Because Kṛṣṇa consciousness means you’re conscious of Kṛṣṇa. It’s that simple. So if you’re, if one of the senses are running wild, then one is going to be conscious of that area of where the senses are running to. So that means it’s going to distract from Kṛṣṇa consciousness. So to be fixed in Kṛṣṇa consciousness would mean that these disturbances are not there.
So that’s the importance of the senses being restricted. Does that make sense? Because the idea is that you restrict, that means then they’re being engaged in a particular way. So you get the results of that particular, you a dodo?
Oh, Mauritius. Okay, not that.
So they gave you, it was not, not, not a, it doesn’t exist. Okay, but not that they were commenting upon what they felt about your personality or something. Oh, I hope not.
Okay, so they’re going to do what they like because the senses are just engaged, whatever they can be there. But now the point is, is that why would they be engaged loosely?
What would be the cause? Because the senses are a element of the intelligence.
Right? So why would they be engaged loosely?
Yeah, intelligence not used. Because it’s not the intelligence that is specifically being fixed. Right? You can develop the intelligence, but what makes the choice? The mind. You understand? So unless the mind, in other words, the mind is going to be dealing with intelligence, right? What information intelligence gives the mind will make choices. But now it’s a matter, is the mind in control of the intelligence or the intelligence in control of the mind? Right?
Yes. So the intelligence should be in control. If it’s not, then the senses will act loosely. In other words, where there’s an opportunity, they’ll engage themselves. But if you’re intelligent, then you will pick whatever, whatever’s your goal, you’ll pick those activities. Right? Because if your goal is a higher goal, you’ll pick activities connected with the higher goal. Does it make sense? So at some point, one has to, by purification and by that determination, then it’s a matter of you’re always going to come up with what you’d like to do and then what would probably be a better thing to do. No? And so that choice is always there. The tendency is by habit we’ll pick what we’d like to do instead of picking what we should do. So that’s why these things we should do are made into sadhana, into a lifestyle where you just do them because this is the habit. This is just what you do. Right? So it makes it easier. But ultimately, it has to be because of your choice. So it means you’ve made the choice to make it into a habit, so that’s good. But it also has to be as that principle that you’re always going to take it because there’ll be things that are outside your sadhana.
Does that make sense?
So that’s the thing. Then one can be firmly fixed. If one’s trying to be Krishna conscious, then one is going to take those elements that are favorable for Krishna consciousness.
So those will be done. And things that are not, you won’t do. Then you can be fixed. So that’s why the do’s and the don’ts, then it’s important that they’re established. One can say, oh, don’t be fanatic, this, that. But what’s that based on? If we say don’t be fanatic, OK, explain. How are we being fanatic by following the rules? What would someone say? I never let them get to that point. I’ve already blasted them by this time. So I don’t know what would be their response.
We’re not doing whatever comes spontaneously. OK, so not doing whatever comes spontaneously, but since when is spontaneity the important element? I mean, is there no restriction? It’s like the kid feels like going to the bathroom, so therefore he just pees right there in the middle of the floor, like that. You walk into someone’s house, you feel like eating, so you just walk into the kitchen and you’re rifing through their refrigerator and stuff like this, or doing whatever you want. So where does this principle of you’re not being spontaneous come in? Because even their definition of spontaneity will have restrictions.
Yeah, so all it is is it means that your restrictions are either lower than theirs, so they criticize, or higher than theirs, so they criticize. But if they were exactly theirs, then they would say, no, that’s proper. So restriction’s always there, otherwise how do you define a human being?
Even restriction, even the animals, though they don’t make the choice, but birds fly like that, cats don’t. Well, it depends upon who’s got a hold of their tail. Yeah, then sometimes they fly, you know, like that. But other than that, then generally they don’t fly. At least they don’t fly very good, consistently.
You were saying something?
As a response? No, it was just that they might say that they feel restricted. Restricted, okay, but that definition of restricted means more than what they’re willing to do. You know, it’s just like, let’s say the parent is saying, oh, you know, what’s the big deal? Okay, they shouldn’t be smoking marijuana. You know, it’s a bad thing. But, you know, come on, they’re kids, kids do these things and things like that. So what does that mean?
They’re approving, but if you go back farther, what does it mean? They probably used to smoke marijuana. Yeah, they probably used to smoke marijuana or their friends did. Okay, now what happens if you come to the same parent and go that, you know, we caught your kid, you know, and they’re, you know, freebasing heroin. You know, then what are they going to say? Oh, this is nonsense. You know, who’s doing that? You know, who’s made my kid bad? You know, and finally, you know, you know what I’m saying? In other words, if it’s within the purview of their kind of standards, then it’s okay. You know, but if it’s below that, then that doesn’t fly. So everybody has their restrictions. Otherwise, how do they define themselves? If you’re going to say, I have an identity, that means you define yourself. You know, I always wear this. I remember seeing one, one, one, I don’t know if he was a, yeah, he may have been a teenager or something like that.
They were, we were at the temple or something, and we were going to go out. And so being in the temple, in the brahmacharya ashram, naturally then someone took his shoes, right? And so we had to go out. Now he was wearing karmic clothes. And so he couldn’t go because his shoes were missing. So I said, take some other pair of shoes, you know? So they take yours, you take theirs. You know, I said, was it jivo jivasya jivanam? You know, it’s like one living entity lives by eating another, right? So one brahmacharya, you know, steals another, he takes his shoes. You know, it’s like common, how do you say, what is it? Common law, right? On your shoe. So, but he couldn’t because there wasn’t any shoes that matched what he was wearing. He couldn’t tolerate being seen in public wearing the wrong shoes and all that, you know? So it’s like, okay, you just stay here.
You understand? So everyone has their identity, what they’ll wear, what they won’t wear, what they’ll eat, what they won’t, everything like that. They have their identity. That’s what makes them who they are. That’s what makes them comfortable. So if it’s within that, then it’s okay. Even if it’s not Krishna consciousness, but it’s within how they are comfortable with. If it’s outside of that, then it’s a problem.
Does that make sense?
Envy could also be theirs that they can’t do, maybe they were doing, they’re not doing now, before they were the strict, you know, person in the temple and now they’re not. So then anybody who’s strict and they’re fanatic, you know, because otherwise if you weren’t fanatic, you’d be like them because they’re the balanced, normal devotee. And so if you’re still strict like they used to be, then there’s something wrong, you know? Or it’s an area you can afford to be, but that’s, like, yeah. I just saw when someone new joins. Someone new joins. Yeah, and he can’t yet catch that study. And we preach very strictly sometimes. Yeah, no, that’s there. I mean, the point is this, what is the important element? Like let’s say somebody first comes in contact with Krishna consciousness. What’s the most important thing that he does? Chanting. Chanting, right? Understanding who God is, who he is, what the material energy is, that the process is chanting Hare Krishna and developing love for God. If he understands that, then you’ve made some solid foundational preaching. Yes? Even if someone isn’t my atheist.
Yeah, yeah. Just as the new devotee, they understand I’m coming to the level. Yes. And it’s not that everyone else is fanatical just because they’re following. Yes. Or the opposite, because you’ve been around and then you have weakness. So therefore, you know, they’re not a devotee, they’re not a senior, they’re not this, that.
Because the point is that someone who advances some area, other areas, they may be slow to advance it. Right? So that’s the point of Sadhusangha, because then you get the benefit of a variety of devotees who they have a area where they’re strong. So where you’re not strong, someone else is. So you can take advantage of that. You know, it means take that benefit of association and vice versa. Right? So it’s not for the association of devotees makes for a great gossip, right? Because there’s always something to talk about, because someone’s always doing something wrong. Right? Is that what it says? But now, okay, so the first thing is this, to chant. But now, what will a lot of devotees push as the first and most important thing to do? Four principles. Four principles. Be vegetarian.
Right? But actually, no, it’s chanting. If they chant, they’ll get purified, they’ll get a taste. The others will automatically come. Right? But if you push earlier on that, if they’re not willing, then it’s a problem. But then you’d have the other side now calling so-called, you know, soft as, I’m not sure what would be, when you say soft preaching, what are they comparing it to? You know, like a, you know, maybe, maybe, you know, more like a cotton, grow at their own speed. Okay. What if their speed is very fast? What do you have for them? Because if you’re defining soft preaching as someone should only be encouraged as quickly as they can progress, what happens if they can progress very fast? What does soft preaching have for them?
Basically nothing. So, therefore, that’s not actually the purpose of soft preaching. Soft preaching is, I feel embarrassed about devotional service. I don’t have that much commitment. Therefore, I, at least culturally, philosophically, yes, but culturally, no. So I don’t like any cultural element that appears that there’s some strength or anything like that. Yes. It could be compared to the chopping technique.
That’s there, but the chopping technique works if you know what you, to chop, you know?
That’s the point. Is that chopping, just like if you’re going to cut down a tree, so where do you chop?
Yeah, what if you just hit here and there on the tree and just whack it around? Does anything happen? No. So that’s what many use. Chopping technique means you’re hitting at one point, right? But you’re giving different ways of doing that.
Sometimes the chopping technique is used. Sometimes. Who’s using the chopping technique? Who even knows how to? Who’s smart enough to use it? Who used it? Bhaktivedanta Saraswati Thakur. And how did he use it? Prabhupada used it. What would they do? They’d use logic. But what do devotees generally do when they preach really strong? It’s sentiment. Though it’s good sentiment, it’s for Krishna. But they’re not using their logic to present it.
Yes, the point is, is you’re supposed to create a devotional identity. Then what do you need a mundane identity for? Right? So then you have to see what’s, why are they doing that? Because I’m doing it, everybody should do it, that kind of thing. So then that’s a problem. So it’s also a problem. But the solution is not this so-called soft as, you know, soft as, you know, hey, soft as fresh mucus in your nose or something, you know, like that. You know, like that. Why, you know, you know what I’m saying? Why, why, it’s just another side of the same thing. Ego. One is, ego is that, you know, whatever I’m doing, everybody else should do it. I’m convinced, so everybody else better be convinced. Or everybody has to do what I do, and so I’m not so confident of this, therefore others, you know, shouldn’t be pushed in that direction. You understand? It’s the same thing. It’s just two sides of the same coin.
