great for them. So it is purely a mental, political position, there is no practical. You want to do something, support a gośālā: either go there, do work, give money - do something. But no. You know what I am saying? So it is a political position.

The women - it is also based on the modern concept, not on the Vedic concept. The kids also. So women, it will be... How you say? Anti-brāhmanas. Support the cows, it is anti-brāhmanas. Support the women, it is anti-brāhmanas, and to support the children is anti-brāḥmanas. I don't think you are going to have a problem with supporting old people that they will be anti-brāhmanas. So that one will probably be a little bit more mellow.

HH BVPS Mahārāja: Attachment to...?

HH BVPS Mahārāja: Because someone who does full-time service is not valued, someone who is just committed to the mission is not valued. Like that. I think we had one temple, they had so many temples devotees there, there were pūjārīs doing the service in the temple and all that, being maintained by the temple. Someone wanted more than what the temple could arrange, and they made such a scene about it that they told them they had to go. Then someone else is there, then they are complaining, 'Why are they being maintained? You wouldn't maintain us, but you are maintaining them,' even though they were just getting the regular amount. So then the temple made the policy that everybody had to leave. So then it had to be only community, they come forward and do pūjā service, you can't have live-in pūjārīs that the temple takes care of. And the reason that they can't is that if they do, then those in the community who want to be taken care of by the temple, but at their own standard, not at the brāhminical standard, then will complain, so you can't have. So this is a direct example of 'you can't support brāhmanas' because the community is not... How you say? Independent enough or pious enough, like that kind-of thing.

While you see, like in Chowpatty, there the community happily gives and takes care of them so they do no collection, the temple, the brahmacārīs do no collection, they only preach. Because according to the Vedic tradition the householders do all that. So anything to do with money, like the accounts, raising money, spending money, doing all that - that the gṛhasthas do, the community does. So they have a big festival that cost lakhs, they raise it, the temple doesn't have to raise it. The brahmacārīs simply have to preach, they just have to inspire the gṛhasthas, so that they have direction, they know what to do - that's protecting the brahmacārīs, the brāhmanas.

So that is the difficulty, is that that there is no concept of that. And so, then there is no trust in it, like Prabhu was saying, you are nice, 'Why are you nice?' They are too nice. Yes?

HH BVPS Mahārāja: Yeah, because it's like, service has to be free. But it's like, kind-of like, it is, you're just... It is part of the maintenance. You know, the floor is rendering service, but you are taking care of that, why you wouldn't take care of this? So it is also a misnomer that devotional activities, then the temple can't give anything for them. But the point is, it is a matter of how much it works. Means, in other words, what the temple can afford, that's what you get, and if you are cool with that then you do. And if not, then, hey, it's a big world out there. So it is a matter of balance. Sometimes we get our own ideas of what is proper. Just like sometimes we get the idea that when Rūpa Gosvāmī says '50% of your money is given in charity,' and given in charity, means, generally, in some places, the idea is, to the temple administration, and that. Means you can't get outside of that. In fact, I think there is rules, technically, that you can't give outside of that, unless they approve. So then... But that's not what Rūpa Gosvāmī says. It is 50% of what you would get. Like if I run a business, let's say, you have invested ten thousand Euros and all that, maybe from that I might get back five hundred in the beginning. So they are taking it, 'No, you have to give us five thousand,' which will never work in any of the fourteen planetary systems, let alone here. So that means, no, it is from the five hundred, that is where to consider. But he has gotten 500 from that, but the point is, is he reinvesting or anything in this, or did they do other things? Means, after expenses and that he has got 500, but now he could also re-invest part of that. But it will be demanded, 'No, then even if it is that, no, you have to give us 250.' But he wants to reinvest 200 in that, so he only has 300. So now we are talking 150. But these kind-of things aren't done. So then then people won't work with the temples. Most people will not do business with our temples because of this misunderstanding.

