(Instead, Respect And Appreciate Each Other’s Different Perspectives)

“I am very much stressing nowadays that my students shall increase their reading of my books and try to understand them from different angles of vision. Each sloka can be seen from many, many angles of vision, so become practised in seeing things like this.” Letter to: Tribhuvanatha — Los Angeles 16.06.1972

“Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam is as great as Kṛṣṇa, the Supreme Lord and shelter of everything. In each and every verse of Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam and in each and every syllable, there are various meanings.” CC M 24.318

There can be many legitimate meanings for each text. Lord Chaitanya illustrated this by giving sixty-one meanings to the ‘atmarama’ verse of the Srimad Bhagavatam (1.7.10). (You can read his explanations in CC Madhya Lila, chapter 24.) Without accepting this point, we will be prone to argue with devotees who see things differently from us. Such arguments can be very unpalatable for all concerned. However, according to Srimad Bhagavatam discussions of Krishna katha should be mutually enjoyable.

Evidence that Krishna katha should be mutually enjoyable:

“Actually, Vedic scripture is krishna-katha, topics about Krishna, and krishna-katha is not a subject matter for a debate club. It is meant for the devotees. Nondevotees simply waste their time reading Bhagavad-gita and Srimad-Bhagavatam, and we have often mentioned that so-called scholars, politicians and philosophers simply give misleading commentaries when they try to interpret Bhagavad-gita. Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakura used to say that they are like people trying to lick at a bottle of honey that is sealed closed. If one does not know how to taste honey, one begins licking at the bottle, but for one to actually taste the honey, the bottle must be opened, and the key to its opening is the devotee. Therefore it is said:

satam prasangan mama virya-samvido
bhavanti hrt-karna-rasayanah kathah
asv apavarga-vartmani
sraddha ratir bhaktir anukramisyati
taj josanad

“In the association of pure devotees, discussion of the pastimes and activities of the Supreme Personality of Godhead is very pleasing and satisfying to the ear and the heart. By cultivating such knowledge, one gradually becomes advanced on the path of liberation, and thereafter, he is freed, and his attraction becomes fixed. Then real devotion and devotional service begin.” (SB 3.25.25)” Teachings of Lord Kapila vs 34

“One should learn how to associate with the devotees of the Lord by gathering with them to chant the glories of the Lord. This process is most purifying. As devotees thus develop their loving friendship, they feel mutual happiness and satisfaction. And by thus encouraging one another they are able to give up material sense gratification, which is the cause of all suffering.” Srimad Bhagavatam 11.3.30 verse

“Austerity of speech consists in speaking words that are truthful, pleasing, beneficial, and not agitating to others, and also in regularly reciting Vedic literature.” Bg 17.15 verse

“..they derive great satisfaction and bliss from always enlightening one another and conversing about me.” Bg 10.9 verse

“In discussing Krishna’s opulences and His diverse energies, the pure devotees take transcendental pleasure. Therefore they want to hear and discuss them.”  Bg 10.19 purport

Unpleasant exchanges inhibit our critical thinking:

If you have experienced an unpleasant exchange, you may have noted the effect it has on you. Even comments such as “I don’t agree” or “That’s wrong” may make it difficult to share openly and honestly. All too often, we are much more strident and hurtful and may even insult each other. Such harsh exchanges will not give us a higher taste for Krishna katha and will inhibit our ability to contemplate high spiritual truths. When we feel insulted or attacked, most of us experience anger, which incites us to retaliate, or fear, which makes us withdraw.

Imagine sharing your understanding of a passage in Srila Prabhupada’s books. How would you feel if your companion exclaimed, “You are wrong,” or “Well, I don’t agree with you.”  Some devotees may argue back, while others will withdraw and stop sharing. Either way, we are unlikely to enjoy the exchange, and our ability to continue deeply deliberating on the subject will be checked. Considering that Krishna katha is meant to be pleasurable, such comments are counterproductive. (Of course, it’s different if you have accepted the person as your siksa or diksa guru, and feel confident in their love, good wishes, and competence to help you. In such a case you should feel enlivened and enlightened by their rebukes. If you don’t, your acceptance of that person may have been premature.)

Objection: we should speak the truth even if unpleasant:

Devotees sometimes argue that speaking pleasantly is less important than speaking the truth. They argue that we should call a ‘spade a spade’ and tell someone when they are wrong. 

“Satyam, truthfulness, means that facts should be presented as they are, for the benefit of others. Facts should not be misrepresented. According to social conventions, it is said that one can speak the truth only when it is palatable to others. But that is not truthfulness. The truth should be spoken in a straightforward way, so that others will understand actually what the facts are. If a man is a thief and if people are warned that he is a thief, that is truth. Although sometimes the truth is unpalatable, one should not refrain from speaking it. Truthfulness demands that the facts be presented as they are for the benefit of others. That is the definition of truth.”  Bg 10.4-5 purport

The problem with this objection is that it assumes I know the truth; that I am always right, and if anyone disagrees with me, they must be wrong. Such people also seem to believe that insulting someone is the best way to influence them. Unfortunately, such a person will neither grow in knowledge nor influence others.

On the other hand, by applying the Improving Sanga (IS) Principles, we can say what we understand to be correct while remaining appreciative of our partner’s perspective. If we discuss correctly, differences of opinion will not lead to friction and animosity. Instead, we will rectify misunderstandings while fostering deep devotional relationships and increasing our attraction to Krishna katha.

