Hare Krishna. Welcome back to the Monks Podcast. Hi, Krishna. It’s always good to be back. Yes, it’s always a pleasure, Chaitanya Charan ji.

You know, you’ve helped me appreciate how expansive and inclusive the understanding of Katha can be. You’re a great Katha partner, Chaitanya Charan ji, so you do the same for me. I’m grateful for your association and the chance to share this service. So, I suppose today’s episode is by popular demand or request.

Very good. I thought today we could discuss the topic of vaccination. What would the Gita’s perspective be on that? Broadly, some devotees are strongly opposed to it with various concerns, while others are supportive. As in any issue, there’s a spectrum of opinions.

Some have genuine concerns on both sides, and some voices are more extreme. So it is a somewhat polarizing topic. I was thinking of a three-part framework to guide our discussion. Feel free to suggest anything else you have in mind.

First, does spirituality or spiritual wisdom provide us instructions on every issue, or does it provide insights that help us decide on various issues? This raises the question: can different devotees hold different opinions on the same issue and still be faithfully following scripture? That’s one topic we could discuss. Then, we could dive deeper into the specifics of vaccines. Finally, we can talk about how to have a respectful difference of opinion on such matters.

What do you think of this framework? If you have another way to approach it, I’m open to it.

Sounds good to me. Yes, go ahead.

Thank you. So for the first point, I’ll start with an experience. In the beginning of our bhakti practice, it almost feels like we’re told to stop thinking for ourselves because speculation is not advisable and just follow scripture. There’s also the understanding—sometimes articulated, sometimes not—that scripture speaks with one unified voice on all issues, and there is only one true interpretation, with all others being incorrect.

I had an encounter with a senior Vaishnava about fifteen years ago that left a lasting impact. He told me something very striking. He said, “I’d be happier if there were more honest disagreements in our movement, more honest and explicit disagreements.” I was surprised. “But then how can we cooperate?” I asked. “Yes, we must cooperate,” he said, “but we can’t work together unless we’re honest with each other. We can have different opinions.”

He gave me an example. At the time, India was heading into elections, and there was concern about protecting national culture. The question arose whether devotees should vote. I made a video suggesting that voting could be seen as a social responsibility, not a spiritual one. I emphasized that it wasn’t mandatory like chanting Hare Krishna, but it could be part of a devotee’s responsibility as a member of society. On the other hand, a senior devotee made a video claiming that voting was not a social responsibility and that anyone who thought otherwise didn’t understand Shastra.

Some of his followers began criticizing me, accusing me of “dabbling in mundane politics.” I replied, “I’m not dabbling in politics. I’m providing a scriptural perspective to help devotees make informed decisions.” It was a tense situation, but what struck me was that the senior devotee took a very broad-minded approach. He said, “If someone says tomorrow that meeting is okay, then I’ll say that’s wrong. But there are other issues on which different devotees can have different perspectives.”

Despite this, some followers thought that because a senior devotee had taken one position, I should just accept it. But I was grateful for the senior devotee’s open-mindedness. Sometimes, followers can become more rigid than their leaders, thinking something is normal when the leader himself might not view it that way. This was my first major realization.

As I started traveling and meeting devotees from around the world, I discovered the diversity within Krishna consciousness. That was my experience. Feel free to share your thoughts, Chaitanya Charan ji.

I appreciate your observations and insights. As always, you offer a balanced perspective, appreciating the diversity of views within the devotee community. Now, let’s consider the teachings of the Bhagavad Gita. One of the tacit but powerful teachings of the Gita is that the outer world will always present conflicts, suffering, and painful situations. There’s no escaping it. This is the nature of the world—it will never provide a perfect solution to any social or ethical issue. And, of course, Arjuna discovered this for himself.

Arjuna was initially so distracted by the pain in front of him that he forgot who Krishna was.

That’s a beautiful insight.

Now, this is my concern: In the process of engaging with Shastra, we risk weaponizing it. Shastra should never be used as a weapon against others.

Exactly, weaponizing Shastra. It’s a powerful way of putting it. Shastra is not meant to divide us, but to bring us together. We should explore and share different perspectives, not use scripture to alienate one another.