So that's the thing, is that we create our own concepts, and they are unviable. And then we will say they are insincere. That's the catch-all phrase. You know, just like 'You are not your body, Prabhu,' that one gets all the things done, and if that doesn't work and they fall apart, then 'You are not sincere,' right? That is a standard thing that everybody uses. You hear a little less of it now, but that was very popular back in the 70s-80s.

So that is the difficulty, is that what we are talking about here is that leadership then has an understanding, they understand the culture and all that, therefore they are able to deal in such a way that they are able to, how much they can, cultivate the community, cultivate, have devotees doing service in the temple and all those. But the point is is, it has to be understood, it will be according to their facility, you can't expect more. So that is the whole point, is that it is a lifestyle and that you are willing to live that, you accept that. You can't say, 'Well, I'll only move into the temple if I know I get insurance and dental,' or something. Everybody has got, great, but if nobody has then you can't expect that. So that's the whole thing, it goes both ways, is that brāhminical means, you accept what the Lord gives. And administration means they give the best they can. But when the brāhmanas are thinking, 'No, the temple should give the best they can,' and the temple is thinking, 'No, you should just be satisfied with whatever Kṛṣṇa gives you,' you have a problem. So, in other words, everybody knows their duty and sticks to that.

So that's why we were saying, is that if you check, so many of the different difficulties that we have, the social difficulties and other things like that, are because of not understanding how it connects to Kṛṣṇa, what is the culture. So that's why we are putting such an emphasis on that. Because technique, someone is a good manager, they can manage, that's the point, managers can manage, it is not a big deal. Does that make sense? Birds can fly, it is not that... They are there in the nest, like that, and they're there, and checking out their wings and stuff like that, and they have been doing it for a few days, and then the parents just come up and bump them, and they either hit the ground, or they fly. And they generally always fly, it is a tried and true method for getting the kids to fly. And so they can fly. They are not afraid of heights, that's the point. Birds are not afraid of heights, they don't get vertigo, you know, they sit there on the edge of things looking at it, they have no problem. So the same way managers can manage, they know what to do. But the point is that unless they understand the philosophy and culture, the religion, then the management may be going on, but the effectiveness of Kṛṣṇa consciousness may be lacking. So that's why it is there. That's why you can point out some technique, but it is only a value if you see it in context of the culture.

So the point is is, brāhmanas, because they do this service for Kṛṣṇa all the time, that's what's there. So someone who is doing full-time brāhminical service, then if they can be supported, that is nice. Because otherwise, generally speaking, they are not always that great at making money. And so, they will make money, but then you hardly get any service out of them because it takes them so long to make money. Some of them are really sharp, if they have the ideas, they are brāhminical, but they have, their knowledge is within these areas, then they can do quite well, you also have that. But then you won't have to take care of them either. So the point is is, they can do that service for Kṛṣṇa, that's why it is valuable.

The women, then they support the whole system, they take care of the children. Means, the gṛhastha āśrama is the center of the whole social system, and the only reason that you have gṛhasthas is because of women. It is not because you have men it is gṛhasthas, it is because you have women. You know what I am saying? Women are already living the gṛhastha lifestyle, men aren't. So when men get married, they join that. Does that make sense? But men are part of the brahmacārī scene, and then they can join what is going on there. So the women are in the center of that, and then from that you have children, then you have to take care of the children. The more input you put into the children, then the more the children can do. Like if you give a lot of attention to the children, they when they grow up can to give a lot of attention to others. But if you don't give attention to them, when they grow up they can't give attention. It's just not, it's not part of the... You know, it's like a battery - you don't charge it, it doesn't... You can't do anything with it. So that means, it is very important. While nowadays then kids aren't taken care of because the parents are all professionals and all that, and then the problem comes is, then we wonder why they are doing their own thing and in their own world and only about themselves. Because that's what they have been, at home all day, and so what do they do? They play video games. You know, there is a good chance he is not home all day, therefore he is going to do the laundry and vacuum the rug. And so, then they wonder, 'Why are the kids like this?' So that's the whole point, if you don't take care of these... And if you don't take care of the cows, you don't get the milk, so you don't get the finer brain tissues, so you can't understand this anyway.