The Misconception of Equality

Without authority then nothing works. Kṛṣṇa doesn't... Means, this idea that everything is just equal and the same - Kṛṣṇa doesn't work according to that. This idea of everything equal, everybody the same, everything like that - it is not the way the Cosmic Creation works. It is a figment of people's imagination.

It is like Brahman understanding or Paramātmā understanding - they are concepts of the material world, there is no concept of Brahman or Paramātmā in the spiritual world because you are dealing with Bhagavān, so where will Brahman or Paramātmā come into the picture? You are dealing directly with the Supreme Personality of Godhead, so there is no need of Paramātmā understanding or Brahman understanding. So it is a concept of the material world; it is not a material concept, it is a spiritual concept, but it is a concept of this world.

So in the same way, this idea that everything is equal, everything is like that, the equal opportunity, it is all oneness. Not as individuals have the equal opportunity that if they have a nature that could perform that activity with all properness and appropriateness, then that opportunity would be there - that is not the definition. Do you understand? Do you see the difference? It is just a general broad statement that makes, it sounds... It is intellectually clever, the mind therefore thinks, 'Oh, this is interesting,' so it accepts it, but what does that mean it is all one? Equal, so that means, you know, it is like you have a little child... I once saw one kid, he was three years old and we were sitting down to eat. He would not even start eating unless you piled on his plate the amount that a full-grown, serious adult could eat at one time, even though most adults, you put it on their plate a few times, still how much someone could eat, a good eater, in one sitting, had to be on his plate before he would start. Then, being a three-year-old, he would nibble at it and then away and leave it. But he wouldn't start without... So that is equal opportunity, he can get as much as an adult can get, but we see, it is a complete waste, it has nothing to do with reality. Or, we could do it the other way around, you get Bhīma and give him enough for a three-year-old. Then... But that is not equal. Equal means, everyone according to their nature, according to their ability. That is the point.

But now, the difference is, is God works out what is everybody's need and what is everybody's ability. Does that make sense? So that's why Prabhupāda calls it spiritual communism. Because God says, because He knows, a dog eats this, because God created the food for the dog; trees drink water, Kṛṣṇa created that. So equality means according to the nature of the individual, not according to the dictation of the state. Does that make sense? Someone needs to eat more, they get more, someone needs to eat less, they get less. Someone needs to do this particular work, then they do that, someone else does a different kind of work, they do that. So that is the meaning of equality, because it is in the difference that rasa is tasted. When Kṛṣṇa is in the mood of Ātmārāma, then where does it come in the picture that you are understanding or tasting any rasa? You exist, but that's it. Do you understand? Only when Kṛṣṇa expands the living entities, then when there is two, then there is rasa.

So these are just elements, symptoms of the impersonalist concept: everyone is equal, everyone is the same. But if everyone is the same, where is the rasa? It's just like, someone who is perfectly the same as you, what would happen? Nothing, right? You sit in a room alone, nothing happens. It is one of those things in astrology, means, actually in checking the charts for astrological compatibility in a marriage, the main one, or the first one, nādi, which gets eight points out of 32, you know, one quarter of the decision, is if the houses, I think, it is the houses, the zodiac sign of the two, of the couple is exactly opposite of the other. Because if it is opposite, means, the difference then will generate conversation and interaction, because unless there is a difference, there isn't. So if they were the same, then it's, the astrologers explain, if you like sitting in a room with yourself, nothing would happen, right?

So this concept that everybody thinks one, everybody is the same and all that, it is not a proper... It is an idea that comes up as a negative to correct a problem where people are not dealt with properly. But actually, if you look at it, everybody was equally dealt with not properly, so that was equality. Everyone was dealt with badly. So to correct that then they try to make it, everyone will be dealt with nicely. But the problem is is, it doesn't work because there is a difference. Therefore, the common citizen and the criminal get equal rights. In fact, sometimes just to overemphasize that the criminal is not being dealt badly with, they get more rights than the citizen. They break into your house, having broken into your house then if you come to know of them there, so if you come out, they get scared, they jump out of the window and in the process get injured, and then they sue you for scaring them, and then they win. God bless America! [Laughter] So this is treating everyone the same.