When it comes to understanding Shastra, it depends on whether we approach it as a Kanishta, Madhyama, or Uttama. You don’t have to be an Uttama to approach Shastra in an Uttama way. Just like when we do deity worship, we strive to perform it as an Uttama, regardless of whether we’re fully at that level. The goal is to be uncompromising in our approach to Shastra, just as we should be in our practice of deity worship.

Older Vaishnavas should guide younger devotees to rise to a deeper understanding of Shastra, just as an experienced Pujari helps a younger one. Similarly, older devotees can help the younger ones approach Shastra properly. We don’t have to wait to be Uttama to approach Shastra in an Uttama way.

That’s a great point. We can rise beyond our own Adhikara (level) through association and guidance, using our intelligence.

Exactly. So, let’s say I come to you and say, “No one should sit in front of a curtain, it’s dangerous and attracts negative energies.” I could start judging you, thinking you’re mixing with negative influences. But if I use intelligence and approach you with respect, I might realize there’s a valid reason behind your choice. This is the Madhyama approach.

By engaging in dialogue, we learn. We shouldn’t jump to conclusions but keep inquiring and seeking understanding. This is the Madhyama approach, and it encourages continuous learning.

You’re right. And the more we understand Shastra, the more we realize that it’s not about having all the answers. It’s about how we approach it. This approach is even more important than the specific knowledge we have.

That’s true. The questions we ask are often more important than the answers we receive.

Yes. If we’re not asking questions, we’re not listening deeply enough.

Absolutely. But some questions do have settled answers. For example, the truth that Krishna is God may not need further inquiry for one to commit to the spiritual path. But yes, there are other matters where inquiry continues, and that’s a healthy part of our spiritual growth.

Absolutely. Some things are settled, but the journey of inquiry itself is an essential part of spiritual progress.

A symptom of lesser Shravanam is that you’re not asking questions. That’s important to note. So, by extension, Shravanam, even when you’re speaking, involves inquiring, as mentioned in verse 4.34. It’s absolutely necessary. You’re saying that, even if there are settled answers to some issues, our process still involves hearing.

Even if you accept Krishna as God, the process is to keep hearing about Krishna. That’s right. When we hear, naturally, questions will come. So if the questions are not coming, then we’re not really hearing. If all you’re doing is chanting or preaching, and you’re not hearing, something’s very off. Every bit of preaching must be counterbalanced with hearing. If your hearing and inquiring have stopped and all you’re doing is preaching, be careful. That’s so true.

From a practical perspective, I’ve found that after I give a class, whether before or after, when I hear feedback from the organizers and the audience, I understand how well I did my service and how I can improve. Even if I’m not giving philosophy, hearing from them helps me. If I say, “I’ll only speak,” then I may miss the opportunity to improve my service.

That’s right. We discussed this earlier when you mentioned how the enlightened keep enlightening each other in the Chatur Shloki, where it’s said that the wise communicate in this way. Now, this is clear when talking about spiritual subjects—Krishna, devotion, Krishna Tattva, and Krishna Lilas.

But what about worldly matters? How do we approach them? On one hand, some issues are simple, but as we delve deeper, things get more complex. Take vaccines, for example. On one level, it’s simple: take the vaccine, and you’ll be protected. But if you dig deeper, there are many aspects to consider. Every subject in the material world becomes more complex the more we study it. As devotees, we have finite time and energy. So, how much should we get involved in such issues? For instance, if elections are coming up, how do we decide which party to vote for? If we inquire, we dive into a whole universe of politics, which can be overwhelming.

Yes, that’s the “black hole” I was referring to earlier in Arjuna’s dilemma in the second half of the first chapter of the Bhagavad Gita. Arjuna saw how complex the situation was. He questioned what would happen if they won the war, what would happen if they lost, whether he should die or let them kill him. He examined all the complexities and ethical positions. In light of Western philosophical categories, he went through all four major positions of ethics—utilitarian, virtue ethics, intuitionist ethics, and deontological ethics.

The world will never have perfect answers—that’s the core teaching of the Gita. Krishna told Arjuna, “You’re trying to figure out a perfect solution in the battlefield of the outer world, but there are no perfect solutions. Be a yogi. Go inside and address the outer world with what you truly understand is right for you.”

Arjuna didn’t impose his realizations on others. He didn’t tell the Pandavas, “You should do this because I’ve figured it out.” He focused on what was right for him. That’s what devotees do: they focus on what’s right for them.

