Re-presenting Srila Prabhupada involves tracking the current culture and keeping it real.
Good preachers present a timeless message in a timely and relevant fashion - mainly by using relevant cultural examples. Witness Jesus' use of stories of fishes and animals, lost coins and greedy farmers - all elements of the daily life of his audience.
Some of Srila Prabhupada's examples are dating and could use some brushing up to keep them, or make them more accessible to the mainstream.
We can make a humble contribution of re-presenting the essential ideas that he presented using contemporary examples and illustrations to help contemporary audiences engage with and understand them.
I'm working on a slide presentation to give next Sunday at the Sunday feast. I've got an updated version of the "Bird in the cage" example that I am going to use.
The "Bird in the Cage" Example
In the Bird in the Cage example an owner keeps a bird in a cage and dutifully shines the cage each day, but neglects to feed the actual bird. In this way an analogy is drawn between maintaining the body but not doing anything for the soul within the body.
No-one I know has a bird in a cage. It's the kind of thing I remember my grandparents having - is it an older generation thing, or just an older person thing?
Another analogy in this same line is the car and the driver. The driver may wash the car and put in petrol, but if he doesn't eat, he's in trouble. This one is closer to my daily experience.
The analogy that I am using, however, is one that is more geared to people of my generation in the culture that I live - it draws an analogy with online gaming. Here are a couple of examples:
- S Korean dies after games session - A South Korean man has died after reportedly playing an online computer game for 50 hours with few breaks.
- Man dies after 3-day gaming binge - Medics fail to revive 30-year-old man at cyber cafe in Guangzhou, southern China
In the analogy with online gaming we see what happens when a person projects themselves into the world of the sense objects, but neglects the senses (the body). Similarly, when we focus only on the senses we neglect the soul.
The bird in a cage example carries along with it the idea of imprisonment and lends itself to a follow up discussion of liberation. The online gaming example lends itself to a follow up revolving around the Matrix, or the Krishna's explanation of the relation between the sense objects, the senses, the mind, the intelligence, and the soul.
OK, so the Bird in the Cage example might be a little awkward or cause the audience to reach to grasp it, but it's not incomprehensible to people, so why use another one?
Good illustrations are accurate, relevant and engaging. Examples and illustrations serve at least three purposes:
- 1. To create an analogy that allows the audience to draw a parallel between something they already know and are familiar with and an as yet-unknown truth that is being communicated (accurate)
- 2. To create a bridge between the speaker and the audience, establishing some common knowledge and experience (relevant)
- 3. To add color and interest to the talk and vary the flow, as a means of stimulating and keeping interest and attention (engaging)
The Bird in a Cage example works here for point number one - it's accurate, but it's not so good at two and three, relevancy and engagement, in our environment. Analogies lose their power when you have to explain, or audiences have to grasp for both the point and the analogy. If it's not something within their experience it doesn't establish the bridge, and if it's not sensational then it doesn't stimulate. You don't always want to stimulate, but you have to do it periodically to maintain attention and interest.
Of course you have to be careful that your illustrations don't overshadow the actual idea. The online gaming illustration is potentially an epic one, as you can see from the picture above, and it will be the biggest one in the presentation that I'll give. I'm using it as the overall "engaging factor".
The "Ask Your Mother" Example
There are other examples, however, that are more problematic than the Bird in a Cage one, which is staid but still solid. Take for example this one, which I was reading to Prahlad last night from the Science of Self Realization:
If a boy wants to know who his father is, the simple process is to ask his mother. The mother will then say, "This is your father." This is the way of perfect knowledge.
This is actually a really good analogy, in the right setting. However, while it is great with the right audience, for a contemporary Western audience this example may introduce more problems than it solves.
There are two problems with this: relevancy, and accuracy.
First of all, relevancy. How closely does this map to the experience of the audience? Today the reliability of the mother's authority is not so clear cut. The mother may not give the correct answer, either because she is unwilling, or because she is unable.
Take for example the recent revelation that France's Justice Minister Rachida Dati is pregnant.
She declines to name the father, saying that her private life is "complicated".
We live in a world of infidelity, paternity lawsuits and multiple sexual partners. In France and the UK over 50% of children are born out of wedlock. In the US the figure was 40% in 2005. The analogy is no longer as relevant as it was in a previous social setting.
The example fails on accuracy too, and this is more serious.
Everyone knows today that the "way of perfect knowledge" in ascertaining the paternity of a child is through an impersonal, objective DNA test. "Asking around" is pre-scientific and inaccurate by modern standards.
Since the analogy being drawn here is that the "perfect way of knowing" about God is to approach a personal authority, and the analogy stumbles on this, the main point you are making is similarly compromised when using this illustration.
Your point becomes derailed when someone points out the flaw in the analogy (besides feeling that it does not relate to the actual social situation) - a DNA test is the way, not "asking a person".
Using this example risks giving contemporary audiences an impression of being pre-scientific and primitive, irrelevant to our modern, scientifically advanced reality.
Of course, it might also create a sense in people that we are coming from a different place socially than modern western society (and we should make sure that we are). However, the problem remains - today the way of perfect knowledge in ascertaining paternity is a DNA test, not a personal interview.
Any suggestions for a contemporary refresh of that example?
sunday feast presentation
Hare Krishna!
Great presentation prabhu!
Your gaming analogy got me thinking about a Southpark episode, I had seen.
http://www.southparkzone.com/episode-vid-1008.htm
Where a few comic characters play the world of warcraft for days and fail to take care of themselves. Some of it may not be appropriate, but I am sure you could use an excerpt from it in the presentation. (I'm sorry that I couldn't post this comment before your presentation.)