There’s no difference. Right? This, you know, soft preaching is just the opposite side of the hard preaching. Both of them have missed the point. Other than, OK, there’s some connection to Krishna, so that’s good. Right? But the one, at least there’s confidence about Krishna, though you’re a bit rough on how you deliver it, so people don’t take it. But the other one is actually in a weaker position because there is no confidence.
So that, you know, you know, why would anybody get involved? If you don’t have confidence, who would care? You know, unless you’ve got so much confidence about your concept of soft Krishna consciousness.
Right? And so then there’s some attitude there, but I don’t think they’ll get much out of it because, you know, how showy can you be? There’s people that do all this kind of soft stuff that are really good. Right? So unless you’re as materially good as them, then you’re probably not going to get that far. Right? So the only benefit is actually going to be if they’re spiritual.
Does that make sense?
Because the point is that soft means you’re not preaching directly Krishna consciousness, so therefore you must be working on some kind of mundane presentation. Right? So unless you’re a really good orator or presenter or all that, then why will people then get a taste from it and be interested in what you have? So they talk about soft and this and that, but where are the people coming forward?
Right? You understand? So if you look at those who are doing soft preaching and no one’s becoming a devotee, and those who are, you know, doing soft preaching and making people devotee, the actual difference is, like what he said, the ones who are making the devotees are simply presenting it at, they’re sensitive enough to present it at the speed the person can take it. And the other one, they’re presenting at the speed that they themselves, the preacher, can take it.
That’s the difference. Because you really have to be confident that what you are, other people want to be. Right? You know, so unless you’re really something special, why would they want to be like you?
Right? As far as mundane goes, you know, why are you saying your mundane position’s better than theirs? So it has to be that you have something spiritual to offer. Right? And yoga and meditation is not spiritual.
You can use it as a door to get in and then go. Like Prabhupada used to go to the yoga things and start like this and he would talk about yoga. You know, go there, sit, and do the different things that they would be happy with. But his whole purpose was to preach direct Krishna consciousness.
Does that make sense? You know, so people who, you go to the yoga studio and you’ve already been there for six weeks and you still haven’t gotten to the point where you’re chanting japa, they’re just teaching you yoga. I know people who do this kind of approach and they have a two hour session that they even charge people for. Right? And all that. At the end of the two hours, they’re chanting Hare Krishna.
Like that. And they make a lot of devotees. You know, good devotees, professionals, very intelligent people. So they just take two hours to get you to the point. But they get you there in that one sitting. But these others, as they go for their, like this, and weeks and weeks and weeks, and still nothing.
Right? So immediately within that, then very shortly then, the people are coming, visiting the temple, coming to, you know, regular lectures, coming to temple programs and all that. Because people don’t mind. If it’s nice, it makes sense, then what does it matter if it’s Hare Krishnas? You know, I mean, what’s wrong with Hare Krishnas? I mean, if people are into Buddhism, then what’s wrong with, you know, Indian stuff?
Does that make sense? So we have to be very careful as they’re controlling the senses here. The do’s and do nots are dick for a purpose. So you have to know what the purpose is. Then only you can make it a softer form or a more strict form. If you don’t know the purpose, what does that mean soft? Soft what?
Yeah. You know what I’m saying? It’s just like, let’s say, okay, you know, it’s like this, you’re going to have a feast, and so then, you know, you make up a menu for that. But then you find out that, you know, basically everyone you’re cooking for is kind of like sick and all that. So then you have to adjust the menu to make it something that won’t disturb their sickness. Right? But that means you know cooking, you know menus, you know what tastes good. And so you make something that’s simpler for them, that would taste good, that still would have that element of a feast.
You know what I’m saying?
So it’s not that, you know, these heavy preparations are a problem. Otherwise, if they were, why are they there? Why does Krishna eat them if they’re a problem?
Right? The point is, is how much you eat, when you eat them, under what circumstances.
You understand? If you know that, then you can come up with these very light things.
You know, like Prabhupada, he’s in India, right? You have Indian things. He goes to the West. He figures out, you know, the caramel thing and simply wonderfuls and all these different things that you can do in the West. Right? You don’t have the proper pots there, so he figures out systems to cook in those pots that can make things nice.
You know? Does that make sense? You know, if you have a pot that’s, you know, this small at the bottom and very tall, which most temples have, how do you fry something? How do you roast something? You can’t.
You know? So he has systems for how you do this. And it comes out nice. So he taught that in the beginning. Very nice prasadam. He also taught that during the week you cook lighter, and on the Sunday feast you cook very heavy. The devotees will cook heavy all week and then they say, oh, this cooking heavy is bad. No, it’s supposed to be there occasionally.
You know? Means Indian, Indian, any Indian, good Indian family, they have their daily cooking, they have their special cooking, and like for guests or, you know, some, and then they have wedding cooking.
They all have it. Every community has it. So these are things Prabhupada taught. Devotees don’t learn. And then it’s the problem of the Vedic culture, not with themselves, that they’re so thick -headed that they can’t learn these things.
Does that make sense?
Is that okay, or are there any doubts on this, say, now or forever? Yes. Okay, so I have this friend in Denmark, and I convinced her to buy a bhagavad -gita. So she’s reading the bhagavad-gita, and I talk to her, and she says, well, there are some good points, and, but the thing is that she’d read some self-help books, and they made some of the same points, and so she didn’t understand why you need that. So you mentioned… So the thing is, is, okay.
So it seemed like just the fact that it was Hare Krishna, that was the problem. The points themselves, she could take them, but she would rather have some copy. Yeah, the thing is, is that, the point is, is that why are we buying bhagavad -gita? So it’s just another self-help book, you know, just on the mundane platform? It’s how to help yourself as actually the individual spirit soul, to understand who you are. These other systems, they teach you how to work in the office place and stuff like that, but they’re not going to teach you how to find yourself as an individual. So it’s the same point, but it’s in context of spiritual life. Just like, okay, you have a recipe, okay, and you can find these recipes in different books. But now the point is, is if you have a book that explains actually what’s going on in the cooking, what’s happening there, then that puts it into that context, you know, so that it has something further you can gain. So that’s to the advantage. Does that make sense? So it’s just a matter of finding, you know, what the point is. It’s because, the point is, so then they look at it that it came from the self-help book. Gita was there for 5,000 years. This other one is just recent. So that means people are observing God’s laws. So Gita is telling you what they are. And the other is somebody who was clever and sat out under a tree somewhere and figured something out. Yeah, I tried to explain that, but it didn’t really work. No, if it doesn’t work, then as long as they’re favorite, give them prasad. You know, that’s the point. If they like prasad, just bring prasad and be pleasant and nice, and then they’ll take prasad, and then that works.
You know, if they know it’s prasad, that’s better, but if they don’t, at least then it’s, because if they don’t, it’s a japa -sukrti. If they do, then it’s devotional service. Because I know Prabhupada’s disciples who, they went to the temple, they were total atheists. You know, didn’t like the devotees, nothing, nothing about the philosophy, wouldn’t discuss the philosophy, just go and eat. Well, one of them I think went on his own, you know, just because he was hungry, and another one because his friend went, but he didn’t, you know, he wanted to be with his friend, but he didn’t really like the thing. And generally in both cases, one I think was after nine weeks, you know, nine Sunday feasts, and one was after seven, they were in the temple shaved up. So, therefore prasad, you know, is pretty good. Because that’s all, they weren’t listening to philosophy, nothing. So, but, you know, seven Sundays of maha -prasad depends. The same people come to the Sunday feasts, but if they need it for, generally, a little slower process. Yeah, slower process, like that.
There’s a guy, I’ve heard, he came to Sunday feasts, and he was pretty intoxicated, you know, in the 70s, and he ate six plates of prasad and fell asleep right there in the temple room, because he passed out. So, the devotees come to him and say, wow, six plates. He must be a devotee. So, they shaved him up. He woke up the next day and he never left.
He was afraid to go out. Yeah, interesting.
I guess that would be one way to keep people in the temple. But that was then. Nowadays, shaved heads are, you know, can work.
Yeah, interesting. Can you elaborate on how to adjust the approach, if we, in preaching directly, sense that we’re disturbing the identity of the person? So, the point is, is that’s your point. It’s not a matter of, you’re disturbing the identity means that personal function, because there’s an identity. So, you have to show them what’s more, you know, like that. That’s all. Being sensitive to what they need doesn’t mean that you don’t say anything. It’s not dynamic. Like, let’s take Yudhisthira or Arjuna or Bhima. Now, if you see in Mahabharata, the conversations with Draupadi, now, they’re very sensitive to what she’s speaking, right? And they’re willing to do something. They’re dynamic. So, the two go together. But the modern idea is, you know, if you’re sensitive, then, you know, nothing happens or something. And if you’re dynamic, then you have to be, you know, like a bull in a china shop. But that’s them. That’s what they will do.
You understand? Like, you know, let’s take an example. You know, the bourgeois in France, and they’re complaining that the nobility is, you know, taking advantage and, you know, arresting people and taking money and, you know, things that aren’t theirs just because of their position. And so, then they grumbled for a long time until there’s enough of them grumbling. Then they had a revolution. And what’s the first thing they do? Right? Take things that aren’t theirs and, you know, and arrest people and, you know, and kill them.
You know what I’m saying? At least the other one, you just kind of, like, disappeared, you know, like that. And here, it’s like they drag you out in public and cut off your head while ladies sit around knitting and go, you know, ooh, that was a good one, you know, like that.