Hierarchy and Authority Are Created by the Lord

So it makes it, there is no such thing... There can be no society with this mentality, there just can't. Because the point is is, there is differences, but the problem comes is if people use their own subjective view on what is these differences. That's why in the Vedic culture you have to know, you have to use, it is based on what are the differences as God has decided what are these differences. Does that make sense? That is what is there, so that is not worth arguing because that is the way it is created. It is worth understanding, means, if you don't understand it, then it is not something that is rejected. If you don't understand it, then it is something to be studied, something to be contemplated, until we do understand. So this concept of authority is there, there is no equality in that way. Kṛṣṇa is the superior, He is masculine, so that makes Him superior. All His creation is therefore junior to Him. So that automatically puts it there.

Then you are going to have persons who are, you have the five rasas and you are going to have the persons who are the personifications of those rasas in full. Then below them are going to be anybody else who is engaged in that rasa, assisting that one devotee, and all those devotees, of course, are expanding from Śrīmatī Rādhārāṇī, because She is the complete, She is the svarūpa-śakti. So She is all aspects of rasa. So then everybody else in those primary positions will be junior to Her. Then within that then there will be those junior to them in the rasa, then there will be their assistants. Does that make sense? Then within that assistance then there is a hierarchy of the Paramparā down to your guru and then yourself. So it always, this concept of authority is always there and they use it. In the spiritual world it is not that everything just floats around and it is just the rainbows are rainbowing and the birds are flying and chirping, and the butterflies are butterflying, and, you know, that's it, and everybody skips around through the daisies and all that with their hair flying and everything and holding hands in a circle. No. That's... Means, you can do that, but that's not what it is all about. Means, there is authority. Mother Yaśodā is telling people what to do, Rohinī is telling what to do in the kitchen, cooking for Kṛṣṇa, they are telling the servants what is going on, so there is organization. They are waking up Kṛṣṇa and telling it is time to go milk the cows, right? It's like, He is God, 'I want to sleep in.' 'Oh, okay, cool.' No. It is time to get up, so, 'You know, you are a vaiśya, you have duties to perform.' So then He gets up and He goes and milks the cows. So like that. Does that make sense? So there is hierarchy.

So this whole concept then is embodied in offering of dandavats to the superior. That whole concept is there. Nowadays, of course, devotees want to minimize that because, of course, no one is really qualified and all that. Of course, if no one is qualified, that makes us also equally as unqualified, so if anybody had any inkling or something of standard, then therefore, since I am totally unqualified, then they are totally unqualified plus some qualification, so I could offer my obeisances, right? But of course, I won't because everybody is the same and everybody is equal, because if everybody is the same, everybody is equal, that means then really I don't have to follow authority, means, then I can continue on being God the Controller and Enjoyer. So it is actually a non-devotional concept where we reduce the respectability of seniors. Does that make sense? That's the whole point.

Imperfections Do Not Justify Disrespect

Everybody is trying to perfect their life, so, of course, if someone is coming from the spiritual world, then they don't have any imperfections, but we see, even if they don't have any imperfections, still Kṛṣṇa arranges that there appears to be some. Yudhiṣṭhira Mahārāja, we were reading in the Bhāgavatam, he is manifesting an imperfection. And Arjuna, he doesn't have any imperfection, but he is manifesting one in the Bhagavad-gītā. And so, because of this, now do we stop respecting him? Of course, you put on their so-called so that those that would have a problem respecting them because of their attachment to the morality concept, rather than the religious concept, or devotional concept, then at least they will be involved, they will be on board.

But actually the point is is, material world means that there is obstacles and problems. There will be something that is there. Mother Yaśodā is perfect, but she does not, she never can understand that her son is not a little child, even though He is sixteen years old, he is out dancing with the gopīs and all that, she can't conceive of that. It just doesn't happen, He is just her little kid. You could say that is an illusion, so how can we respect someone who is in such illusion? Here is the Supreme Personality of Godhead, she is dealing with Him like a little kid. You know what I am saying? So you can always find. Kṛṣṇa, I mean, Śiśupāla found one hundred faults in Kṛṣṇa. Kṛṣṇa is perfect, but he found a hundred faults. So that is the point, depending upon how you look at it, it looks like a fault or not. It may be a fault, but the point is, depending upon the perception you use, does that fault have anything to do with you or not? Everybody has a problem. Someone has a problem with eating, someone sleeping, someone with mating, someone with defending, everyone has their attachments. So then, that is between them and their superiors and those that assist them and God. It is not your problem. You may be controlled in your eating, someone else not, so how does their having problem with eating affect you? It doesn't, you have your problem, you have your sādhana. Does that make sense? You have your imperfection.