“May there be good fortune throughout the universe, and may all envious persons be pacified. May all living entities become calm by practicing bhakti-yoga, for by accepting devotional service they will think of each other’s welfare. Therefore let us all engage in the service of the supreme transcendence, Lord Śrī Kṛiṣhṇa, and always remain absorbed in thought of Him.” SB 5.18.9

How to rectify misunderstandings without telling someone they are wrong:

In our experience, properly applying the IS Principles will naturally remove misconceptions while fostering a safe and harmonious emotional atmosphere between discussion partners.  

This is how the principles can help. When your discussion partner reads a passage and tells you what they understand, reflect their words to show you heard them. Then try to express their intended meaning better than they did. That allows them to hear their thoughts mirrored back clearly. If they misunderstood the passage, this allows them to correct themselves. If we deal respectfully with each other, there is no fear of losing face or resistance to changing our minds.

If understanding them doesn’t help them to self-correct, you can then do your understanding without commenting negatively about theirs. If their understanding was inaccurate, this gives them another chance to self-correct.

If we both still have opposing views, in the next part of the discussion, we respectfully express our doubts about our partner’s understanding. This offers them another opportunity to self-correct. Finally, in the IS approach, we must support our perspective with sastric evidence. Researching scripture to find such evidence provides yet another opportunity to self-correct.

By the end of this process, one or both of us may have changed our original understanding, or we may have broadened our understanding to accommodate both perspectives. It’s also possible we end up agreeing to disagree. Even then, our goodwill has not been compromised, and we remain open to sharing with and hearing each other. By applying these principles, we are more likely to enjoy the discussion. This is the benefit of learning to discuss from different perspectives, as Srila Prabhupada wrote in his letter to Tribhuvanatha.

Objection: Lord Chaitanya debated, so why can’t we?

Sometimes devotees object that Lord Chaitanya debated with Sarvabhauma Bhattacharya and with the Mayavadi sannyasis. So why does Srila Prabhupada say Krishna katha is “not the subject of a debate club”?

It depends on how we understand the word ‘debate’.  One synonym is ‘deliberation’. This type of debate is acceptable; in Sanskrit, it is called vada. Other meanings of ‘debate’ are ‘altercation’, ‘rebutting’, and ‘refuting’.  When we debate in this manner it is called jalpa or vitanda. When two or more people discuss an issue with the sole intention of understanding the truth, the discussion is vada.  When either party uses false arguments to disprove the views of the other, it is vitanda; when the only goal is to win the argument, it is called jalpa.  When Srila Prabhupada says Krishna katha is not the subject matter of a debate club, I understand he means it cannot be understood or relished by these two latter types of debate: vitanda and jalpa.

 “When both parties desire to win by establishing their own opinion with proofs and arguments, and by refuting the opponent’s view with circumvention…false generalization…and syllogistic fault…it is called jalpa.  When one party refutes the opponent’s view (by the above means), without establishing his own opinion, it is called vitanda.  These two types of debate, with a desire to win, simply display skill in debating and bear no result.  That discussion having a desire for truth is called vada.  Being outstanding for being fruitful in determining truth, vada is My vibhuti.” Srila Baladeva Vidyabhusana’s  commentary to Gita Bhusana 10.32

To avoid using these false arguments or to detect when others use them, it can help to know what is meant by ‘circumvention’, ‘false generalisation’, and ‘syllogistic fault’.

Circumvention is defined as going around or bypassing the real issue. Here is an example to illustrate circumvention.

Devotee 1: “Srila Prabhupada instructed all his disciples to become spiritual masters.”

Devotee 2: “Women must be subordinate and cannot be spiritual masters.”

Note how in this exchange, Devotee 2 circumvents the point regarding Srila Prabhupada’s instructions.

Syllogistic Fault:  A syllogism is a logical argument that arrives at a conclusion based on two premises which are assumed to be true. Sometimes there is a fault in the syllogism because of a fault in the deduction process, and sometimes because there is a fault in one or both premises. Here is an example of a syllogistic fault where the deductive process is wrong.

Premise 1: All men are mortal.

Premise 2: My dog is mortal.

Conclusion: Therefore, my dog is a man.

Most instances of syllogistic fault are less absurd and therefore harder to detect. 

False generalisation: ‘Generalise’ means to infer something is always true because it is often true. A typical generalisation familiar to women in ISKCON is:

“The Srimad Bhagavatam 1.4.25 purport says: ‘The dvija-bandhus are classified with the śūdras and the woman class, who are by nature less intelligent.’ You are a woman; therefore, you are less intelligent.” This logic is applied even to very learned, saintly Vaisnavis. This fails to acknowledge other statements, such as those below, where he qualifies this point.

“Generally strī, or woman, is less intelligent than man; therefore, if the husband is intelligent enough, the woman gets a great opportunity for spiritual enlightenment.”  Srimad Bhagavatam 3.24.5 purport

“Therefore generally, generally, woman, less intelligent than man.” Srimad Bhagavatam Lecture in Los Angeles, 1972

False arguments can be hard to detect, especially if we are unfamiliar with scriptural teachings. However, if we avoid the tendency to think I must always be right and instead discuss with mutual courtesy, we will more likely correct such aberrations and arrive at the truth.