So, what if we turn it around and in the congregation, we have a devotee who doesn’t have proper training and therefore no sensitivity, and he keeps on smashing, you know, using the chopping technique? So, then he should do something else. In other words, someone should do what they can use. Chopping, see, when you say chopping technique, it’s just like this. Let us say, just to use that word, let us say the person has, you know, is doing work in the kitchen, okay? And he has to cut a lot of vegetables, you know, for, you know, big programs, okay? So, he has a very big knife, okay? And so, let’s say you have two people, okay? Both the same thing. They both have the same big knives, okay? One goes in and is able to take that knife and, you know, cut nicely and do everything, you know, quickly and efficiently and all that. And he ends up with his, you know, pile of cut vegetables all properly done, right? The other guy just goes in with his knife and starts hacking at things and like smashing like this. So, can you call that the proper use? So, the point is, is what that person is using is not chopping technique.
It’s just chopping. It’s just chopping. There’s no technique. You understand? So, it’s very important because if they use this word, like, that’s chopping technique. Point is, is where did we get that word from? Where did we get it from? It was there in Zap Magazine, right? It was there in the, what was it called, you know, the Harvard Lampoon. It was there in the Rolling Stone or, you know, we got it from GQ or, where did we get it from?
Yeah, that’s right. So, now when you use that in a derogatory way, then who are you being derogatory towards? The previous acharyas.
You understand? So, the point is, is they’re not using it properly because chopping simply means you’re straightforward.
Here, I’ll give you another example.
There was one devotee and practicing, you know, Krishna consciousness and that. Mother wasn’t that favorable, you know, but was maintaining the relationship, but didn’t really like it and that. It wasn’t, like, coming around so much.
Then when their child was born, you know, so their grandson, then, you know, the parents were a little bit more wanting to be involved and like this and that. So, one day, then, and the mother was very, you know, or let’s say the grandmother, was very strong in her thing that, you know, they’re meat eaters and that’s the way it is, you know, you like it and don’t like it, who cares, you know? And, you know, it always criticized the daughter for being the, you know, vegetarian and this and that. So, one day, then, the grandmother, the mother, and the grandson are in the kitchen, right? The son’s, like, three years old. And they’re all there and it’s a nice atmosphere and that. And then, you know, the kid goes over to the refrigerator, opens the door. And then it’s like, you know, as soon as he opens the door, it’s like this blood-curdling scream. And so, the mother and grandmother come running over, you know, what’s wrong? And then the three-year-old points in the fridge and goes, grandmother’s keeping dead bodies in the refrigerator.
Like that. Grandmother became a vegetarian.
That’s chopping technique. It’s just straightforward. But if straightforward doesn’t mean that it’s not sensitive to the situation. People use the technique, all that. That’s the modern thing. Be honest. Be straightforward and all that. But then they do exactly the opposite.
You know, so their sensitivity is political. It’s not real. Or lacking, of course. But lacking, depending on which direction it’s going, you know, or what it’s for. You know, if it’s for, you know, somebody they feel is, you know, according to their ideology, is being dealt with wrong, then, you know, then it’s all this philosophy. But if themselves dealing, oh, I’m just being honest. I’m just being straightforward. I’m just saying what I feel. So it’s the same thing. Chopping technique means you know the philosophy, you know exactly what’s wrong in their understanding or their behavior, and so you’re hitting that point exactly. And so, that you’ve hit it and they’ve understood it, you know, it gets through. It may be uncomfortable, but it works. But if you find a person doesn’t have the character, you understand? Because the point is, is it’s not that things are changed, now people are better. No, people are worse. Their character is worse. Their self-centeredness is much greater. Their idea that I am the supreme controller and enjoyer is to a very, how do you say, childish degree. They don’t have the dignity and the sense control and the ability to contemplate like people did before. People would really think about religion and philosophy and that before. They make a point and they’d really think about it. Nowadays they can’t. So that’s why you have to be careful. But previously, you were careful, but you could make a very direct point. And then they would think about it. Okay, that’s a good point, but what about this? But nowadays is even you make a good point, they can’t take it because they can’t be wrong. So even if you told them nicely, you know, as soft as a lotus flower or this and that kind of technique, they still wouldn’t be able to accept it. And they would take your softness as an opportunity for them to come in and present their view.
You understand? So it’s not this presentation that people are so much more qualified. No, no. They’re so much less qualified.
Does that make sense? So one has to be very careful how one uses the term. Because as we said, chopping technique is a technique. It works. Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakur had 60,000 disciples. Śrīla Prabhupāda was like 10 or 12. Devotees were making devotees, you know, hundreds a year in one temple, in one zone.
You know what I’m saying? Does that make sense? So the point is being straightforward, but there wasn’t some other motive. It was just they were sincerely trying to present what they did. But that’s in the beginning. With time, you’re supposed to become more refined, more developed.
Does that make sense?
Yes. Yes, that’s also there.
So in other words, you have to be able to explain it. It can’t just be, well, you’re a karmic demon nonsense. But why?
You know what I’m saying? Why are you doing it? You have to be able to explain it.
Does that make sense?
You know, explain it, and then they go, OK, fair enough. Yes?
But why should you be soft and nice? Why? What is the evidence that that’s what’s necessary? The person needs that. The person needs that. And OK. It’s fashionable.
It’s fashionable. OK, it’s fashionable. The person needs it because of fashion. So fine. But the point is, is being a gentleman, talking nicely, that’s not the problem. Because I would say is generally devotees can’t be nice. Some can.
But then also you would find they can only only preach within a certain group.
But now, what has that got to do with Krishna consciousness?
What does? It’s the fashion. That’s all the person can handle. This is the culture that they can relate to. What has that got to do with Krishna consciousness?
Does that make sense? But so what would be the proper? In other words, they’re doing it because it’s a fashion. That means they have the material attachment that they’re doing it in that way only because it’s fashion. They don’t actually means the fashion itself is the authority for the action. Does that make sense? But what it has to be is Krishna consciousness has to be the authority for using fashion.
You know, I’m saying, let’s say the devotee wants to, you know, preach in a certain circle. So is it by a suit? So now, according to what the fashion is, then he may buy the suit, you know, whether it’s three buttons or two buttons or no buttons or whatever it happens to be. So he’ll do that. But it’s because he wants to be able to work in this group. And because they respect suits, therefore, he buys a suit that they would respect.
Does that make sense? So in other words, the authority of the suit doesn’t come from fashion. It comes from Krishna consciousness. Then it’s a detail. What is the fashion that will work?
Does that make sense? So what’s happening here is devotees are taking the mundane position as the authority for what they should do in Krishna consciousness when it has to be the other way around. So it’s not so much that the preaching is different.
It’s that they don’t actually understand the philosophy of Krishna consciousness.
So before devotees understood, like now if you ask a devotee, what’s the essence of Krishna consciousness? Are they going to say, I am not the body. I’m the jiva, servant of Krishna. Krishna is the Supreme Personality of Godhead. Material energy is to be engaged in His service. The ultimate goal is to develop love of God and a process for the ageless chanting Hare Krishna. Are they going to say that? No. But if you ask a hippie in the San Francisco temple in the 60s, that’s what they’d say. And they got their long hair and beard and still go to the donut shop down there and still smoke pot. Because this is what the devotees were preaching. They started from the actual essential fundamental and then from there expanded.
Why is the process watered down? Lack of faith. Now you can say that there’s so many examples of why things went wrong. But the point is how do you correct what’s gone wrong? By losing your confidence in what you’re doing? You go into the kitchen, you cook. You know how to cook. You know the principles of cooking. And you’re trying something. It doesn’t quite work. Because you’re used to, let’s say, you’re had a garden of spinach. And every day you would get fresh from the garden. They’d pick it in the morning and a few hours later you’re cooking the spinach. So you put it in the pot. You put your salt like that. Put the lid on it. Come back in five minutes. You got a pot full of water. And then you leave the lid off. And eventually the water goes away. And the spinach is cooked. Now let’s say your spinach in the garden is finished. So now you have to get it from the market. So now you go to the boundary wall and you buy your spinach there. Now there’s a good chance it’s not necessarily picked that morning.
And so then you take that, put it in the pot, put your salt, put the lid on it, and come back after five minutes and you have burnt spinach. Why? Because it wasn’t fresh enough. It had dehydrated.
So the water wasn’t there to cook it. So now you start doubting your cooking technique or this or that. No, all it is is you know it’s drier. So therefore you put it in the pot, put the salt, and put a little bit of water.
Because in other words it’ll burn before the water comes out because it’s not enough water. Once it breaks down, water will come. But it’s not enough to start it. The other one you just put salt and look at it, the water starts coming out.
Do you understand? So there’s no need to say that your cooking process is not there. So within the principles of it you maintain, you just make that adjustment. So people before were more thick-skinned, then you deal in one way. If they’re more intellectual, you deal in another way. If they’re more emotionally sensitive, you deal in another way. But the same Krishna consciousness is given.
Does that make sense? So I would say it’s just a matter of that they’re trying to adjust, but they’re not knowing that in adjusting they’re losing what they have. Otherwise why isn’t it working?
Yes. Means you can use language, you can use tone of voice, you can use examples. Like we said, this example. Prabhupada was talking with, okay, I always forget his name. But this, he was a famous, in the 60s, famous Formula One race driver in Britain.
I don’t know his name. Graham Hill. I think it was the Commissary of Graham Hill. So then he talked to him about cars.
But in driving cars, then they’re going to race cars. And in racing cars, then it’s dangerous. So when it’s dangerous, what does he take shelter of? How does he alleviate his fear?
Why would he be fearful?
Because if you’re not alive, why would you care? If the body, if there’s no soul, why would chemicals worry about dying?
You know what I’m saying? It’s just like, you know, you have a bag of flour. And as you take it out, then the bag of flour is like trying to hold on. No, I don’t want to turn into a bread. I just, I like it like this in the bag. Like this, you know? Is it? Is it a problem? No, they couldn’t care less.
