45 Speak to give peace of mind not a piece of your mind – Gita 17.15

Hare Krishna. Thank you very much for joining today for this discussion on the Bhagavad Gita.

Today, we will be discussing one of the most important, yet often misunderstood or under-applied verses from the Gita, particularly in terms of how we conduct ourselves and our relationships with others. Applying this verse in our practical devotional life can be a game-changer. The topic we will explore is: “Speak to give peace of mind, not a peace of your mind.” This is based on Bhagavad Gita, Chapter 17, Verse 15.

In this verse, Krishna speaks about the nature of the words we use. He advises that we speak words which do not agitate others. Our speech should be truthful, pleasing (priya), and beneficial (hitam). Additionally, Krishna mentions that repetition of scripture is also a form of the austerity of speech or discipline in speech.

Today, we will cover four main points:

1. The power of speech
2. How to regulate and use the power of speech
3. Why we may self-righteously misuse this power
4. How to speak purposefully and effectively

1. The Power of Speech

Words can have a tremendous impact—both constructive and destructive. The power of speech can be life-saving or life-damaging, depending on how we use it.

Constructive Speech: Words can be encouraging, appreciative, and motivating. They can empower others and give them strength. In fact, if someone is contemplating suicide, a few encouraging words can save their life. Speech can literally be life-saving.

Destructive Speech: On the flip side, speech can be incredibly damaging. Words can hurt more than swords because, while swords leave visible wounds that may heal, words leave invisible wounds that can devastate a person’s emotional and mental state. When faith is shattered, it is like a broken pot—it can be fixed, but it will never be the same as before. This shows that words have the power to damage deeply and irreparably.

As Chanakya Pandit says, “One who wishes to rule the world needs expertise of tongue more than expertise of sword.” Historically, leaders needed not only skill in battle but also the ability to inspire and motivate their soldiers. However, while some used their speech to create devastation (like Hitler, whose oratory caused immense suffering), others used their words positively to inspire and empower people. This shows that words shape our world in either constructive or destructive ways.

2. Regulating the Power of Speech

We all carry a loaded weapon with us every day—our tongue. And unlike a gun, we don’t need a license to have it. While we don’t carry a physical weapon, our words are like a loaded gun, and we must be cautious in how we use them. Words can break hearts, stir anger, and create lasting damage.

For those of us who are articulate, we must be even more careful. The ability to speak well means we can have a greater impact, whether positive or negative. We need to remember that every time we speak, we have the power to either build someone up or tear them down.

3. Why We Self-Righteously Misuse This Power

We often misuse our speech when we are angry or upset. For instance, when I get angry, I can use my words in a way that is harsh, sarcastic, or unforgiving. In these moments, I must remind myself of the importance of choosing words that are not just a release of my anger but are also responsible and kind.

Even when we speak about Krishna, our words must serve our own purification and the edification of others. This is why Krishna’s guidance on speech in the Gita is so crucial—it helps us regulate our emotions and avoid misusing the power of our words.

4. Speaking Purposefully and Effectively

Krishna emphasizes four qualities of speech in this verse:

1. Anudvega Karam: Speech should be non-agitating. We should avoid saying things that stir negative emotions in others.
2. Satyam: Speech should be truthful. Lies, half-truths, or deceitful words can cause harm, so honesty is essential.
3. Priyam: Speech should be pleasing. While the truth can be hard to hear, we must find ways to express it in a way that doesn’t harm others.
4. Hitam: Speech should be beneficial. Our words should help others grow, both materially and spiritually.

Krishna also highlights the importance of scripture in speech, as citing sacred texts is a form of austerity. Repeating the words of scripture in our daily speech is a form of spiritual discipline.

In conclusion, we must recognize the power of our words and use them thoughtfully. Whether it’s in our relationships with others or in our service to Krishna, we should aim to speak words that promote peace, love, and understanding. By doing so, we will not only purify our hearts but also contribute positively to the world around us.

These are four components of disciplined speech: Vanmayam tapa ucyate. So, it’s interesting—the concept of austerity of speech. The austerity of speech, I have translated here as “discipline of speech.” Why specifically austerity or discipline? See, austerity means that there is something we can do, but we voluntarily choose not to do.