I love that idea—go deep within to explore what you truly understand, what sincerely feels right, and then act on that. This is an attractive interpretation of Bhagavad Gita 18.63, where Krishna says, “Deliberate and then do as you desire.”

Yes, but notice that it took Krishna until the eighteenth chapter to tell Arjuna to choose. He was extremely well-informed by the teachings in the first 16 chapters. Krishna didn’t say, “Choose now” until Arjuna was in a place of realization. He couldn’t choose if he was ignorant; he would have acted according to his conditioning.

Arjuna, in his confusion, asked Krishna, “What should I do?” But once he was clear, Krishna told him to choose based on his own realization. The teachings helped him reach that point.

Right. Arjuna’s indecision came from being intoxicated by the battlefield and the complexity of life. When we get drunk with worldly events and lose our inner connection to devotion, we don’t have a clear choice. We’re acting according to the gunas.

A sign of this is when we start judging others, being forceful, and not engaging in real spiritual knowledge. Beautiful! I never thought of the Gita from this perspective.

So, to rearticulate what you said: Arjuna analyzed the situation and got lost in the complexity. Krishna didn’t just provide answers; he gave Arjuna the tools to understand himself and his own desires. After that, Krishna said, “Now you can make your decision.” It’s significant that Krishna took Arjuna away from the issue to focus on self-understanding. There was very little discussion about the ethics of the war directly.

That’s right. Krishna didn’t dwell on the outer situation because such dilemmas repeat themselves constantly. There will always be irresolvable ethical dilemmas in the world. There are always pros and cons. Life is never perfect.

Krishna compares it to fire covered by a little smoke. As beautiful as fire is, there’s always some smoke. Similarly, there’s always a little bit of dust on a mirror. In this world, there’s always a mixture of light and darkness. But apart from the external light and darkness, we can go within, find purity, know ourselves, and act from a place of knowledge—divine self-knowledge.

In Bhakti, we often focus on external instruction rather than connecting with our innermost core. The mind can be untrustworthy, but we must strive to connect with our true selves. Sometimes, we may postpone that inner realization, but eventually, we must live our own lives and make decisions.

Yes, there is the guru, the Bahir Guru, and the Antar Guru—the internal guidance. A Bhakta is different from others because there is constant guidance. The key is whether we choose to follow it or not. If we step out of line, like Sita did when she stepped out of Lakshman’s circle, we may be deceived by forces that lead us astray. Discontinuing the process of connecting with our inner self is like stepping out of the line. Staying within the line doesn’t just mean external conformity; it means staying connected with our true selves.

That’s beautifully put. The reason why the mind can be an enemy is that it holds all the conditioning we’ve accumulated—our upbringing, society, culture, education, etc. But as Bhaktas, who are we with purified hearts? Who are we when we feel Krishna’s love and desire in our hearts? We must make decisions from that place, not from the thick walls of conditioning.

Yes, and until we get there, we still need guidance. But we should also strive to think for ourselves.

Can you differentiate between thinking for ourselves and speculating?

Speculating is when we act from a conditioned understanding, making assumptions based on that. Thinking for ourselves means acting from realization and true guidance. Arjuna went through this process, and we should too.

Before you tell me whether to take the vaccine or not, read all 575 verses of the Gita. Understand them deeply, then make your decision. If two people come to different conclusions after that, that’s fine. But without that process, the debate will just create more acrimony.

Yes, and if they are truly honest, they won’t have opposing opinions. True honesty means asserting what we can with certainty, without exaggeration or hyperbole. When devotees become puffed up, they act like a cat puffing up to seem bigger than it is. They claim to have incredible knowledge of others’ intentions and actions, but that’s just fear. That’s the puffed-up ego.

Beautiful. I’ve never thought of it that way before. The cat analogy really brings it to life.

See, there are some things we hear, and we struggle to remember. And there are others that, once heard, we can never forget. Like this image of a cat expanding itself—it’s amazing. Chaitanya Charanji, you know that whenever you agree to speak with me in this forum, you’re going to hear things that might be new, challenging, but hopefully also helpful and illuminating.