So, therefore, we stick to our own activity. There is a Bengali saying, 'nijer chorkai tel dao', means, 'oil your own machine', right? Means, you can sit there all day, 'Oh, that machine is squeaky, this machine is squeaky,' but your machine is squeaky. You oil your machine, they will oil their machine. So their relationship with Godhead and the ācāryas is unique, so that is between them in there. Does that make some sense? Because the point is is, whether the person is respected or not, at the end of the day your problems still remain, believe it or not. If another person who is having problems is removed from the scene, still you remain and your problems still remain, it doesn't actually change anything. It means, it pleases the moralistic kind-of like attitude of the living entity, but it actually does not solve anything. Does that make sense? Yes? No? So that's why the authority must always be respected.

It is our business to respect the authority, it is authority's business to be respectable. Because it is a relationship, then we can't say that, 'Well, they are not acting in a way that is respectable, therefore I don't respect.' In the same way is, 'Oh, they are not respectful, so I don't have to act in a respectable way.' You go out on the streets, people don't know who you are, they are not respecting you as a devotee and the best of all human beings, so, therefore, then according to that application then you can just do whatever you want because they don't respect you, so you don't have to act like a respectable person. Does that make sense? But one could say, 'No, no, but it is their position to do first.' Yes, then that's okay, you could say that because then they are in the masculine position, you are in the feminine, because you are dependent upon their example. So then if you are in the feminine position, how do you take the masculine position of then telling them what to do? You know what I am saying? There must be a consistency. If you are going to say it is reciprocal, it is equal, then therefore if you don't deal with them right, why they should even behave the way you expect them to behave? But if they must in all circumstances behave as they should, though you as a junior may or may not behave properly, but then that means you are in a junior position, then it is not your right to make any comment. There must be a consistency.

Conservative, Liberal and Broad-minded

That is the difficulty with the modern society because they don't have any standards. Means, conservatives have some standards and they are generally consistent in them, though they may not be very broad or deep or accommodating, but you generally see, their lifestyle is consistent with how they conceive the values. You know that they will always act the same. But the difficulty comes with the liberal, because he has no standards other than which way the wind happens to be blowing today, then other than that... So there is no actual method to decide or determine what is appropriate or what is not. So it is actually a more dangerous position.

So, but the concept of being liberal and all that, that is nice, that is a Vedic concept. But in the Vedic concept this liberality doesn't mean liberal left, it means broad-minded middle. Do you understand? There is conservative right, liberal left, both of them are technically wrong. Because even though they both are comprised of proper elements, they are only dealing with part of the elements, or they are taking the approved element, but interpreting it, trying to apply it to all time, place and circumstance, when it doesn't. You know what I am saying? Means, you are liberal where you should be liberal, but you are not liberal where you should not be. So, in other words, the conservatives are correct when they do make distinctions between situations and are very strict in certain situations, that is correct. And the liberals are correct in being broad-minded in situations that would deserve being, giving somebody some benefit of a doubt. But the point is is, knowing when to apply that, that is given in the rules by God. Both the principles are correct, but unless you understand where to apply them, you will be wrong. Like you see, just before any, generally, any revolution, that's the time when the government decided to be very conservative and hold the hard line, and that was what pushed the people over the edge. So they didn't distinguish between 'these people are actually for no reason just making trouble, political trouble,' or 'these people actually have a problem and they need help.' Does that make sense? So, therefore, then conservative side then made it fall apart. So that is very obvious. The other is is that the liberality was such that it was spread to all sections of the society and because of that then the lower elements then rise up and then the whole social structure falls apart, and then you see that the society just kind-of dwindles away. Like the Romans, they just dwindled away because of the liberality.