For example, austerity in eating, such as fasting. That means we have food to eat, but we choose not to eat. If somebody is starving because they don’t have food, then they’re not really fasting. That’s not fasting; that’s starving. Fasting as austerity means I have food, and I may even have the right to eat it, but I voluntarily choose not to eat it for a higher purpose.

Similarly, when we talk about disciplining our speech, we have the power to speak and may even have the right to speak, but we carefully regulate our speech. Just as we may perform austerity of the body—when we fast, we regulate what goes into our mouths—when we talk about vanmayam tapa, we regulate what comes out of our mouths.

There are two types of austerity: annamayatapa (regulating food) and vanmayatapa (regulating speech). In both, there’s pleasure in eating whatever we like, but we carefully regulate what we eat for a higher purpose. Similarly, we may speak many things and find pleasure in it, but we regulate our speech for a higher purpose. That’s vanmayatapa, austerity of speech.

In the austerity of speech, there are two aspects: being sensitive and being sensible. Being sensitive means we consider people’s feelings and the emotional impact of our words. At the very least, what we speak shouldn’t agitate others. The theme of our talk is “Speak to give peace of mind.” At the best, we aim to speak in a way that uplifts others and makes them feel happy. This is the emotional side of speech.

On the other hand, speech should also be sensible. This means it must be truthful (satya) and beneficial (hita). While many truths may exist, not all truths are beneficial to hear. For example, if a student in their first year finds math difficult, they may express their frustration. While it’s truthful that math can be challenging, telling the student about a 500-page book they will have to study is truthful but not beneficial at that moment.

Thus, truthful speech is the lower bar, and speech that is both truthful and beneficial is the higher bar. This is sensible speech.

Now, let’s look at extremes. If something is sensitive but not sensible, it can be harmful. For instance, in medicine, sometimes pain must be caused for a greater good. If a doctor avoids giving an injection to a child to avoid hurting them, they might be sparing the child from immediate pain but allowing greater harm in the future. Similarly, if we avoid speaking truth because we fear hurting someone’s feelings, we might let them continue on a harmful path. This is being sensitive but not sensible.

On the other hand, if we are sensible but not sensitive, we risk being harsh. For example, a doctor who operates without anesthesia is being sensible about saving the patient’s life but is not sensitive to their present suffering.

When we communicate, we need to be concerned for both the present and the future. If we focus only on the future and ignore the present, we risk being ineffective. If we focus only on the present and ignore the future, we risk being irresponsible.

So, finding the balance between sensitivity and sensibility is key. It’s not always easy to know the balance, but it’s easier to recognize the extremes. If we go off balance, we will feel a “bumping” sensation, like going off the road. Speaking the truth without compassion is hard-hearted, and having compassion without truth is empty-headed. Both extremes make speech ineffective.

To summarize, effective speech must be both truthful and compassionate. We must care for people’s feelings while also considering their future. To achieve this, we can think of speech in terms of two axes: the content of speech (whether it is truthful or not) and the consequence of speech (whether it is compassionate or not). By ensuring both aspects are balanced, we can speak in a way that benefits others emotionally and practically.

So, the best form of speech is when it is kind-hearted and level-headed, as this is most likely to be effective. This means that there is both truth and compassion. If there is only truth without compassion, we may be logically correct, but we won’t be psychologically correct. Our speech will fail to have the desired effect. On the other hand, if there is neither truth nor compassion, it can be worthless or even destructive, as is the case with gossip or rumor-mongering, which are unhealthy forms of speech.

If we are compassionate without being truthful, then our speech becomes “empty-headed.” Nowadays, political correctness can go to extremes, where we are so sensitive that we avoid speaking the truth altogether. Let’s examine these ideas one by one.

Political correctness is not always bad. Certain words can convey unnecessary negative connotations, which need to be avoided, and that’s perfectly fine. However, political correctness can sometimes go to extremes, especially when moral posturing about sensitivity comes at the expense of sensibility. For example, biologically speaking, there are two genders, but gender theory now suggests that gender is a social construct rather than a biological fact. Some gender theories even claim there are 12, 7, or 63 genders, each with its own pronoun. In some places, such as Canada, it has become a legal offense not to address someone by their preferred gender pronoun.