Devotees must be careful not to get puffed up out of fear and try to make grandiose statements that are, frankly, dishonest. Even in appreciation, there can be dishonest statements. Rather, an honest statement would be, “I have such affection for Chaitanya Charanji. I experience such pure dealings with him.” That’s honest. But saying, “Chaitanya Charanji is a pure devotee” or “He’s a demon because I disagree with his views”—that’s puffed up.

We often say more than we can actually claim. It’s like the cat expanding itself, trying to make itself appear larger to scare away enemies as a defense. That’s puffed up. It’s a paradigm-shifting understanding of what it means to be puffed up—not just out of ego, but also out of fear.

And I’ve seen this in some devotees: when something foundational to their faith is questioned—whether or not it aligns with the core of the faith—they just can’t handle it. That’s why there’s this idea of aggressive intellectualism. A quote goes something like: “Aggressive intellectualism, even in the service of scripture, is a form of atheism.” This echoes what you said earlier about weaponizing scripture. We can easily fall into that trap.

So, when you say that someone who studies the Bhagavad Gita should approach issues like vaccines, are you suggesting that two devotees can have different opinions without attacking each other?

Yes. If they are honest, one can say, “I’ve made my decision not to get the vaccine because I sincerely believe it’s the best option for me.” But they shouldn’t claim that it’s the best choice for everyone. You can’t speak absolutely in a non-absolute realm—that would be a fallacy.

It’s important to say, “This is what I believe is best for me,” without claiming to know what’s best for others. In that way, we avoid making unwarranted absolute statements and avoid attacking the other person’s choice. That would be an ad hominem attack, like when we demonize someone instead of addressing their argument.

Now, speaking of the GBC’s statement on the vaccine, they’ve said that everyone is responsible for making their own decision, and we should be well-informed. That’s very much in line with what we’re discussing. It’s about personal decision-making based on individual understanding and knowledge.

In terms of boundaries—yes, there are clear decisions in some areas. For example, if I go to a place where meat is being served, I know I won’t take it. It’s a decision based on basic principles that don’t require deep deliberation. But where do these boundaries lie for other issues, like vaccines, or how do we navigate personal and communal choices?

Each devotee will want to be as informed as possible. For instance, when you purchase a car, you trust it will work. In my case, I trust that my electric car will take me safely from point A to point B. Similarly, we trust the science behind things like transportation or medicine because they are based on reliable knowledge.

Prabhupada often demonstrated how we can turn material things into spiritual use—like using a microphone in Krishna’s service. Similarly, if you can use something in the service of Krishna, such as a vaccine, then it’s acceptable. But if you cannot see how you can use it in Krishna’s service, then it may not be suitable for you.

This brings us to the example of termites. Termites can destroy a house, and you can either ignore the problem and hope it won’t get worse, or you can address it proactively. Similarly, with the vaccine, you have a choice. You can choose to ignore the risks or take precautions to safeguard your health. The decision is a gamble either way, but it’s about being informed.

However, pretending the problem doesn’t exist—like saying the pandemic is a “scam” and denying the virus—can be dangerous. It’s like saying there are no termites when, in fact, termites can destroy your house. Denying the reality of a problem doesn’t make it go away.

If you understand that the pandemic is real, just like termites, you can make an informed decision on how to protect yourself. Whether you wear a mask or choose to get vaccinated, it’s about being realistic and not ignoring the problem. Hospitals are overflowing with COVID patients—that’s a fact. Ignoring that reality is ignorance, and it’s dangerous.

Now, as the Purvapaksha, I understand the argument that Pratyaksha Praman (direct perception) may not be reliable for transcendental knowledge, but for basic survival and functioning in the world, it’s essential. If we don’t trust our senses at all, how would we survive in this world?

Yes, exactly! If we say our senses are unreliable, then why not just make ourselves blind? It’s ridiculous. But for transcendental knowledge, we rely on scripture, while for everyday functioning, we must rely on our senses and understanding of the world.

So when we reject the material world’s promises, we may inadvertently overreact by rejecting everything in the world, including scientific knowledge. This could be mistaken as a sign of strong faith in Krishna, but is it really about faith, or is it an overcompensation for something we are lacking?

Yes, it’s a form of puffed-up behavior. People sometimes overcompensate by rejecting everything, thinking it’s a sign of their firm faith in Krishna, but it might stem from a lack of real faith. It’s like those who engage in frenzied rituals to prove their faith—thinking that by exposing themselves to danger, they’re showing faith. But real faith doesn’t need to prove itself in such extreme ways.