You know what I’m saying? So therefore, there must be a living being there. You don’t want to die. You want to live eternally. So what do you take shelter? Who’s going to save you? You know, can the car save you? No, that’s probably what’s going to kill you. Right? You know, you can have some technique. That means you’re using your intelligence. So then what would be a higher level of intelligence to understand is you need shelter. Why would you need shelter if shelter wasn’t available? Right? Why do you get thirsty? Right? Because water is available and water is what’s required. So why would you, why would there be that fear and thinking of something, trying to take shelter of something unless that was there? Can you take, you’re driving your car, you’re going 200 miles an hour. Can you take shelter of your mommy? Right? You know? No. Can you take shelter of the car? No. The road? No. You know, there’s, so therefore, your alternative God is there. So you just try, do you get afraid? Yes. So what do you do? You know, you should pray. So then that’s, that was his door in.
That’s what we mean is soft preaching.
But in 20 minutes, he was on the point. And it was according to the nature of the person. So the thing is, is we’re taking it by what, how devotees would interpret it and use it. And then who gets the, and when it goes wrong, who gets the blame?
Prabhupāda.
That’s the problem. That’s what I’m talking about. Otherwise, preaching means preaching to your audience. So, you know, soft heart, what do you mean, what do you, Vaiṣṇava’s known as thunderbolt and rose. So therefore, when the thunderbolt’s needed, that’s what’s used. When the rose is needed, that’s what’s used. Prabhupāda gave this lecture in Sweden. Heavy, heavy lecture about first class man, second class, third and fourth class men. And on the planet, still to today, one of the most sensitive places that you can talk about equality is Sweden. You know, that’s totally their thing. Right? And this was at the university, the undergraduates. So, you know, they’re out there, you know, the flag burning, you know, all that kind of guys. And this is how Prabhupāda’s like heavy, like thunderbolt. But then when they ask him in their arrogance, so then you must think you’re special. What man are you of these four? Then Prabhupāda in all humility, then like a rose, said, I am fifth class, servant of the other four. He diffused the whole thing. But now they’ll remember that lecture.
Right? Because otherwise, like I said, if you’re just going to come in on the mundane platform, do this and that and tiptoe around, you better be good. Otherwise, who’s going to remember? Who’s going to care?
So you have to know how to use it.
That’s the point. You don’t know how to use it, yes, it will make problem. And devotees have used it in problem. And it’s made problem. But at the same time is, it’s not that they didn’t make devotees. Maybe a few people went away, but a lot of people joined. Now nobody goes away, but nobody joins.
You understand? I’m talking about situations where this is very prominent.
We’re talking about that. There are places where they make lots of devotees.
Does that make sense?
Is that okay?
The sthita-prajñā is able to control his senses according to his plan. That means if you need to talk strongly, you talk. If you need to talk softly, you talk. So that’s sthita-prajñā. So the problem is not soft preaching, hard preaching. The problem is are we Kṛṣṇa conscious or not? The more Kṛṣṇa conscious, the preaching actually becomes more efficient.
His secret is that he has acquired a higher spiritual taste, which keeps him free from material enjoyment. Right? Devotees had a taste for prasādam. It wasn’t like, oh, now this is too heavy, this is too this, this is too that. Oh, this is not good for you, that’s not good for you. Before, prasāda was prasāda. That’s all. It was Kṛṣṇa’s mercy. That’s all. And whatever you got, that was what you ate. You know what I’m saying? Nowadays, oh, there’s sugar this and, you know, ghee that and so many things like this. They got so many ideas.
Yeah? And so where is he now? Yes, right there. So that’s my point.
But he was a good preacher of philosophy.
If he does surface and comes, comes to a rādhyātā, these reunion things like that, he gives a very good lecture. So that means whatever you gained in Kṛṣṇa consciousness doesn’t go away. You know, but where your weakness is, that will take you away. That’s always to be remembered. Just because they make a mistake on one side doesn’t mean everything else is gone. You know what I’m saying?
Does that make sense? So that’s the point. One has to understand that.
So I’m saying the point because they introduce these things and then it creates this concept of duality and that. It’s another thing is that, yes, you have to, according to the culture, then since you can’t eat rich things every day, therefore you cook more simply on another day, but not that it’s not cooked to the same degree of sophistication.
You know, it’s just done, instead of using ten spices, you use two or three. And because of that, you can use less egg.
Right? You use techniques that you’ll get the flavor, but from a simpler way.
Does that make sense? So like that, but then you can also cook the other way. But to say that the full cooking is wrong, then you’re in nonsense. It means you don’t know cooking and you don’t know diet. You don’t know nothing. You just know what you like.
And if they want to quote modern guys, modern guys change every couple of years. You’ll die if you don’t eat vitamin K. When I was a kid, there was no vitamin K. Do you realize that there are over 30 B vitamins? You ever hear about them? No, you only talk about 1, 6, and 12. Three out of like over 30 B vitamins. They don’t even talk about them.
Eskimos, they eat a high-protein, low-fat diet. You know, no vegetables, no, you know, nothing. You’re right. They live. They don’t die. How? According to modern dietary functions, Eskimos should not be able to live.
But they do. Because they eat what’s there and in a way that’s balanced in their tradition. So there’s more to it than they see. That’s the problem, is that there’s a lot of difference between making up a theory and what’s the reality. That’s the difference. The Vedic, the theory isn’t made up. It’s given by God. You have to understand it. But the modern means it’s totally made up on what they see.
One devotee went to, it means this is back probably also the 70s, and then he went to, he was in Germany, he went to an eye doctor to have his eyes checked. And the guy was really old, you know, really old doctor. And when he looked on the wall, you know, he had that chart, right? You know, they had the one big letter, you know, and then you had smaller letters and smaller, smaller, smaller, smaller. And so then the doctor was having him look like this, you know, and the other thing like that. And the doctor was doing something. He had both eyes and he was looking at the chart carefully. And it was S, you know, big S and then a smaller E, X. And then like this, it went down. And then it was said, oh no, it started with a T. It said, too much sex makes your eyes bad.
So in the 30s, 20s and 30s, the actual, in the scientific field, they knew or they were figuring out that there was a correlation between, means how much sex one has and how much physical strength you have. Like previously, like the old sports people, they couldn’t have sex for two weeks before a game, right? They couldn’t take alcohol. They couldn’t do all these things, right? But now they’re so attached to all these things that they actually have them travel with their girlfriends now, right? Because you’ll get more out of them, though they’re physically weaker because their mind will be focused. But before they could focus and so they would get better.
But do you hear these theories now coming out of science? Anybody talks about it? Yeah, you just don’t even hear about it. Though they had scientific evidence why there was a problem.
So what does this mean? Does this mean that science is objective as they present it? Or is it subjective according to the local culture? So that’s what I’m talking about is the science, the fashion, the new age, the different things, the different philosophies. All those are according to subjective understanding. Academics, it’s all subjective. What they feel is OK for them. So that’s what I’m saying. If you base that Krishna consciousness on that, you will fail. Now, if Krishna consciousness, you take into consideration the particular culture and situation and all that, then you’ll be successful.
Right? But they’re taking it as one or the other, either as Krishna consciousness or being a little bit more modern. No, Krishna consciousness already includes that. Right? Does that make sense? When Neanderthal man was doing whatever he did, right, then Ayurveda was there, right? Dhanurveda was there. Gandharva was there. All these things were there and they were practicing them. So when they were out in the forest wearing bear skins and running around with battle axes and lopping off each other’s heads, then that’s as good as it got. Like your village goes and steals all their stuff and you come back and then they come and steal all your stuff and take it back. You know what I’m saying? So when that was the culture and that was the norm, in India they had all these things now that modern man thinks, oh, this is the development of it. Yes, it’s development. Neanderthal has come up to this, but there’s always been human beings.
You understand? Human culture. So that means Krishna consciousness already can accommodate this.
Does it make some sense?
Food. Food, OK. White sugar. Are you getting hungry? I’ve got to sit down. OK. Well, I’ve got 44 more minutes till you’re out of here. Unless, of course, you were smart and ate something before you came here. Ah, OK. So you were saying about sugar. White sugar. White sugar. Refined white sugar. OK. So it means you have refined and unrefined. So you’re not worried about the uncultured white sugar. You’re worried about the refined, sophisticated, cultured white sugar. But now would that be a politically correct statement?
You know what I’m saying? What about the oriental sugar or the African sugar or the Latin sugar? You know what I’m saying?
You know what I’m saying? Of course. You know, I’d say, if you really wanted to be, you know, why is it white? So how can you say white was such, such thing? Because it’s not actually white. It’s kind of like it’s a crystal. It’s clear. Yes. Black can also be refined, right? Yes. Black can also be refined. And then you’re saying that, yeah, if it’s not white, then it’s not refined.
No. You know what I’m saying? Like that, you know. So then, you know, what about the Jamaicans? You know, that’s even more so. They’re black and Latin, you know, like that. And there might even be a few British thrown in there, right? Because they were down there. What is it? What was that port? Port of Brice. Yeah, Port of Brice. Yeah, like that. You know, so you might have. So there you have to be really careful when you’re when you’re using terms so strongly.
This is what they do. They have nothing else to do. It’s just trauma, but they’re using it in a negative way. Challah is supposed to be used to create fun as a joke, but they use it actually as political. That’s why it’s political, political correctness. They just changed the meaning of the term chopping technique like that. Chopping, you know, it’s so rough. And what do you do with your vegetables? What is what is your cookbook say? Chop the potatoes into half inch cubes like that. Oh, but you can’t you chop, you know, you have to use some other term, you know, like you have to transform your potato from, you know, a singular piece into a more, you know, broad, you know, and democratic kind of thing where, you know, there’s many instead of just one, you know, and all equal. Yes, they must all be equal. Good cooking is all equal, right? Because otherwise one might take more of the cooking, you know, and that would be bad. And someone else will get less of the cooking. You know, the big the bigger ones will get less. That’s the thing about cooking is the bigger ones get less, the small ones get more. But in, you know, a bigger society, the big ones get more and the small ones get less, you know, unless, of course, they’re kids. Then they sometimes will get better. So go ahead. You were saying.