While we do not want to offend people, moral posturing often becomes a way of demonstrating sensitivity without being sensible. Yes, people have their individuality, and we should be sensitive to their gender challenges, such as gender dysphoria. But when reality is rejected in the name of political correctness, are we truly helping people, or are we hurting them?

In the Western world, especially in Europe and America, there is ongoing debate about transgender women—those who transition from male to female. Some claim that transgender women are women because that’s how they identify, but there are concerns, particularly in sports competitions. Transgender women who were originally men may easily win female competitions, leaving women who have trained for years at a disadvantage. Should there be a distinction made here? Is it right to allow transgender women to compete in women’s categories? This is a politically volatile issue, but the point is that sometimes political correctness can go to extremes.

Likewise, logical correctness can also go to extremes. When communicating with people, we must inspire them, not just instruct them. Many can tell others what is right and what is wrong, but people need to be inspired to act on the right thing. Often, before people care about how much we know, they need to know how much we care. If we present an airtight rational case and expect people to follow, we may find they ignore our advice because their hearts were not touched. We are not merely creatures of logic. While logic is one factor we consider in decision-making, it is not the only one. That’s why simply speaking the truth without compassion often doesn’t work.

When there is neither truth nor compassion, the speech becomes particularly destructive, as seen in gossiping. What happens when we gossip? We tend to gossip when we hear something we like about someone we dislike. For instance, if we hear negative news about someone we already have negative feelings toward, we may feel a perverse joy in sharing it with others. Another way to define gossip is the Sanskrit word prajalpa, meaning unnecessary or damaging speech. When we speak negatively about someone to those who cannot do anything about it, it is irrelevant and harmful.

Gossiping also involves poking others into issues that are not their concern. For example, spreading news of political scandals or drama in another group is not relevant to those who cannot influence the situation. In our movement, we need to remember why we’re here: to move toward Krishna. If we have the resources, inspiration, and experience to continue moving toward Krishna, why should we focus on what is happening elsewhere? This doesn’t mean we remain ignorant, but we should not make it our duty to spread negativity.

In the Bhagavatam, Uddhava does not inform Vidura that Krishna has left the world because bad news will spread on its own. Why share bad news? While there are times when we must share unpleasant truths, especially in positions of responsibility, gossiping is unnecessary and counterproductive.

Effective speech, therefore, should open people’s eyes and hearts, not shut their mouths and minds. When we speak to open people’s eyes, we help them see things differently. Instead of merely telling them which way to go, we show them the consequences of their choices and let them decide which path to take. Opening people’s hearts means gaining a place in their hearts so that they trust us and are willing to follow our guidance.

Conversely, shutting people’s mouths means insulting them while refuting their arguments. While we may win the battle by proving them wrong, we risk losing them for good. If we make others feel insulted, they will likely never come back, especially in today’s world where spirituality is just one option among many. Therefore, we must speak to inspire and connect with others, not to belittle or alienate them.

Why should people come to us if they feel insulted by us? Now, let’s talk about closing people’s minds. What does this mean? It means that we present such unacceptable arguments that people decide we’re not worth engaging with. We might present arguments that seem logical to us, but from their perspective, these arguments may be completely unconvincing. If someone gives an answer we find nonsensical, we may decide, “I’m never asking this person again.” In that moment, their mind is closed to us.

Effective speech means being aware of the impact of our words and adjusting them to achieve the desired effect. We should moderate and modify our speech in ways that help open people’s hearts and minds, not close them. This brings us to the second part: regulating the power of speech.

The third part involves understanding why we may misuse the power of speech out of self-righteousness. Sometimes we justify speaking strongly by quoting from the Shastra, saying that a Sadhu’s words are like a surgeon’s scalpel—they may cause pain, but are necessary to cut through illusions. Examples from the scriptures, such as Vidura’s words cutting through Dhritarashtra’s illusions in the Bhagavatam, or the sages Angira and Parvat Muni helping Chitraketu Maharaj, are often cited as instances of strong speech.

While this metaphor of a surgeon’s scalpel can justify strong speech, let’s break it down. Surgery is not performed casually. First, consent must be given. A doctor cannot just drag a patient into the operating room and start cutting; they need the patient’s consent. Similarly, before speaking strongly, we must have the person’s consent—do they recognize that they are wrong and in need of correction? People often don’t acknowledge that they are wrong, or even that they need correction.