So, just as no one would ignore termites in their house, we shouldn’t ignore the problems in the world, whether it’s a pandemic or anything else. We need to engage with the world intelligently and spiritually, using everything in Krishna’s service. Ignoring the reality of the world doesn’t help anyone.

So, when there’s a bug attacking the house, this house is like a temple. Oh, now I get the example. This is a temple! The COVID virus is like a fight for the temple. Yes, that’s beautiful—it’s the same idea. We want to sustain the temple as much as possible, even though it’s part of the phenomenal world.

You need to approach this with practical and realistic understanding of what’s going on out there. Science is everywhere right now. I’m talking to you through science. It’s true.

Now, Chaitanya Charanji, I don’t actually believe you’re at the other end of this. I think it’s a hoax. I think science has intervened and created something that looks and responds like you, but it’s not really you. This is ridiculous! But, Prabhupada did say we can be critical of science, but only in the context of its worldview that materializes everything. We shouldn’t make the same mistake of saying everything is purely spiritual, which would be equally ridiculous.

These material concerns exist, and we can’t dismiss them. So, yes, there are scammers. Going back to the pandemic, we could say it was a “scamdemic.” There will always be people trying to exploit situations for profit or power, and this world is full of such people. Scams can happen even in good things, let alone in disasters.

However, to say that the pandemic itself isn’t real, or that it’s all a scam—that’s going too far. That’s like saying General Motors doesn’t actually make cars. Sure, they make money off the cars, but they also provide a real product. Similarly, COVID and the vaccine are real, even if there are scammers involved. To claim it’s all a scam is not a position that thoughtful people would accept.

It’s also easy to caricature the opposing position, reducing it to its weakest point. For example, someone might say, “These devotees are saying that scientists will save you.” But that’s not the position. We’re not uncritically endorsing scientists. We’re just recognizing that science works in certain ways. Just as there are treatments for termites, there are ways to treat viruses.

We’re not advocating for blind acceptance of scientific authority, but we should recognize that science, like any other system, can be used for good purposes. Krishna says in the Bhagavad-gita, “I am the healing herb.” Can Krishna not act through scientists? Isn’t it possible that the Paramatma is guiding them in their discoveries?

To clarify, we’re not endorsing blind science. But to take one quote of Prabhupada and use it to completely condemn science is a misunderstanding of his teachings. It’s not Krishna consciousness to reject the whole material world as something that doesn’t have any value or relevance.

Prabhupada didn’t criticize science for its practical use—he criticized scientism, the view that science can answer everything, including questions about life and consciousness. He never condemned science as a whole, but he did warn against science trying to usurp the role of theology.

And honestly, if science were a scam, we wouldn’t be talking right now. The fact that we can communicate through this technology shows that science has its value. Yes, they make money by providing these services, but we pay for them because they offer a valuable service.

Sometimes, I worry about devotees becoming disconnected from reality. The phenomenal world is real—relatively speaking. Only the Mayavadis claim that this world is completely unreal, which is incorrect. Even they admit that there’s something there, but they call it “illusion” (Maya). However, they don’t acknowledge that the world exists in a relative sense, which is what we accept.

Maya means illusion, which comes from the verb “to mislead.” It’s not about nothing being there; it’s about mistaking one thing for another. For example, the classic rope and snake analogy shows that while the snake seems real, it’s just an illusion—there is something there, but it’s mistaken for something else.

Mithya, however, means something that doesn’t exist at all—it’s delusional, not just illusory. So, in essence, we’re not Mayavadis who say that everything is an illusion; we’re recognizing the world’s reality, just not as the ultimate reality.

  1. Delusion and Maturity in Devotion: As devotees, we must be careful not to fall into delusion by misperceiving the world. It’s important to distinguish between lack of knowledge and conscious suspension of judgment until we have enough information. Maturity in devotional service involves understanding the difference and accepting the world as it is without rejecting it.

  2. Rejection vs. Devotion: A complete rejection of the world in the name of devotion is actually more impersonalistic than devotional. The world is real, but it’s also illusory, meaning we misperceive it. We should be cautious about blindly endorsing or condemning any aspect of the world, such as science, without proper discernment.