On the same note, your example of mind being the battlefield for a war between the senses and the intelligence, helped me understand the difference between mind and intelligence in a better way.
RE: Any suggestions for an contemporary refresh of that example?
All Glories to Srila Prabhupada
Hare Krsna
I was reading the blog entry "Updating Srila Prabhupada's Examples"
I feel i will use the original example of Srila Prabhupada
As Srila Prabhupada used that example of asking of child from the mother about who his father is?
Mother here would be the authority to tell who is the father. As the DNA testing would cross confirm about the child's father. However if the mother doesn't know who is the father then DNA testing of 6 billion man would prove fuitle in that much time mother, father, child all will become history. So Srila Prabhupada is empazing on that there is no need to go with analitical study to accept Krsna as supreme person or to verify the injuctions of sastra. They are beyond the 4 defects of material sense. Although if a persons knows the goal then for his satisfaction he can do a cross check. Just like DNA testing. To confirm but to find out who my father is without asking from mother and taking help of DNA testing would prove fuitle.
I was asking the same question some year ago from an advance devotee. I asked "as you said prabhu a child can go to mother and ask who his father is but let say the mother can't see, speak, and is mentality retared then what" he replied, then it's mis fortunte of a child. Then how do the child will know who he should pickup first for DNA testing.
The same i heared in Srila Prabhupada lecture, Srila Prabhupada saying 80% population is mis fortunate.
So what i felt was this example that ppl would say ok as the example says i can know my father by DNA testing no need to accept authority of mother then ppl might also think well no need of bonafide spiritual master as i will use scientific method to know God. So without accepting authority it is not possible to approach Krsna.
I feel the original example is more appropriate.
Hare Krsna
your servant
Nitai Prema Das
So what i felt was this
That's my point exactly. That's the problem with the analogy. Given today's social and scientific situation the analogy points a contemporary audience to the wrong conclusion.
Today the mother's testimony is not the "perfect way of knowing" paternity. A court will order a DNA test and this will be accepted as the final proof. The mother's testimony is no longer the only way or the most reliable way to tell.
Prior to DNA testing there was no other, more authoritative way, so the analogy held. This analogy needs modification for contemporary use.
One way could be to say that the spiritual master will point you in the right direction, just as a mother may, but then you must prove it for yourself by following the direction and applying the instructions, pratyaksavagamam dharmyam, just as a DNA test is necessary to provide final and authoritative proof of paternity.
good point, nitai prema prabhu
i'm sorry, when i wrote "DNS" in my previous comments, i meant "DNA," of course.
nitai prema made a good point: if you really don't have any idea who your father might be, where do you want to start with your DNA testing? this method can confirm, but not replace personal authority on the matter. usually the mother.
and he confirms my view: the point is you have to accept from authority to learn the truth. and this authority, at least as far as the absolute truth is concerned, is NOT material science.
ys phani.
who's your father?
i think i'd stick to the original example and explain that today society is getting so degraded that, in some cases, even the mother can't be believed, or doesn't know, who a child's father is.
in most families the question of parentship is clear, even if one of them is a step-parent. in my experience kids get used to that pretty early. but that the mother lies re. the father, or really doesn't know, is rather an exception still.
ys phani.
Another related point is
Another related point is that in France the majority of children are born out of wedlock, in the UK the figure is also over 50%, and as of 2005 it was 40% for the US.
So as for these situations being the exception, if that is still true, it is rapidly changing away from that.
However, the main point also remains - today there is a more authoritative way to know who the father is, via DNA testing. "Asking the mother" is a primitive, pre-scientific and imprecise idea. So it kind of destroys the analogy that this is "the best way" to know God.
the point is that you should ask authority to find out...
...and the authority re. a kid's father IS the mother. if you bring in DNS testing into this example, the whole thing gets a wrong drift: to find out, you have to ask science, science is the authority. that may be true in this case, at least i don't have any reason to believe DNS tests often go wrong, but it spoils the example for our purposes. then better drop it altogether.
trouble is that authority today often can't be trusted--that applies to the mother, and unfortunately to spiritual authority as well. do you want to change all statements that the guru is the final authority, and replace them with the bhaktivedanta vedabase? some people probably would really like that, but i'm not among them...
and that kids are born out of wedlock doesn't mean they don't konw their father, or their mom won't tell them. THAT's the exception, not in or out of wedlock.
My point is that preaching
My point is that preaching examples need to be updated over time to keep them relevant and accurate. Examples are temporary and are the responsibility of preachers. The essential ideas remain the same.
I am not bringing DNA testing into the example - history has brought it in. DNA testing is the authority on paternity in modern society - not the mother's testimony. The analogy belongs to a different social and scientific setting. You cannot erase DNA testing from the mind of a contemporary Western audience.
So contemporary presentations have to take this into account.
Going back and changing a historical presentation is another idea entirely and I don't know why you introduce it. That's why I begin by talking about "re-presenting" Srila Prabhupada.
As Ravindra Svarupa pointed out in one of his essays in "Endless Love", analogies do not prove anything, they illustrate things. If an analogy is no longer valid it doesn't change the point that is being explained, it means that the analogy needs to be revised - which is the point of my article.
As for the statistics of children born out of wedlock, it demonstrates that we live in a different social setting from the one that gave us the "ask your mother" example. And yes, the paternity of children is increasingly unclear, for this and related reasons.