But at least in Brazil and in Europe, they have this very thin sugar, which is small. Yeah, extremely chemical process. It doesn’t look very nice. It looks nice. Yeah, it looks nice, but it doesn’t. What’s the problem? If we take into that mess, is it bad for your health? So first you have to define is sugar bad for your health? Means is the is the carbohydrate in whatever form it is. Is that bad for your health? No, because your body runs on that. Whatever you eat, your body is going to turn into sugar anyway. Right. Like that. So so then technically it’s not the sugar. So what’s now? Let us say you have the sugar in its more undeveloped, you know, state. OK, how much can you put in a preparation? Not much. OK. Yeah. It goes brown. It gets too strong because there’s other elements. Now, do they say those other elements have something good for your health?
Brown sugar. Well, depends on what you’re showing me. Brown sugar can mean many things. You know, in this case, we’re talking about the carbohydrate.
Well, actually they do split. They also cut the heroin with with, you know, fine powdered sugar also. I think castor sugar. So it doesn’t lump up. Right. So. Yeah. So that’s what I say here. Brown sugar. I mean, you know, the unrefined of the white sugar you were talking about, not unrefined heroin.
OK.
Right. So you can only put so. So is those unrefined elements good for you?
It’s just like, let’s say you go and you take you buy sugar. The same person will make complaints about the white sugar. He might buy molasses. Right. And put then say that that’s very good. So molasses has more of those elements that are inherent in sugar. OK, so. But the same time is why are you using the molasses? Right. You put you before the molasses on your burger. Right. No. On your French fries. No. What do you pour it on? Sweets because it’s supposed to be sweet. So the sweet element is what you’re looking for. No. So now you take that that that. So the problem is, is it’s the balance. In other words, all these elements within it are good for you. But in its more raw state, the balance is in its more natural position. So you won’t put too much. So the actual amount of you could say, you know, refined white sugar that you would get in, you know, a spoon of gore or, you know, of raw sugar will be less. Right. Then if you put the sugar, sugar, you can put more, you can put how much you want, you know, until your hair stands out like that. No, like that, because it doesn’t have a bad taste. It may have a strong reaction, but it doesn’t have a bad taste. Right. But the gore, if it’s too much, then it overpowers. You understand? So therefore, you’ll use it in its more natural state. So technically, it’s not the sugar that’s a problem. Right. But so therefore, if you’re using that, so there’s something there, livers like sugar. Right. Liver does, you know, runs your body. So sugar keeps the liver happy. It functions nicely. So that means you need some of that. But if you’re going to use white sugar, you have to be careful and not use too much. Right. Problem with the white sugar is the sugar creates heat in the body. Right. And so that heat, then that’ll make the blood impure. And in that way, it’ll create so many different diseases. So they don’t even know how the sugar is creating the problem. You’d have to know Ayurveda to know that. If you knew Ayurveda, you wouldn’t complain about sugar so much. Right. So then the problem is, is then use it in this more natural state. But it’s not that sugar. They try to make it that the sugar itself is bad. That same granulated white sugar is in the gore. So that’s not the problem. The problem is, is there’s there’s too much of it. It’s just like is butter bad. OK. Now, if I take the toast and I put a little bit of butter on there, are we going to say it’s a problem? No. What happens if I take the toast and take one whole full stick of butter and put it on the toast? So what’s the problem? The proportion, not the butter. We’ll say, no, the butter isn’t. No, it’s the proportion.
So that’s the actual problem. You know what I’m saying? And then there’s something that I don’t think anyone really understands, is that what is the problem in the sugar that’s creating the difficulty? It’s the impurities in the sugar. Right. So when there’s more impurities in its natural state, you’ll only eat a little bit. When there’s less impurities, you’ll eat more. But because there’s still impurities, that’s that’s what creates the problem. Yeah. Yeah. But no, but you take it means there’s less amount, but you’re taking more while the other one is you’ll take a smaller amount. So like that. So you get all the benefits of it. Now, if you take the process all the way to the end of this, I say, yeah, probably, you know, fully processed sugar, you end up with rock candy, rock candy. There are no impurities. And so instead of creating heat in the body, it cools the body. Rock candy is directly a medicine.
You can eat how much you want every day. You’ll never have any health problems. You can just look at what the quality of it, the better the quality, the less, the less of the quality, the maybe a little bit more. But that is not understood. So therefore, if devotees really understood it, those preparations that can handle the raw state of the sugar, they’d use that. Things that they need something more, more refined, then they’d use rock candy. But they don’t know. They just yak, right? So it destroys B vitamins. What are the B vitamins there for? B vitamins are to break down grains and carbohydrates. That’s what they do. So sugar is more, more concentrated. So it’ll burn up more. But if you eat a chapati, it’ll also break down B vitamins. That’s what B vitamins do.
You know what I’m saying? You know, well, cutting these vegetables makes the knife dull, you know, so we should stop cutting vegetables. So sitting around with sharp knives all day, that’s the perfectional knife. So sitting around, there’s a whole bunch of B vitamins that don’t do anything, then that’s perfection, right?
You understand? So the problem is, is they just hear these things, and it sounds great. It gives, it gives an identity. I’m somebody who doesn’t eat sugar. I don’t eat these processed this and that, you know? But generally, if you check, they don’t eat certain things, you know, the sugar, the this, the that. But there’s a, they probably, there’s some nonsense they eat that they don’t bother with. They’re complete health freaks, but they’ll eat something.
You know what I’m saying?
Yes.
Yes.
What would you think? You think?
Think not. Okay.
So what, what can you offer to Krishna?
We’re talking about Russia, in Moscow. What can you offer to Krishna?
Somebody who doesn’t use cow bones, so fish bones, vegetarian.
This is obvious.
Do you realize that that was obvious when Prabhupada was here? Everybody knew that. Huh? Yeah. Yeah. Because how do you get sugar? You need sugar. And this is the only way you can get sugar. So that’s what that was used.
Means after it’s offered to Krishna. Do you understand?
So that’s why Prabhupada wanted farms, we make our own. You know, so these, these persons that are jumping up and down on this, go to a farm and grow this stuff, make it available. Otherwise, it’s just a bunch of, you know, city people talking all this, you know, nonsense. It sounds great, but it’s nonsense. If they won’t grow it, they can’t grow, wouldn’t have any idea to grow it, and they wouldn’t want to live the lifestyle of those who would grow it, because what are they going to do? You can’t buy a Gucci bag if you’re out growing sugar cane. You know, like that. Unless you’re the guy that’s, you know, gets all of it, you know, this one. So, you know, so they’re not dodos, right? The whole island is just sugar cane. That’s all there is. Like that. And I think then they sell it to England or something. I’m not sure where they sell it. You know what I’m saying? So they make a lot of money.
You know what I’m saying? So the point is, is it’s all talk. It’s nice. But it’s like, okay, the guy, the guy got the, the grains. How were they grown? How did they get there?
The grains and all that. How did they get to, you know, in that nice little package that you bought? The transport and all that. Have you ever seen guys moving things in transport? They pick it up, throw it all away. It may have been sitting on the road. But that’s the point, is that the Vedas say is, if it’s an item that is for offering, you don’t worry what happened to it before you got it. But you go to the market and you look, the guy has a basket of potatoes. And they look, you know, proper and all that. You buy them. It doesn’t matter that the guy was sleeping on the sack of potatoes the night before. Because you don’t know that. That’s not part of the process of your deal. But once you get it and pay for it, you’ve purified it. Now you won’t pick the, okay, one, you know, fell off and fell on the ground and it’s dirty. You won’t take that one. So in other words, what you can do, that’s what you do. Once you get it, you keep it in its pure state and everything like that. You know what I’m saying? That would be more important. But devotees, you’re worried about that. But let us say you have a refrigerator.
Okay? What’s in that refrigerator? Only bhoga, right? Right? Everything. Yes. Samprasad. So technically speaking, that means whatever is in that refrigerator is unofferable. Do devotees worry about that? No, not at all. All they worry about is that there’s some charred beef bone somewhere.
Because there’s prasad, there’s bhoga, and then there’s what’s called prasad day. I mean, something that’s touched prasad.
So that’s not offerable. Prabhupada, there’s a letter where Prabhupada’s making it very clear about kitchen standards and that if you need to put prasad in the refrigerator, you have to have another refrigerator.
Does it make sense? So he wants two refrigerators.
One for bhoga, one for prasad. And once you touch prasad, you have to wash your hands before bhoga. Why do you… Like you’re chanting japa, okay? Then you want to do something with bhoga. What do you have to do? Why? Not just because your hands are dirty. This is Tulsi. Your hands aren’t going to be dirty. But Tulsi, the beads are considered prasad. They’ve been offered to Krsna.
You understand? So these considerations, what about… What would you wear in regards to your feet in a kitchen where you’re cooking for Krsna?
Shoes that you only use in the kitchen. Why would you have to use shoes in the kitchen?
It’s not clean. So is that a standard for cooking bhoga for Krsna? It’s standard now. All kitchens in ISKCON have shoes in them. Why? Because they’re dirty. Previously, there was no question. When Prabhupada… There was no question of shoes in the kitchen. No shoes, because the kitchen was clean. You had devotees, and all they’d do was clean the kitchen while others were cooking. It was… The kitchen is an extension of the Deity room. You know many temples like that?
Huh? They’re nice and clean. No shoes inside. Yes? Okay. So then that’s a good standard. But there’s a lot there’s not. So these are the kind of things that one has to worry about.
You understand? Those areas, devotees don’t worry about. They worry about the sugar or this or that. You understand? So the standards we’ve been given, people don’t worry about them. Right? Why is it that jumping up and down about sugar, the devotees will catch that one? The, let’s say, pancharatric standards of dealing with food or Vedic standards, they won’t catch at all. That would be their culture. That would be their culture. It means in the Western culture, people jump up and down about sugar. Of course, it’s basically a 28-year-old issue.