  3. Role of Science and Medicine: While greed and business motives may taint industries like pharma, that doesn’t mean the services provided (e.g., medicine, cars) are inherently bad. Rejecting something outright, like vaccines or science, is a sign of ignorance. Ethical and health concerns should be considered, but we should not allow skepticism to lead to an unbalanced perspective.

  4. Personal Decision-Making: Ultimately, decisions like taking or not taking a vaccine are personal, and spirituality allows us to make these choices based on our own knowledge, experience, and discernment. There is no lack of faith in Krishna whether one chooses to take a vaccine or not, as even science and human capacity come from Krishna.

  5. Assuming Good Intentions: It’s essential to assume the good intentions of people unless evidence shows otherwise. Criticizing everything based on negative assumptions leads to a paranoid life. Instead, use things for Krishna’s service, even if those things are imperfect or profit-driven.

  6. Krishna in the World: Krishna is present in everything, even in the imperfections of this world. The world is part of Krishna’s creation, and while it has flaws, it also has light. We must use Krishna’s vibhuti (divine opulences) in the right direction, not expecting perfection but aiming for improvement.

  7. Direction Over Perfection: The goal is to move in the direction of perfection, acknowledging that nothing in this world is perfect. Krishna encourages us to do the best we can, even in an imperfect world. Perfection is not required, but we should strive for the best within our capacity.

  8. Acceptance of Imperfection: There is no perfect solution to the problems of the world (e.g., vaccines, fossil fuels), but that doesn’t mean we should despair. Strive to make things better without expecting perfect solutions, as Prabhupada teaches about making the best of a bad situation.

  9. Devotion Beyond the World: A devotee should not be overly absorbed in worldly issues (e.g., debates about vaccines) but should focus on Krishna consciousness. The external world and its problems are temporary; the spiritual journey transcends worldly concerns.

  10. Arjuna’s Despair and Guidance: Arjuna’s confusion and despair on the battlefield are relatable to all of us. His journey symbolizes the process of surrendering to Krishna for guidance, even in times of uncertainty. Despair can be a turning point, leading us to deeper connection with Krishna.

  11. Understanding the Inner Journey: The key to resolving external issues lies in taking shelter of Krishna. By aligning our heart’s desires with Krishna’s will, we find clarity and peace. External decisions should stem from internal discernment, as our inner world shapes our responses to the outer world.

  12. Personal Experiences and Discernment: Life’s experiences, like trauma or skepticism from past events, influence our decisions. We must balance those experiences with Krishna consciousness and discernment, ultimately making decisions based on both external knowledge and internal spiritual wisdom.

  13. Living with Decisions: Whatever decision we make in life, we must live with it, whether it’s right or wrong. The key is to make these decisions from a place of self-understanding and devotion to Krishna. Regret and resentment can be avoided when we act from a place of sincerity.

  14. Three Levels of Decision-Making:

  • External Level: Use discernment to navigate the outer world with the tools of intelligence (buddhi), awareness of the modes of nature (gunas), and spiritual knowledge.

  • Internal Level: Understand your heart’s true desires and make decisions aligned with Krishna consciousness.

  • Spiritual Level: Cultivate a relationship with Krishna, who resides within and beyond our hearts, guiding us through the complexities of the material world.

  1. Avoiding External Distractions: Devotees should not become overly absorbed in external debates, like politics or societal issues, which detract from the focus on Krishna. Spiritual practice is about aligning the heart with Krishna, not about fighting for external causes.

  2. Krishna’s Embrace: In the end, what matters is our relationship with Krishna. Life’s external circumstances and debates are temporary, but our inner connection with Krishna leads us to true peace and fulfillment.

This approach highlights the importance of spiritual discernment, using worldly tools for Krishna’s service, and focusing on internal growth while avoiding distractions from external debates.

So, ultimately, all of us, at the innermost level, as devotees, are united in our aspiration to love Krishna, serve Krishna, and attain Krishna. Yes. And we could say we’ve all faced different situations in the world before coming to Krishna and even in our lives within Krishna consciousness. Accordingly, that is the outer world, and based on that, we may have developed discernment in different ways. Some of us may have developed it more, and some less.