So we can see, either of them will destroy the culture. If you are liberal when you shouldn't be and you are conservative when you shouldn't be, it will destroy the culture. But if you are liberal when you should be, conservative when you should be, then the culture will be maintained. So that ability to be liberal when you should be and conservative when you should be, then that is called broad-minded. Because you have your values, you are conservative in your value system, but you are able to accommodate people who are outside of that and help them to come to the standard. That's broad-minded. That's why you see, Prabhupāda could live in any situation. Prabhupāda is living there with the Bowery bums. So that's liberal, means, he is not... How you say? Words, come into mind, a slosh or whatever it is, he is not someone, but he is able to live amongst them, maintain his dignity, you know, he is coming to his apartment, there is a bum in front of his door, then he steps over the bum and goes inside his door. He is not out there, you know, then ranting and raving based on moral principles, 'What is this? I am a devotee of the Lord and then these bums are here, you know, drunken socks and they are sitting here and getting in my way and disturbing my...' No, not at all. Because the point is is, what disturbance are there more than you just have to step over them, right? That's it. Does that make sense? Because Prabhupāda has no interest or need for alcoholism, therefore, this guy does and this is the result, he is laying here in front of your door, poor guy, and so you just walk around. Do you understand?

We Can Help Someone Else If We Are Not Drowning Ourselves

But if you actually value alcoholism, but you yourself are trying to keep away from it, then what happens? Then to convince yourself, therefore you have to make them into the demon, otherwise you do the same thing. This is the moralist. So if you add two and two together, then you know who has what problems by who is standing up and yelling and screaming the most about it when it is not appropriate. Means, we will stop here at this point, otherwise, it gets very dangerous. But for the contemplating individual, then you can add two and two together, and then you understand what is a worthy position to take and what is not. Does that make sense? Because otherwise, if you cannot see, how do you help? If you stand outside your door ranting and raving about how all these bums and drunks are going to go to hell and this and that, and, you know, fire and brimstone, and the day of reckoning is coming, how do you help the person? Right? You can only help if you don't have a problem there. If you are drowning, you can't help another person drowning. But if you are not drowning then you can help the other person. Does that make sense?

So, that is the point, is that preacher means he is able to see beyond these things, but it is not that they are ignored. The liberalist will also either completely condemn or completely ignore. You condemn is that, 'Oh, it is against all proper because this and that,' and somehow or another their concept of moral sense is opposed to the conservative's concept of moral sense because the one it's healing and the other is coming down in dry tradition, like that, that is coming down from some authority and all this is considered bad. So, actually, you can look at it that liberal mentality, in one sense, tends to be demoniac, but because of its liberal nature, then by their own stand then they must accommodate you. They may like you or not but they must accommodate you by their own philosophy. So that way then it makes it easier for devotees, it is easier in a liberal society to... Like it was interesting, like I saw in one country, then after the... How you say? After the Glasnost, or whatever it is, and then they were liberated from the centralized rule and they became independent countries, then their previous church then naturally came up again to power. And so, then the church then would be very much against us, and the liberal government would be very much in favor of us. But the liberals, they support abortion, we don't, we are like the local religion that doesn't. But they will support us because of other elements, freedom of religion and this and that, and, you know, nice people, we distribute prasāda and we sing in the streets, so like that.

So each one can appreciate something about Kṛṣṇa consciousness, therefore they can take it up. The conservative can see these are nice, these standards of rule, there is authority, it is coming down from God, it is a very well thought-out, structured system with proper values, social and family values and individual... So it is very good and they can appreciate that. While the other can see is that the broad-mindedness and everything like that and appreciate it. Does that make sense? So each has its good, so therefore it is there. But what we are talking about here is for the individual within the society, applying Kṛṣṇa consciousness into their own life, then if they understand the broad-mindedness, or in the middle... That's why it is said, the razor's edge. The razor's edge is in the middle, it is not on the right or left. Means, you take the middle as the standard and then from there, looking forward you say, 'This is right, this is left.' Isn't it? So if you say there is right and left indicates that there is a middle that must be the standard by which you judge what is right or left. But that's not, it is strangely always avoided, right? Otherwise, you would say, 'We are the standard and then there is the other people,' right? 'The others,' or something. Why would they always be left, this always right, unless there is a middle? Does that make sense?