Now, let’s assume we are competent “surgeons” in this metaphor. Even then, we still need consent and should consider non-surgical treatments before resorting to strong words. Non-surgical treatment means trying a more positive and gentle approach first. For example, if someone is speaking something wrong, instead of immediately labeling it as stupid, we can appreciate their desire to learn. “I understand where you’re coming from,” or “I can see why you would think that” helps open the conversation without conflict.

Here are four “A’s” to approach non-surgical correction:

1. Appreciation: Even if someone’s understanding is wrong, we can appreciate their desire to know. For instance, if someone quotes a spiritual teacher with an incorrect perspective, we can still acknowledge their curiosity about spirituality.
2. Acceptance: Even if the point is wrong, we can accept that the person has made a sincere effort to understand. This creates a space for more open dialogue.
3. Acknowledge: We can acknowledge the validity of their concern. Even if their expression of it is mistaken, the underlying concern might be worth addressing. This shows respect for their effort to engage with the topic.
4. Address: Instead of countering or crushing their argument, we can address the concern beneath their words. Sometimes, by addressing their deeper concern, we can help them rise to a higher understanding without confrontation.

For example, if someone says, “God is impersonal,” we might say, “I understand why you think that, and in a way, it’s true. God has an impersonal aspect, but He is also personal. The Bhagavad Gita says that the personal aspect is the highest and most complete revelation of the Absolute Truth.” This approach helps raise their understanding without directly confronting their perspective.

In conclusion, before speaking strongly, we must first consider whether we have consent, if we have attempted a gentler approach, and if we are ready to administer our words with care, just like a surgeon with a patient. Only then can our speech have the desired effect, both in terms of truth and compassion.

Telling someone, “Mayavadis are meant to go to hell,” or “Stop speaking like this,” is not going to be effective. Strong words like these are more likely to close minds rather than open them. We must try non-surgical intervention before resorting to strong words.

In this context, anesthesia and pain medication represent the warmth of the relationship, trust, and appreciation that soften strong words. Without a solid relationship, our words can feel like a sudden, unprepared surgery. Anesthesia, in this metaphor, is the trust and bond between us and the person we are trying to help. Without it, our words can seem harsh and unthoughtful. Pain medication, on the other hand, represents the ongoing support from a compassionate, empathetic team that can help minimize the hurt caused by strong words.

We may pride ourselves on how many people we’ve brought to Krishna, but who knows how many we may have driven away with our forceful or inappropriate words? If we only focus on speaking the truth without considering its impact, we might unknowingly alienate those we seek to help.

Now, let’s move on to how to speak purposefully and effectively. Some argue that our scriptures are full of strong speech, but it’s essential to understand that these strong words were effective because they were spoken at the right time and with the right relationship. Take the example of Vidura speaking to Dhritarashtra. Vidura’s words cut through Dhritarashtra’s illusions, but that only worked because Vidura had built a strong, patient relationship with him over time.

Vidura didn’t speak harshly right away. He had been advising Dhritarashtra for a long time, but Dhritarashtra rejected his advice. Only when Dhritarashtra lost his attachment to Duryodhana after his son’s death did he become ready to hear Vidura’s words. So, it wasn’t just the strength of Vidura’s words, but Dhritarashtra’s readiness to hear them that made the difference. Words spoken at the wrong time or in the wrong way can backfire and close someone’s heart.

Vidura’s patience is a key lesson. He didn’t burn bridges with Dhritarashtra by speaking harshly too soon. He didn’t join the battle and kill Dhritarashtra’s sons, which would have closed Dhritarashtra’s heart to him forever. Vidura understood that timing and relationship were critical in delivering his message effectively.

Now, this doesn’t mean we should never speak strongly, but we need to consider the consequences of our words. When people have wrong conceptions or are making wrong choices, sometimes strong words are necessary. However, the goal is not just to speak the truth, but to correct misconceptions or help others make better choices. We must also be mindful of how our words affect the person’s willingness to accept the truth.