Yeah, Sugar Blues of 1982. So it’s like that. They haven’t, I don’t think, written a second book. Either it’s just so seminal that it’s like the Bible of sugar, or it’s just that it takes a while for it to get around that somebody else reads it. Like I just was, I don’t know how long ago, five, six years ago, the Sugar Blues hit the one temple that I was at. The temple president banned all sugar and this and that. You know, of course, didn’t replace it with anything else.
You understand? So what’s the basis? The basis is not Krishna conscious, the Vedic culture. The basis is something that one would be worried about if one wasn’t a devotee.
You understand? In other words, those who are worried about the certain kind of, I don’t know what would be the proper term. I mean, we used to call them food freaks, but I mean, I don’t know what you call them now, because before it was considered a good term.
Okay, food freaks. Okay, so the thing is, but personally, I mean, I haven’t, but maybe, have you ever met a healthy food freak? You’ve met one. Anybody else has met one? The ones we met were not food freaks, they were soft food freaks. Soft food freaks, okay. So it’s because of the softness. There’s just that one side, yeah. Not mentally healthy. Huh? Not mentally healthy, because the thing is, is that they can’t sit and eat without talking about, you know, something wrong with diets and foods, and they can’t enjoy the food. So what’s the purpose? So, you know, even here we’re saying is that they can’t even enjoy. So they neither get Krishna, nor do they even enjoy the material world. Now isn’t that stupid? You should be at least getting something, right? Because somebody who can enjoy the material world, you could actually make them Krishna conscious, because they know that, you know, proper effort, proper focus, and you get some results, some benefit.
Yeah, yeah, that’s also. Yeah, generally they’re always Vata people. Yeah. People just eat what’s good. And Kapha don’t even have to eat, so it doesn’t matter, you know.
You know what I’m saying? So, so the thing is, is it’s a culture that’s not, you know, parallel to Krishna consciousness, you know, it’s just separate. It’s not running alongside or cooperating and all this. They may find some way to connect it, but they’re more food conscious than they are God conscious.
You know what I’m saying?
Does that make sense? So in other words, a devotee goes out, what can I offer to Krishna, looks around and this and that, gets something and then eats. Right? So it’s just a matter of what can, what I can use for, that these others, it’s a matter of, oh, this is bad and that’s bad and this is that and, you know what I’m saying? So it’s a whole much more absorption. The consciousness is very different.
In regards to this sugar issue, is it better to offer sugar which is not coming from cow bones? If you find sugar that’s not coming from cow bones, why wouldn’t you use it?
And is it worthwhile to make an endeavor to create such sugar if it’s not available? If you could, great. I’m just saying these are nice, but the point is, is just to please Krishna. This other is that because it’s gone through this process, then that’s what’s bad.
You know what I’m saying? So it’s just, yes. Vegans, you really want to go there?
Huh?
The problem is, is with the vegan, is that it’s nice in that they don’t want to get problems with the cow, you know, but what they’ve missed is that the spiritual element of it, is that you take the cow’s milk, whatever condition the cow is in, you offer it to Krishna, the cow gets benefit, right? Just let’s say you buy rice, and you cook rice, offer that to Krishna. Those souls that were in the rice plant, they get benefit, right? You cook a cauliflower, the cauliflower, the soul that, you know, grew the cauliflower, gets the benefit when you offer it to Krishna. Devotional service is a lot more than we think. So now here it is, is that, you know, that cow produces milk anyway, or is going to be eaten anyway. You know what I’m saying? So therefore, if you offer the milk to Krishna, they get spiritual benefit. It may not change how they’re being dealt with, but by being vegan, it doesn’t necessarily change it either. It just means that, okay, people don’t buy milk, but they do buy burgers, so therefore, they’ll just kill them straight. They won’t bother milking them in between.
You know what I’m saying? It’s not by the date, and it’ll stop. Because what will happen is, if they don’t make money off of it, they stop that area.
You know what I’m saying? If they really wanted to do something, then they would buy organic milk or something like this, right? Because then that would mean, then the business people would see, oh, there’s more happening in the free-range, organic, you know, that kind of thing. And then they would do it. It’s money. When I was a kid, you know, a store that sold organic food was generally, you know, some room of somebody’s house or somebody’s garage. And, you know, a bunch of hippies got together and, you know, brought some stuff there and haribo. That was it. Now you can walk in, there’s supermarkets full of all organic this and that. You know, all packed. It looks as good, if not better. In fact, I remember, I think, just visited my mom, and I think there were two or three of those supermarkets. One was like high-end, more, you know, how do you say, specialty organic stuff, you know? You know, very expensive. Then there was a middle range, and then there was a, you know, cheap range. You know, like wholesale, you just go and buy, you know, a truck of it or something.
Does that make sense? So it’s, the problem is, is they’re leaving out the element of offering it to Krishna. So Krishna consciousness is leaving it out. Because they’re not dealing any worse with the cows now than they were in the 60s and 70s. Right? So it’s just a matter of, then the cows get benefited.
Does this make sense? So that’s all, you know, like that. Now they may say, well, Orientals don’t, but Orientals don’t have the enzyme in their system to digest milk. That’s why they take soy and all that. If they could digest milk, they’d be eating it. You know? Do you understand? Like Italians. When they’re young, they can digest milk. When they get older, they can’t. That’s why they make so much cheese. So people do things because also just of the physical situation.
You know what I’m saying? But this isn’t considered. They get the philosophy and all this and that. The main point what’s being missed is the same as Arjuna. It sounds nice, it sounds great, but it’s not connected to Krishna.
That’s what’s missing.
You know what I’m saying? Vegans are not connected to Krishna.
You know what I’m saying? Because otherwise, because they’ll say, oh, no, but if we got milk from this kind of cow, but you can get that kind of milk. But they’re not, they won’t drink it anyway.
You know what I’m saying? You get what I’m saying? Does that make sense?
They’re not there. And where do they get that idea?
So that would mean only a potato. You’re actually giving anyone benefit. I say, how do you end up with that kind of philosophy? The man did his work. He made the money. Then he gave it to you. Then you’re saying he’s not working for that money. So how will he get the benefit?
The soul left there for you to get it. Right? Means the higher grade grains and all these things, the soul leaves when it fructifies. They die at the time, so it’s not killing them. Or they’re ones that, you know, like a mango tree. You go and pick a mango, it doesn’t kill the tree. So these are just higher end elements.
So there’s the various range of things. That’s why in the Vedic culture, if it’s not offered to Krishna, you have certain rituals that you have to perform to free yourself of the sin of just living. Why that? You breathe. You know how many millions of living entities you kill? You walk on the ground, you kill millions. You sweep the floor. You start the fire. You know, you grind anything. You know, the guy that is making his juice. He kills so many living entities. So there’s rules for that. See, it means it would make it really good if you’re very specific to the point. Otherwise, what it is, is you keep doing this thing, saying this, and this, and this. It goes on and on and on. You can’t answer your questions. Not that you shouldn’t ask them, but you have to know exactly what it is you’re looking for. So my point is, is that, is what is the gap? How much gap do they allow before the living entity gets benefit?
You know what I’m saying? Let us say, like I say, somebody gives something to the temple. But let’s say they only made it sometime before.
And let’s say it’s sitting at the temple. Like somebody gives a donation to the temple. But let’s say it takes them six months, or nine months, or a year, or a few years. Like somebody donates for the temple. But they only donate, they build the temple after five years. So has his benefit expired in that five years? Because he didn’t, now just give it?
Does it or not?
You don’t understand.
So how are we supposed to deal with this?
You want the thing to be alive, has benefit to them. Of course. But that’s what I’m saying, is that it’s not clear what the point is. He starts off with raw food, and then talks about grains, which are not raw as such.
But now, do any of these have a connection to each other? You know what I’m saying? We’re analyzing and going through this. Do you see your question in relation to this point of following the do’s and do not’s that are given in the Shastra? You understand? Yes, so that’s what you should be asking. Otherwise, like this, we can talk on this second chapter for the next three months. Bhakti Siddhanta talked on one verse. That’s not the problem. The problem is, is that there’s a date in February, what is it, 8th of February or something? Yeah, that we’re supposed to be finished by. You know what I’m saying? So you ask these questions, but I’m answering because you have to see it in relation to here. And I’m expecting, like Arjuna, that he’s very confused in the first and second chapter. And by the third chapter, he starts to catch the thread.
And so then all these issues with varnashrama and new age and politics and power and, you know, whatever else, you know, makes, keeps you, how do you say? Yeah, it keeps your bile moving and stuff. Then I’m expecting that probably by, I would hope by the end of the fifth chapter, they’re done. But they should start to wane before that. Because most of these are all within the realm of karma.
And then some of those that are more of the intellectual, then in the fourth chapter with Vyana, then when we combine the two in the fifth chapter, then we would hope that they kind of be finished. Does this make sense? So I don’t mind it being asked, but I notice that they keep coming up again and again. We’re not taking them. It’s like we’re discussing varnashrama. It’s a completely separate topic as opposed to in connection here. Because Arjuna is going to follow varnashrama, but he has doubts within it.
And I’m saying, so here, you know, raw foods and cooking and grain and consciousness, but the living entity left before the grain. But what is the question?
That’s the point.
You understand? If you had a question, you ask. If not, figure it out, because otherwise you’re wasting a lot of people’s time. It doesn’t mean don’t ask questions. It means think and then ask.