We Correct What is Wrong, Instead of Destroying Everything

So that is the position, is that middle, that broad-mindedness means 'I have my standards and I am fixed in my standards. Then anybody else who doesn't have standards, they are not fixed in their standards, then we can help them find the bearing.' And it doesn't matter where you start, that point is the place to start from. Does that make sense? You don't have to go back, you start from where you are right now. Someone was in a good position before, they are not manifesting that position now, so to become situated again they don't have to go back to where they were. No, they start from where they are now and go forward. Does that make sense? It's foolishness to have to go back or re-do, or throw it out, right?

Means, you have something that is working, and let's say, it is working 75%, but there is 25% wrong, yes, obviously, it is wrong. So what is better - throw the whole thing out, start from zero again and then try to in your first attempt get a 100% correct? No. Or is it, start with the 75%, now focus on the 25% that is wrong and try to correct that. Then you have 75 good plus now 25 good. Right? So that is Bhaktivinoda Ṭhākura's opinion, is that you start from what it is now. To throw everything out or start over again, that is for idiots. You know what I am saying? So, therefore, then that management in which something is wrong, so you throw the whole thing out and start all over again, how you are going to guarantee that you are going to get 100%? Because your problem is with the 25%, you don't have any problem with the 75%, you have a problem with 25%. So, therefore, if you throw out the 75%, what are you going to replace it with? Because it is already working. Unless you have an alternative, but, unfortunately, there is not necessarily good alternatives to God's system. So the point is is, they applied God's system nicely 75%, 25 they haven't, therefore, correct that, then you have a 100% of God's standards. But otherwise, if you are going to speculate and make it up, then you have a problem because unless you are as smart as God, then how you are going to make a system that accommodates everything in the system? Right? God's system, social system, incorporates the needs of 8,400,000 species of life that will be applied in the earthly region, the lower regions, the heavenly regions; on the mountains, on the plains, in the oceans, in the rivers, in the sky, on the land, in the water; in the ten directions; all the Zodiac signs, all the nakṣatras, the constellations, all the times of the day or night, all the seasons; the Uttarāyaṇa or Dakṣināyaṇa, when the sun is going North or when it is going South; at all ages, considering all elements of beauty, wealth, knowledge, fame, renunciation and influence, - that is God's system. So it would be the greatest arrogance that someone could conceive that they could, I mean, even contemplate that they could make up a system better than that. You know what I am saying?

So that's the thing, is conservatives are supposedly arrogant and feel themselves better. But the liberals are equally as arrogant because they think they can think of something better than what has been thought of by the previous great personalities. Does that make sense? So that is a problem. That's why modern liberality is actually... It is nice, but it is actually a very, very weak position because there is no standards to judge anything by. How do you know how to be liberal and kind? You are supposed to be kind and liberal and accommodating and equal-minded, but how do you know what is the standard for it? On being equal, okay, the dog and the cat get the same food? No, it's, you have to do according to the individual.  So that is the point, is that the standards are set by the male, means, God sets the standard. Within those standards then there is the variety of what is the applications and need of the female, that's what it is tended to. So, you need both, but the position where the two meet, where the conservative and liberal meet, is in the middle. Sambandha and prayojana meet at, which is in the middle. Does that make sense? So the whole social system then works like that.