The choice is not always between speaking the full truth or compromising the truth. Sometimes, it’s about whether our words will attract people to the truth or alienate them from it. Speaking the truth harshly can lead to the person walking away feeling alienated, even if we believe we are correcting their mistake. The key is not just what we say, but how it’s received.

When people make wrong choices, we may be tempted to correct them forcefully, but we need to consider the impact on the relationship. Sometimes, it’s more productive to allow them to make mistakes and learn from them, as long as we maintain the relationship. For example, with parenting, we may need to be firm when children are young, but as they grow older, if we force them to follow a particular path, they may resent us. Forcing them may ruin their relationship with us and with Krishna. Sometimes, letting them make their own choices and learn from them is more productive in the long run.

If we say, “One day you’ll realize your stupidity and come crawling back,” even if the person is wrong, we risk damaging the relationship permanently. It becomes an issue of pride, not truth, and they may never return, even if they eventually realize their mistake.

In conclusion, speaking strongly can be necessary at times, but we must carefully consider the effect of our words. Are we correcting misconceptions and helping people make better choices? Or are we pushing them away? The goal is to speak with purpose, compassion, and awareness of how our words will impact the relationship and the person’s willingness to change.

Sometimes, preserving the relationship is more important than being right. Some might argue that there are references in our tradition where people speak strongly, and yes, those references exist. However, there are many other references that emphasize sensitivity in communication. Let’s look at a few examples:

For instance, in Nectar of Instruction (Updesha Amrit), it is said that great devotees are free from the tendency to criticize others. Bhakti Siddhanta Thakur also advises, “Don’t criticize anyone, whether devotees or non-devotees. They have their own conceptions; let them be. Correcting them is the responsibility of their spiritual master, not yours.”

In the Bhagavad Gita, Krishna speaks about how harsh speech is a characteristic of the demoniac, not the divine. He says in the verse Anudvika Karam Vakyam that words should not agitate others’ minds. Even if we are enlightened and others are not, Krishna tells us not to disturb people’s minds but to engage them in a way that gradually elevates them.

Krishna also teaches how to handle differences of opinion without being disagreeable. He says that while some people believe activities like Yajna (sacrifice), Dhana (charity), and Tapas (austerity) should be renounced, others think they should be performed. Krishna refers to the former group as “Manishinaha” (those who have controlled their minds), acknowledging their respect for the path of spiritual disentanglement, even if their conclusions differ.

This shows that we should look for the good in others rather than zero in on their faults, delighting in criticizing them. We need to appreciate where others are right rather than simply pointing out where they are wrong. The Shastras provide ample examples of sensitive speaking, and this is seen in both the Bhagavad Gita and Bhagavatam, among others.

Looking at Prabhupada’s example, we can see he used the word “fools and rascals” sparingly. He used the term 2,791 times in his conversations, 1,373 times in his lectures, and only 157 times in his written works. Despite Prabhupada speaking strongly at times, he always did so in contexts where the trust had already been established, and the audience was receptive. He reserved stronger language for situations where he had earned the right to correct, such as with his intimate disciples, while his written works were generally more measured.

In fact, in 1976, when a disciple asked if they could transcribe his lectures, Prabhupada replied that it would be unnecessary, as his message was already contained in his books. This shows that Prabhupada preferred his teachings to be shared in a considered, respectful manner.

Prabhupada’s sensitivity is also evident in his dealings with life members in India. For example, when a disciple began growing his beard and dressing like a hippie, Prabhupada’s response was gentle. Instead of criticizing harshly, Prabhupada simply pointed out the difference between the pictures of the prostitute from Haridas Thakur’s story, one before and one after her spiritual transformation, highlighting that a devotee’s appearance should reflect their seriousness in practice.

Thus, while Prabhupada did use strong words when necessary, his overall approach was one of balance. He spoke effectively, using strong language only when the situation warranted it. His example teaches us that to be faithful to Prabhupada’s mood is not about mimicking his use of strong language but about speaking effectively to fulfill his purpose.

To correct someone, we need the right relationship, the right context, and the right disposition. Criticizing someone publicly may humiliate them and make them less receptive. Furthermore, we need to be sure that our own information is accurate. Correcting someone based on faulty information or logic is not helpful and may even harm the relationship.