It should be that you see all the three parts, right? It means there’s the field of activities. There’s the activity that will be performed with that field and based on that knowledge and the result that comes. And you have a doubt somewhere in that. But it’s logical. It’s not emotional. If it’s emotional, it’s not called a doubt. It’s called a misgiving. Misgiving means you can give logical arguments. They’re still not convinced because, you know, you know what I’m saying? I mean, the cow is in the barn when it caught on fire, not anything red. It gets scared. Now, logically, should it be scared of red? No, it should be scared of fire. But because red and fire seem similar, that’s the thing. So here’s a, you know, chopping technique. So, therefore, the chop is the bad thing. But, you know, even we say, you know, do it quick, come on, chop, chop. You know, we use the word in so many ways. You know, you chop up ginger. You know, you know, it’s like, you know, finely chopped ginger. You know, then you put in, you know what I’m saying? So the thing is, is they take something that’s a similar word. And so the logic becomes lost. So you don’t mind as you can’t see the connection. But where you don’t want to see the connection, then that basically wastes the time here. You know, unless you really want an answer. And then you can deal with it, and then it’s over. But the same point keeps coming up again and again and again and again, these things. I mean, many of the same people. We’ve discussed vegan already. We’ve discussed sugar already. We’ve discussed these things. You weren’t here, but I’m just saying. We’ve discussed these things, right? And the whole point, what we’re making, it’s not that it’s not considered a good thing that somebody is concerned about the quality of what they eat or quality of ingredients or quality of their lifestyle. That’s a good thing. What we’re saying is, but it’s not good enough because its basis or authority is not Kṛṣṇa consciousness.
Devotees are vegan not based on Kṛṣṇa consciousness. They’re vegan because of the authority of that culture that defines it. Not Kṛṣṇa. Right? Devotees don’t eat white sugar, not because of Kṛṣṇa consciousness.
You understand? That’s my point. Or to say, oh, it’s culturally wrong to be so rough and all that, but they’re not basing it on what Kṛṣṇa says. Right? Austerity of speech means you speak according to what will be work for who you’re dealing with. You can only be strong with students. Right? If they’re not students, you’re not strong. So here is that you’re talking to somebody, they’re not a devotee yet or they’re just beginning, they’re not your student as such. You know what I’m saying? So you have to be careful. That’s austerity of speech. That then you could say, that’s a basis for being careful when you preach. But it says also austerity of speech is being able to back it up.
Right? So then that would mean then you can back it up with śāstra rather than, you know, sugar blues. You know what I’m saying?
Where in Ayurveda, what does it mean? You know what Ayurveda says? Ayurveda says that if at breakfast you eat only sweet, then at lunch you can only eat salty. If you want to eat sweet at lunch, you have to also eat salty at breakfast.
You know, though lunch will be more salty, a little bit of sweet, breakfast may be more sweet and less salty, but they have to be both there. If not, you’ll get diabetes. You tell me one sugar blues idiot that can say that. So they’ll be eating their raw sugar twice a day and all this and that, and actually it’s bad for them. Because all they know is that the white sugar burns up B vitamins, and so that’s bad. You know, but they don’t know that they’re giving themselves diabetes.
You know what I’m saying? So this is the problem. Right? And say, kids, what do they eat for breakfast? Salty or sweet? Sweet, as much as they can get. But adults, what do they eat for breakfast? More salty. The older they get, the more it’s salty. They even drop the sweets. Right? Why? Because they don’t even know it, but the culture’s gone because it works. And so then they start to control these things. They don’t know why. It’s just the culture. Right? The younger people in the West, they drink coffee. They’ll drink what? With the milk and the sugar and all this. The older guys, what do they drink? Yeah, just straight, you know. Your spoon will stand up in it and there’s no sugar in it, right? That’s not in Brazil, of course, like that. In Brazil, you fill up the glass with sugar, then you pour in that kind of coffee. Because the point is, why would you lose the advantage of the energy gained from both the sugar and the coffee?
And not only that, what they don’t tell you is that they also put, what is it, guarano in there. You know? I don’t know. That’s what we call it, guarano. It’s a Brazilian thing. It’s some plant that gives energy, speeds the metabolism. They put it in the kids’ lollies. It’s in everything. It was introduced in the new pronunciation of the word. Yeah. How do you say it? Guarana. Guarana. Okay. Guarana. That’s the… Okay, guarana. Okay. So you have guarana, you know, this much sugar in the glass, and, you know, the coffee’s so thick, you know… That’s what it’s going to take to not sleep on the road. Yeah. I’m surprised the eyes don’t pop out.
Okay. So the point is, is that what is the basis? The basis is not shastra. The basis is not guru, sadhu and shastra. So therefore, no matter how nice and good it is, it’s useless. Arjuna was speaking very nice things. Compassion for relatives, and being detached, and going to the forest, and living a humble lifestyle. But it was all nonsense because it wasn’t connected to guru, sadhu and shastra. Right? This is what Krishna’s pointing out. Right? This is the point, is that Arjuna is all this nice culture, but he’s missed the point of the soul.
And because of that, that’s where the fault is. Because at the end of Gita, he fights.
So what was missed was the spiritual.
Does this make sense? So that’s the point, is that we have all these things, and it’s not a problem to engage these things, but you have to see them in light of guru, sadhu and shastra.
So it’s not about, oh, he found a rule, he found a loophole. No, what’s the purpose of that rule? What is there? Why is there a loophole? Right? Loophole is theirs because it’s not the rule, it’s the principle the rule establishes. How many rules can you have? Does that make sense? You know, let’s say like American Constitution, it has a certain amount of points. Right? And so the founding fathers considered this covered everything to do with running a country.
Right? But after them, because they were the ones that thought about it, they knew the mood that they were looking for and all that. So they would always interpret those rules and would see the broadness of the rule. Right? It meant something.
But then, with time, people don’t actually understand the principle. So all they have is the rule itself. So then what do they have to do? The rule itself doesn’t cover certain things, so they make an amendment.
Right? They make an amendment to the rule. And then after a while, there’s more and more and more and more and more and more, because all they see is the rule is all there is. So the idea is that rule is there. There’s a loophole because there’s a principle, and it’s giving some certain rules to keep things in line that are generally what happens. Of course, someone who’s materialistic can always find some way around, especially Miletus and Iovinus are very good at, you know, coming up with situations that, you know, generally, humans wouldn’t run into. But whatever it is, they’re very good at that.
Is that okay? Does this make sense? Just to round up this, I know one devotee who is a raw food fanatic and a vegan, and he claims that in one place Prabhupāda says that that is the best kind of foodstuff that you can eat, and I think it’s in a connection with vanaprastha. Yes, so vanaprastha, so therefore it’s for vanaprasthas. If that’s the thing, it’s in connection with vanaprastha, then why is he preaching it to anyone else? He claims he is not. Huh? He claims that he is not preaching it to everybody, but I know some of his students. Yeah, of course, they always, they have to. Otherwise, then you wouldn’t know about. I had a teacher that, since he was eight years old, when I came to the school, he was already here. He was, and he was probably, probably in his, yeah, probably in his twenties. Since he was eight years old, he had been chanting sixty-four rounds and fasting on a codice. And it was probably two years before I found out that that’s what he was doing.
You know? He’d always just be busy and all that all day doing this and that. It would be obvious if on a codice every day he’s busy and on a codice he’s in his room, he’s just chanting like that. But no, he would just, he would just, he’d just work it into his, he didn’t do anything less in his service. So it was two years before I noticed. So how do you know this guy is both a vegan and a raw food guy? Because it’s very obvious. And that obviousness means it’s not actually integrated in a balanced way in their life. Otherwise you wouldn’t notice it. It would be part of a package.
You know, it would be part of, you know, he lives very simply, grows his own vegetables, just eats those and this and that. You know what I’m saying? So it’s nice for clearing you out and all that kind of thing.
You know, like that. But that’s, according to Western dietary, you know, definitions, salads are good for roughage. They keep your intestines clear. So what benefit they’re getting is that there’s no toxin build up in their system because all that raw vegetable just clears it out. So there’s no toxins in their system. And in that way the body can kind of heal itself. But it’s not that it moves forward positively. If it did, why isn’t his brain positive?
You know what I’m saying? Why can’t he just be normal and deal with other, but he can’t sit and eat prasad with anybody. He can’t go to a festival. He can’t go to someone’s house. He can’t invite anyone over to his house. So where is the sadhu-sangha?
He doesn’t have it. So there’s something wrong there. So if you do it for three months as something for health, I could understand.
But to make that, as that’s the permanent thing, then there’s something wrong.
And they’ll say, Prabhupada says, but where? But as far as I know, if we’re going to talk about that kind of diet and the sadhu, then that’s where you only live on milk. So that just blows his vegan diet, you know what I’m saying? And you do have sadhus in India that they don’t eat grains. That I’ve heard of. Or they only take fruit and milk. I’ve never heard Indians would never think of living off of raw vegetables. That’s a Western concept. Because the Westerners, they were non-vegetarians. So the only thing that would keep things moving in their system is something raw. And even that, that took hundreds of years or thousands of years to be introduced.
Like that. So it took a while.
So therefore, that’s why that’s so important to them. In India, there is no such thing as salad. Because you can’t digest salad. Cows, yes. Us, no. We can’t digest cellulose.
Right?
Does that make sense? And if you wear size zero, you can’t digest cellulite.
We can’t digest it. So the only benefit you get is what actually got crushed, that you got some juice out. But the rest of it is roughage.
Like that. Cows have four stomachs to deal with the stuff.
Right? You understand? So therefore, it has its benefits on one level. But on another level, no. Also, the Western doesn’t have anything for liver. There is no medicine for liver in the allopath diet. Right? There’s very minimal even in the Western kind of natural path. But India has medicines for liver. So that’s one of the things. The liver gets back together. The digestion and everything works. But you can take medicines for that. You don’t have to eat raw. You know what I’m saying? So there’s a lot of lack of understanding. It’s one thing is that that’s all they know. So they go with that. But it’s another thing to profess it and not know. And something, the problem is established in the profess that this is more important. And it’s like, like that. So, you know.
Yeah, yeah. I think of Mexico. You know, these hot puris and just sugar. How much sugar? But now he gave that to the Brahmacharis. They take the puri, fill it up with sugar. That’s where the problem comes.
Of course, because Prabhupada’s point is this. You’re complaining not because of Krishna. You’re complaining because of something mundane. That’s the point. You had something.
Yeah, Indian raw. Indian raw is called uncooked. And that simply means it’s cooked but not cooked in ghee. So that’ll be easier to digest. Like dal. You boil the dal and then at the end you make the chaats and put it in. So dal is considered uncooked. Or chapatis. You cook a chapati then you put the ghee. That’s uncooked.