Based on our discernment, we could say that in the innermost world—our inner interaction with the world, both external and internal—using our discernment, we can arrive at our own decisions about these issues. Yes. The real focus is not that these issues are unimportant. They have their importance, and as you said, we deliberate on them duly, using our discerning faculties. But we arrive at our decision, and there’s no need to turn it into a philosophical issue or use it as a point of confrontation among devotees.

You arrive at your understanding and move forward based on that. It’s more like a functional approach to the world, where we all can use our intelligence to understand and act accordingly. Yes. For example, if someone prefers Ayurveda over allopathy, that’s perfectly okay if it works for them. That’s wonderful.

But does that mean that someone using Ayurveda is a better devotee than someone who uses allopathy? I think that’s where we might be extending the limits too far. Rejecting the world is not a sign of faith, and accepting parts of the world is not a sign of a lack of faith. Right?

Our relationship with Krishna transcends these things. That’s right. Just one or two last questions before we finish. So, we didn’t get into the technicalities of medical or ethical concerns about vaccines, and I also didn’t want to, because our purpose is like Arjuna’s—Krishna’s purpose was not to give Arjuna a decision for that situation but to give him a worldview, a self-understanding that could help him make decisions in that situation, and in others. We’re doing something similar by discussing vaccination, using it as a departure point for a broader discussion on how to approach such issues.

Earlier, I mentioned the question of boundaries. Do we get clear-cut do’s and don’ts from the tradition? Are there some areas where it’s up to us? The core limbs of Bhakti come from the tradition. Of course, even those are voluntary, practiced by our free will. But if we want to stay connected to the tradition, we follow those practices; otherwise, we’re not really connected.

Is there a well-defined demarcation line between what the tradition gives and what we decide using our discernment? Or, even that line might not be one clear-cut boundary but a zone that varies from person to person. It’s subtle. The more we take shelter of our guru, Shastra, and sadhus, the more we’ll have the strength and realization to make decisions about how to act.

Ultimately, the real test is whether we’re acting out of love. If getting the vaccine is an act of fear and not love, then it’s mundane. If not getting the vaccine is an act of fear and not out of love, then it’s mundane too. Everything we do as devotees needs to be tethered to our heart’s true desires in relation to divinity. When that disconnection happens, cognitive dissonance arises. Devotees are chanting their japa, but then they go out and argue about COVID. This doesn’t make sense. It’s not the devotional life.

The Goswamis didn’t go into their bhajan kutirs, write transcendental literature, and argue about which Muslim leader was best. They acted in ways in the outer world that were conducive to their devotional service. Whatever helps us remember Krishna and never forget Him—that’s the basis on which we make decisions, not whether something is a scam or not. It’s irrelevant. And too often, when we accuse something of being a scam, we become paranoid and shift back into mundane thinking.

This is profound. So, in essence, you’re shifting the focus from what the reality is to what our motive is in interacting with whatever the reality is. Yes.

If I say, “I don’t want to get sick, I don’t want to suffer,” and that’s why I’ll take the vaccine, or I’ll avoid it for the same reason, both are motivated by fear. But if my purpose is to serve Krishna and I see this body as a vehicle for serving Krishna, I might decide that taking the vaccine will help me serve Krishna better, or not taking it will help me preserve my health to serve Krishna better. If we act out of love, that’s where we are in Krishna consciousness.

That’s right. If we lose our Krishna consciousness over this issue, then what’s the point? A devotee might as well die of COVID if they lose their focus on Krishna. What life is worth living if we’re just bickering about a topic that ultimately both sides are ignorant about?

The only way to be knowledgeable about such matters is by aligning our best discernment with the help of guru, sādhu, and Shastra. Then we connect with Krishna.

So, first, we offer our hearts to Krishna. That’s where it starts. Why did Krishna start that verse with machita? Because that’s the first thing we’re supposed to do. He didn’t say machita and then māgita prāṇa. No, he didn’t give that in reverse. We can’t enlighten one another if there’s no offering of our hearts first to Krishna. Without giving our life breath, we’re not truly connected.

Our heart is the most vital organ of the spiritual life. Machita, then our breath—our breath is the second most important function. Once we offer our hearts and life breath to Krishna, we can serve Him fully.

And only then, we can be brothers and sisters in bhakti, not tied by hierarchy, but united in service to Krishna. Thank you for such a beautiful conversation.

Yes, it’s always a pleasure, Chaitanya Charanji. Thank you!