In conclusion, humility in speech means recognizing that our words alone will not have an effect unless they align with destiny or Krishna’s will. Before speaking, we should pray, not as a ritual, but genuinely ask Krishna to speak through our hearts and open the hearts of the audience. When we examine Prabhupada’s mood in Markine Bhagavat Dharma, we see his deep dedication and humility. Prabhupada prays, “Krishna, you make my words understandable to them.” This is not just about his accented Bengali English, but his desire to connect with their hearts. His prayer was remarkably successful, as it helped him transform countless hearts and inspire people.

Rather than focusing on speaking strongly, we should focus on speaking humbly. We must discern when we are acting as Krishna’s agent and when we are acting out of ego—speaking to prove others wrong versus speaking to give them peace of mind. The ultimate peace of mind comes when we connect people to Krishna, speaking in a way that inspires them to engage with Krishna, rather than simply instructing them.

For our speech to be effective, the greatest quality we need is virtue. Humility and tolerance are crucial when presenting our worldview, understanding, and dealing with wrong conceptions or choices. We must act not just to correct others, but to correct them in a way that allows them to receive the correction positively.

Today, I discussed how we can speak in a way that gives people peace of mind rather than a piece of our mind. First, we explored the power of speech: Constructive speech can encourage and save lives, while destructive speech can devastate. Words shape worlds, as Chanakya said, and for that, we must speak with sensitivity and sensibility. Truth without compassion is hard-hearted, and compassion without truth is empty-headed. We should aim to speak in a way that acknowledges others’ feelings and cares about their future trajectory.

We often feel justified in speaking strongly, thinking that it will cut people’s illusions. However, as we discussed, the example of the surgeon and the need for consent, preparation, and appropriate intervention shows that we cannot simply rely on strong words. Our words must come from a place of relationship, respect, and preparation.

Prabhupada’s example further emphasizes this point. He spoke strongly at times, but he also understood when to speak gently. He was sparing in his use of strong words, especially in his written works, and only used them when appropriate in private conversations with his disciples. Being faithful to Prabhupada’s mood does not mean speaking harshly, but speaking effectively—choosing the right words at the right time to serve the purpose of Krishna’s mission.

Finally, humility in speech involves knowing that Krishna will act through us and the hearts of those we speak to, not just our words. Our goal should be to connect with Krishna and inspire others to do the same, speaking with humility, sensitivity, and a focus on the ultimate peace of mind—connecting to Krishna.

Thank you very much. Hare Krishna.

Prabhupada spoke in different ways at different times, and we need to consider the context—Deshikaal Patra (time, place, and circumstance). Rather than judging whether speech is harsh or strong, the key is effectiveness. From my experience, I haven’t seen that strong speaking is effective. Often, when people continue despite strong speaking, it is due to their sincerity, not because of the forceful speech. I’ll share an example from my college days: a close friend, a social activist, came to our temple. Someone spoke strongly against a popular spiritual teacher, calling him a “demon.” This made my friend stop attending our programs, and soon, very few people came. This person later became a Mayavadi sannyasi in that very same organization. What did we gain by speaking strongly? Nothing but damage.

Sometimes, people ask if speaking flowery words dilutes the principles. While it’s true that Prabhupada emphasized the importance of purity in practice, our preaching isn’t about finding one moon and extinguishing a thousand stars. The problem arises when we focus on criticizing other paths instead of building relationships. The Vedic culture is multi-level: those who cannot practice pure bhakti are given alternative paths, like worshipping the devatas. Even impersonalism, while not the highest, is respected. For example, the Bhagavatam does not criticize Shamik Rishi, even though he was an impersonalist. Instead, it shows respect for his path, just as King Parikshit showed respect for him.

When we engage with people, we must remember that we cannot always know someone’s spiritual level. People may follow a Mayavadi teacher without fully understanding Mayavada or impersonalism, attracted by other qualities like social service or charisma. So, are we speaking flowery words? It’s all about context. “Flowery words” is a value judgment. Our speech should help people come toward Krishna, not extinguish their potential for growth. We may end up engaging in debates about the nature of God, thinking we’ve won, but the other person might walk away thinking that the whole concept of God is confusing and opt for atheism instead.