Right? But now, if you put the chapati in the pan and put ghee, that’s cooked. So paratha is cooked. A puri is cooked. But a chapati is uncooked. Or a naan is uncooked.
You understand? That’s the Vedic concept. So that could also be that he’s missing that when he’s talking about raw. There he talks about cooked food and uncooked food.
That’s also, I’m not sure what’s the benefit of that. It means that if you want to do that, you can still make it taste nice. I can cook halwa with no ghee and it’ll still taste like halwa. It’ll be light, but it’ll still taste like halwa. But this boiled stuff, that’s something out of England. No one will ever claim that the English know anything about cooking, except for a few things.
Anything that you can put tons of butter on, they’re very good at. They’re muffins and scones and these other things like that. They’re very good with that. But otherwise, when it comes to vegetables, I don’t think that they have a high-grade… I don’t know if you can make an English cookbook on vegetables, right? Because you have peas and carrots and you boil them. And you put it on the plate.
Oh, mashed potato. They do that quite well, though, if they put enough butter and cream in there. No? Am I… I wouldn’t want to be insulting the English. OK, OK.
Westerners, when you see uncooked, they think raw.
But that’s the mistake. Cooked means it’s pakka, it’s cooked in ghee. And kacha means it’s cooked without. So the term is, let’s say, we’re beginning… I’m not sure what they use in Bengali, but in the North it would be pakka rasoi and kacha rasoi.
So, you know, some chapati, means chapati, you know, you have ghee on, a little bit of dal, and let’s say vegetable, you steamed it and then put some chants or something at the end. That would be kacha. So, in other words, you lean more towards kacha on daily cooking. And on special cooking, you lean more towards pakka.
Does that make sense? So that’s what we’re talking about. So Prabhupada introduced that. The devotees didn’t cook it. Even when he gave pakka, then some of it he gave, you know, you just make these chants, you don’t stir fry the vegetables, you just put them in the pot with a lid. So the lid will steam it and then whatever ghee is there, because it’s steaming, it’s not losing the steam, then it won’t get dry, so it won’t stick so much. Right? Things won’t stick when you have a lid on it. So you can use very little ghee. So Prabhupada showed that. But that’s a technique of cooking. In Bengali, they call it roasting, where they simultaneously fry it and steam it at once. The devotees don’t even know that that’s what Prabhupada taught.
He taught that in the beginning. It’s a very sophisticated technique. So he gave that to the devotees. And it makes very simple cooking. Yes?
They have to want… In other words, it’s just like this. If you walk into the temple and say you can show them these things, then it’s nice. If you walk into the temple and they’ve got their vegan and anti-sugar banners all over the place, then it doesn’t matter what you do.
It means first you have to want to know, and then you can get it. If you want, you’ll get it.
But most don’t want.
For many, they consider cooking as a problem.
Still trying to figure out who should do the cooking. The husband does it, the wife does it, like this and that. Therefore, all these fast food restaurants… I mean, now I’m so shocked. On this point, it’s just a place like… All these places that before were fast food, like McDonald’s, it was a place where you just went and bought something and walked away. Now they make them into family restaurants. I think the biggest I ever heard of is in Moscow. Huge. Like, you know, takes up a whole block and three stories, like that. It’s like, you know, family restaurant for going to, like that. Before it was just like… It means we called it junk food, you know, back then, you know. But now it’s like, you know, good family, you know. Yeah, now it’s fast food before it was junk food because people knew how to cook so this was junk, you know. But now it’s, you know, people don’t know how to cook so now this is just fast because cooking is very slow. Well, actually, it depends. You have a good microwave and it’s two minutes, so…
Yes. What about, you know, when we hear of yogis eating gruel, how does it fit in their faith? That’s there. What are they? Those sages out in the forest that you hear about like that, what ashram are they in? Vanaprastha. Vanaprastha. What is a Vanaprastha supposed to do?
Austerity. Austerity to the point if a Vanaprastha is so austere that he leaves his body due to that austereness, that’s fine.
If he wants to take sannyasa, he shouldn’t do that. But in other words, they are just extremely rough on their senses. Whatever was the facility they had as a grihastha, they do the exact opposite.
You know what I’m saying? Let’s say it starts to rain. What does a grihastha do? Go inside. Go inside. When it starts to rain, what is a Vanaprastha do? Go stand outside.
You know what I’m saying? That’s what they do. They do these things. So just so they remove from the senses from engagement. But as devotees, that’s not so important. So Vanaprastha for us simply means you’re not making that dynamic endeavor to facilitate economic development, sense gratification. In other words, you live a simpler life so that you’re not So that time you’d spend for development, that goes into your sadhana and preaching.
Does that make sense? So that would be for us because we don’t worry about those things.
Yes, something? Just rites and rites and Laksa Tanya.
Oh. He took holy milk. Holy milk, yeah. Because it’s like our Brahmananda Bharati came with a deerskin and was wearing it because that’s the thing so austere, just wearing deerskin like Shiva and the other like that. Laksa Tanya didn’t want anything about it. Because it’s as something that it stands on its own as validity without Krishna consciousness.
That’s the whole point. What are we trying to get from this? Okay, maybe we’re trying to push the point now when maybe we should be pushing the point in the 18th chapter. But the idea is that if it’s not connected to Krishna, it doesn’t have any meaning. And so we may say, oh, I’m doing it for Krishna. I’m vegan for Krishna. But how are you vegan for Krishna? Define it. How are you No, but the poor Krishna likes cows and the cows are being dealt with badly so therefore we’re boycotting the cows. So, how does that connect?
Saying Krishna likes cows, yeah, that’s why Krishna drinks cow’s milk. That’s their offering. Cows can offer milk to him. So that’s their reciprocation.
So how is the vegan doing that? How is he reciprocating? How is he… Where is the connection? No, he’s vegan because he feels that stands on its own. Does that make sense? So that’s our point is we don’t do anything because on the material platform it’s good. We do it because it’s connected to Krishna.
You know what I’m saying? We’re vegetarian because that’s what you can offer to Krishna.
Right?
If Krishna wasn’t vegetarian, we’d be offering whatever it is to Krishna.
You understand? But Krishna’s vegetarian. That’s why we’re vegetarian. That’s why I’m saying the important thing is chanting Krishna’s name not becoming vegetarian.
But now if vegetarians are more open to this, which generally they are, then you may go into there do a teaching, cooking class or something like this and from that then train people in Krishna consciousness starting from the cooking and eating and serving.
Does that make sense? You start somewhere.
But you have to get… It has to get to the same point. It has to come back to Krishna. If it doesn’t, it’s short of that. And that’s what all these different things are. So this is when you ask about the preachings because devotees get distracted by all these things so the actual essential points aren’t seen.
So therefore, where’s the potency? If you’re focused, you get something done. So devotees aren’t focused. Therefore, something’s not happening. Right? And you see those who are, they’re getting results. There are some devotees that go out and make tons of devotees. Right? They’re going on right now. They’re very expert.
Like that. Because they’re focused. They know what to do. And others, it’s like, well, oh but this, oh but that. Because in 1970, this happened. This is 2010.
You know? And so, if somehow or another something that’s 30 years old has validity, so that means that there’s no time limit. What’s the time limit? So then why shouldn’t something that’s hundreds or thousands of years old have validity? Right? You know what I’m saying? If we’re being up to date, then that means if it’s not within the last six months, it doesn’t have any meaning. And I’m taking it really broad. You know, your electronics, that fashion, it can be even shorter. You know, that’s so last week. So, you know what I’m saying? So, you know what I’m saying? So, it’s, you know, that’s the thing is that where does the time limit come on?
Right? So why is it that trees, you’d water a tree that would grow 5,000 years ago and today you water a tree and it grows?
You know, so, why, why is the time limit put on how God’s creation functions? Right? Fashion, yes. But then as we said, fashion’s six months. Or those who are really out of the loop, then two years. Like I remember something that was fashion in New York, it would take two years before it would get to the West Coast. Now it’s probably quicker because of the internet before all that. It was two years like that.
But otherwise, you know, as far as fashion goes, six months is basically the limit.
So then, if it’s, so why would we be using example or something of past six months ago? But devotees, when they’re talking all this, like you said, the chopping technique or this or that, they go back to the 70s and 80s to give their example. They’re not giving example from the 90s or one from yesterday. They’re giving one 30 years ago that bothered them 30 years ago. And then based on that, they’re trying to change the whole philosophy and culture.
Does this make sense?
So that’s why there’s no potency because there’s no, not saying no potency, there’s no results because there’s no focus.
Is that okay? Okay. So, I have to go.
I think everybody else does also. Okay, so, can we kind of see is that if you want the class to move through more quickly, don’t touch on issues. Unless you have a very specific point you want to make. Like that. Because otherwise, issues take a lot of time. Why? Because they’re issues.
Like that. Does that make sense? And then be very specific on your question so you know exactly what it is. Don’t combine, in that area there’s five or ten different things. Like that. Also, just the thing is it’s generally not known when it comes to garlands. Garlands are ever wet or they’re soft flowers. Then they do that.
And that will never come out. So when you get that nice wet garland that you’ve kept in the refrigerator overnight so it won’t spoil and then give it to the Swami the next morning, you will ruin his clothes. Like that. So you always have to be careful. So once the flowers are firm it’s okay. But if they get wet or things like that, squashed, then that starts to happen. Just so you know. Not that garlands aren’t offered. It’s just a matter of especially be careful of wet garlands. Because the wet somehow draws. Because when they make Sharma and those guys that do the painting, they use flowers to make their paints. Because they’re permanent. You know. So different flowers and roots and that give different things and it always lasts. It’s a very good pigment. Just so one knows. Because most temples don’t know these things.
Yes, raw. Ideally, vegan. If the flowers had been soaked in milk, then that would not be good.
So. Śrīla Prabhupāda ki. Śrīla Vaitābhāga Prabhupāda ki. All right. Thank you.