Authority Must Always Be Respected

So, here in any case is that one must respect authority. If one does not respect authority, it doesn't work. That's why it is said, even if the authority is wrong, he is still respected because it is the position. It doesn't mean that one blindly follows or follows their bad example. No, that is not there. But the position itself is respectable. You know what I am saying? People are conditioned, everybody has a bad day. Because this concept where you don't accept, it is actually... How you say? Yeah. It is a position where we are not accepting God's standards, really. And what we are basing it on is just our feelings. We are accepting that God is important, but is our feelings towards God that is important. So in one sense, yeah, you could say, rāgānugā-bhakti is the spontaneous display of affection of the soul towards God, and so the rules are not the important thing. But the interesting point that is missed out generally is that rāgānugā-bhakti means spontaneously showing that affection through the rules. The point is is, without a form, how do you display it? Does that make sense? Means, you have to have a form, otherwise, how do you express it? So, if someone comes to your house, you are hospitable, so how do you show that? There must be a form. You know, you offer them a seat, you give them something to eat or drink, or you speak nicely, you sit there with them. You could be saying, I have seen, not an uncommon common hospitality is, you know, they are sitting there on the couch, eating something, and when you walk in the door, he says, 'Yeah, hi, come in, there is something to eat in the fridge, you know, make yourself at home.' Okay. So you have offered your facility, but there is no real interaction between you and them. And so, for people who are accustomed to not actually knowing what are relationships, then, 'Yeah, hey, this guy is nice, you know, they are liberal.' But there is no actual standards of interaction. Does that make sense? Means, they have offered the facility, that is proper, but they themselves don't operate the facility. They let you do it, okay, so you do it, they do it, so the common element is their common facility, but actually you don't really have dynamic relationship. Does that make sense?

So in all these things we can see, there is a weakness, inherent weakness in the modern liberal concept, in that even though it claims personalness, it is actually impersonal. So what you are doing, is you are accommodating that others have a different personality, but you are not actually interacting with them on any platform of substance. You are only accommodating that they are different than you. But you are not actually interacting with, okay, they are different from you, therefore I as my position and them as their position, what is our relationship? That doesn't even come into the picture. Because if it did, then you wouldn't have all these contradictions, 'Oh, the authority this and the authority that, and we are so downtrodden and all that, so, therefore, we make the decision that they are out.' But how do you do that? You can't use the one or the other. 'We are downtrodden and all that, so please get it together and consider our needs,' - that would be the statement. Or, 'We are the authorities and you are junior to us and you are not doing your duties well, so, therefore, we are here to correct you.' But, so they take the worst of both, the weakness of the one and then the strength of the other without the actual personal consideration. Does that make sense? So that is improper.

The Broad-mindedness of Śrīla Prabhupāda

So what Prabhupāda was teaching us, what the Ācāryas are teaching us is broad-mindedness. Broad-mindedness means, you have a standard, you follow that standard, you value that standard, you are at least attempting to follow that standard, it is your sādhana, it is your determination to follow. And then you can accommodate anybody else, whatever position they are at and somehow or another connect them to Kṛṣṇa. Think about this - this is the difference in, let us say... We had the famous story, 26 Second Avenue, Prabhupāda is sitting there giving class, devotees are sitting down, right? I don't know if you know 26 Second Avenue, it is about half the size of this room in width, length it's like this long, maybe a little longer. And then in this place, at the end here is where the Vyāsāsana is. Right next to that actually is the toilet, it sticks out a bit, comes out, I don't know, about... I don't know, six feet or something, it just sticks out like this and then goes over, not so wide. So the person is sitting here, the wall from bathroom is there, so the door is over there. So this, one of these bums comes in, drunken bums, comes in with his hat on, stuff like that, tipping his hat and everything, walks careening through the devotees with a roll of toilet paper. Comes, in, goes over, opens the door, sticks the toilet paper inside, like that, tips his hat and then walks out. And so, then Prabhupāda was very appreciative. Here is this bum, somehow or another he found a roll of toilet paper, who knows how, bounced off the back of a truck or he stole it from somewhere, who knows how he got it, and he decided that 'These devotees are nice, I would like to do something for them.' So he brings his toilet paper and gives it to the devotees, right? Does that make sense? So, Prabhupāda was very appreciative, 'This man has come and done some service.'

Now, you consider, let us say, if Prabhupāda wasn't there and it was just the devotees, and this bum comes careening into the temple, what would happen? 'Aye, you are drunk, get out of here, this that, don't give us toilet paper, we don't use toilet paper, get out of here!' [Laughter] Is it...? Probably a pretty good speculation on what might happen. So that is the difference between being conservative and being broad-minded. The point is is, he is giving a gift, he wants to give something to Kṛṣṇa and in his position he is doing the best he can, right? At least he was standing up when he came in, wasn't crawling in or something. Even if he would crawl, at least he is making the attempt.