In the end, our actions sometimes create barriers to our message. Websites like Quora often depict ISKCON as fanatical or judgmental. Are all those people foolish? No, they’ve likely had negative experiences with strong or dismissive preaching. Unfortunately, our movement can sometimes be our own enemy, damaging its own preaching. I’ve met many people who were victims of harsh or strong preaching, and I’ve tried to help them salvage their spiritual lives.

As for the question of dilution, it’s important to understand that this is also a judgment. Was Prabhupada diluting when he accepted life members? He didn’t force them to dress a certain way or chant 16 rounds immediately. Instead, he spoke with them reasonably, welcomed them, offered them prasad, and showed kindness. Prabhupada’s ability to balance strong philosophical teachings with compassionate engagement is often understated. The recordings we have focus on his strong words, but they don’t always capture the full scope of his interactions, which were often gentle and respectful.

So, when we look at today’s movement, which is mostly congregation devotees, we must ask ourselves: how do we define a devotee? Everyone is a volunteer, and many come to Krishna Consciousness from different backgrounds. Speaking strongly in a judgmental way can push people away, making spirituality an option they reject. Instead, we should aim to speak in ways that draw people in, fostering their connection to Krishna through respect and understanding.

The content shared in the discussion emphasizes the importance of effective communication in spiritual or philosophical conversations, especially when conveying truths that may be difficult for some people to hear. Here’s a breakdown of the main ideas discussed:

1. The Balance of Strong Speech and Compassion

It is important to speak the truth boldly, especially in spiritual settings, but this should be done with awareness of its potential emotional impact. Strong speech should not be aimed at attacking individuals but rather addressing the ideas or philosophies they hold. When delivering a strong message, we should be mindful of how it might affect others emotionally.

2. The Danger of Harsh Speech

While it is necessary to speak the truth, the speaker warns that harsh speech—speaking in a way that disregards the feelings or emotional state of others—can be counterproductive. Such speech, even when true, may drive people away or alienate them, especially if they feel personally attacked or criticized. This is seen in how many people who are disgruntled with ISKCON have gone to other religious movements due to feeling hurt by strong speech or the presumption that one side is always right.

3. Context is Key

The speaker stresses that context plays a major role in how a message is received. The same philosophical truth can be presented in different ways depending on the audience’s emotional state, background, and understanding. For instance, if someone is an atheist, attacking them directly for their beliefs might be unproductive. Instead, engaging them in a conversation, making them feel like a partner in exploration rather than an adversary, may lead to more productive outcomes.

4. Avoid Making It Personal

When discussing spiritual or philosophical issues, it’s crucial not to make it personal. The focus should be on critiquing ideas rather than criticizing the individual. For example, if someone holds a particular belief, rather than criticizing their character, it’s more effective to discuss why their belief may be flawed and provide alternative perspectives.

5. Understanding the Audience

In order to communicate effectively, it’s important to understand your audience—to know their experiences, emotional triggers, and context. This understanding allows us to tailor our speech in ways that minimize unnecessary harm while still delivering important truths. For example, if someone is struggling with depression, using a sensitive approach may be more helpful than offering harsh criticism of their lifestyle.

6. Sensitivity to Personal Experiences

Sometimes, certain topics—like suicide or mental health—might be too painful for certain people to hear, especially if they’ve had direct experiences with them. In such cases, it’s important to adjust the examples or avoid triggering personal pain, if possible. The idea is that we must be mindful of emotional dimensions while still conveying the message that material life is transient and ultimately unsatisfactory.

7. Spiritual Speech and Emotional Impact

The overall message is that effective spiritual speech should aim to elevate, inspire, and guide people without causing unnecessary harm. Strong truths are necessary, but how we speak those truths matters just as much as what we speak. Sensitivity, empathy, and understanding are crucial elements in making sure the message lands in a way that helps others grow rather than pushing them away.

Conclusion

In sum, strong speech is important in conveying the truth, but it must be delivered with compassion and care for the emotional state of others. Understanding context, avoiding personal attacks, and tailoring our approach based on the emotional needs of the audience are all essential aspects of effective communication in spiritual matters. The goal is not just to be right but to be effective in helping others on their spiritual journey.

So thank you Param Kurn Prabhu for that important question and thank you everyone for your participation.