Are dogs a condemned species? — Understanding Prabhupada’s difficult statements | Alachua, USA
Hare Krishna. So I’m grateful to be here with all of you today. And I seek the blessings of all the pro bodh disciples and senior devotees so that I can speak something on the Bhagavatam. I’m especially grateful for the overwhelming participation and appreciation for yesterday’s session. I have been trying to understand and share the Bhagavad Gita in many different ways, and I was not sure about how this particular approach would be received.
So I’m very grateful for your encouragement. I also thank the temple management for facilitating this seminar. Today we’ll have the second part in the evening. So actually I got this verse only yesterday night, or rather today morning, and I was talking with a couple of devotees in the morning, and one devotee, sir, told me that if you’re a politician, this is the kind of topic that could end your career. So the theme so I’ll I’ll try to let’s look at what is going on over here in this context, and I will try to explain this in two with two main points in the session.
So the context here is that this particular verse is coming in the section of the pregnancy of. And here, those who act in reproachable ways, how they are condemned is being described. So so the punishment, whether it be curse or whatever, by the Brahmanas, is among the most feared things in the Vedic tradition. And even the fifth canto, Bharat Maharaj also prays that that when he’s or other Jagannath is speaking to Jagannath, and he’s saying that, I don’t fear even the weapons of the gods as much as I fear the curse by a brahmana. So that is the key principle over here.
And those who are living in ways that terrorize others, they are condemned. They’ll be condemned to hellish conditions in the in the future life as well as in this life. And for that Srila Prabhupada is focusing on this, the principle of being condemned. And he’s giving the example of life of life as a dog as something which is condemned. Now this may seem, you know, why pick on dogs?
What have they done to harm you? Somebody may ask. So I’ll talk about this in two broad principles I’ll talk. Basically, the theme will be like understanding difficult statements in scriptures or difficult statements by. That’s the topic I’ll be discussing.
And I’ll leave some time for, comments and questions also. And it is not that I have a conclusive understanding. I’m also trying to see how this is to be understood and to be explained. So the two main points I’ll be talking about is in terms of two acronyms, arc and cut. The arc by which we can cut through misunderstandings and move toward the deeper understanding.
See, in general, whenever we take any statement in scripture, any scriptural statement is there, There are two extremes that we can go towards. One is that we absolutize the statement. And we can go to the other extreme, and we can relativize the statement. So a r c, that’s the acronym method I said. Absoluteizing is one extreme.
Relativizing is the other extreme. In between is to contextualize. Now there is a huge difference between relativizing and contextualizing, and I’ll explain that gradually. So let’s look at it. What does absolutizing a statement mean?
Absolutizing means that this statement has to be applied now in today’s world in the absolutely same form as it was given at that particular time. So if you consider absolutizing, the Gita is a book that calls Arjuna to fight. So everybody who is following the Gita should take up weapons and start fighting. Now that is not the way the tradition has understood the Gita. It’s only recently just in the pre independence times.
In India, there’s a political party called the Congress. Here, the Congress refers to the it’s the body itself, Indian National Congress. So when it was agitating for independence, some of the political leaders wrote commentaries on the Bhagavad Gita. And they said, the Britishers are like the Kauravas. And you, oh, Indians, have to be like Arjuna.
And we, the Indian National Congress, is like Krishna. And we are giving you the instruction of the Bhagavad Gita, fight against the Britishers. Now this was not the interpretation, that take up literal weapons and fight given by the Acharya. That is not the essential message of the Gita. Vishnu Acharya Thakur lived at a time when Vrindavan had just been devastated by Aurangzeb.
In India recently, hugely popular movie has come about. The atrocities that this Muslim king Aurangzeb did against, Maratha king, Chhatrapati Shivaji, Shastambhaji Maharaj. So this whole issue of Aurangzeb is very much active in India right now. But the point is Chakravartipath was living at a time when Vrindavan that Mahaprabhu and the Goswami had restored had been devastated by Aurangzeb. And Chakravartipath pioneered the restoration of Vrindavan.
And yet, nowhere in his purports to the Bhagavad Gita does he say. To follow the Bhagavad Gita, rise against all these Mughals and destroy them. No. So now, could that be an application? Yes.
In Arjuna’s context, for him, rise and fight was the application. But there is a contextual meaning, and that contextual meaning is not meant to be absolutized. So there is the universal principle is Krishna the point of the Gita is not just to get Arjuna to fight. The point of the Gita is to get Arjuna to rise to a higher consciousness. And in that higher consciousness, the action that he needs to do there in that particular context is fight.
So if you consider the Gita, the Gita has a contextual message and a universal message. So the contextual message is fight. The universal message is raise your consciousness. Learn to act in harmony with God. Don’t just see what I like to do, what I don’t like to do.
See that God has a plan and become a part of God’s plan. And that is what we seek Arjuna’s mood also in 1873. When he says, I’m I I accept what you’re saying. My illusion is dispelled. He does not say I will fight.
He says, I will do your will. Now that will happens to be in that context, fighting. So now this is one example, and we could give many examples of how absolutizing scriptural statements is not only not possible, but that is not what has been done in the scriptural tradition itself. There was one Christian who wrote a book about about something like hundred days of literally living the Bible. And it’s everything in the Bible.
If somebody commits adultery, stone them to death. So can you do that today? So the point is that absolutizing scripture is something which, the tradition itself tells us. This is not the way to do it. We learn from the ex we learn from the tradition itself.
Now when scripture is not to be absolutized, some people go to the other extreme and start relativizing it. Now relativize means what? Oh, you know, those people at that time thought like that. And that has no application in today’s world. It is just that person’s subjective opinion at that time.
Now now relativizing can lead to a lot of devaluation. And nowadays, there is a lot of, moral relativism in today’s world. So this is my truth, and this is your truth. This is the way I want to live, and that is the way you want to live. Now, you know, when we talk about relativism, even from a logical perspective, we cannot relativize everything in the world.
There has to be some universal principles. In the new the Nuremberg trials were held after the second World War. And the Nazis, generals, they said, you know, you can’t hold us responsible for the Holocaust. Why? Because we are in the military.
And the training that we get in military is follow orders. So we’re just following orders. So we are not responsible. But that was not accepted. You know, the idea was that there are there is a absolute moral right and wrong, and that is what we should be following irrespective of whatever context we are in.
So we can’t just context we can’t just absoluteize everything, control or, you know, just because you’re in that situation, you did that. We are human agents. We are responsible. I was giving a talk in Amazon, and there, I was talking about how now I’m not talking specifically about scripture, but I’m talking about how relativism doesn’t work, that complete devising of things. And so I was giving a talk on how on the topic of how we need some compass that is universal.
And then one person said that, you know, but there’s no such universal compass. Everybody has their own sense of right and wrong. So then I asked him, okay. Right now, is there anything in the world that is going on that you think is wrong? He said, yeah.
Of course, there are terrorists. There are religious fanatics. There are child abusers. There are sex sexual molesters. Then I said to him, do you think that those people think that they’re doing something wrong?
Many times, they don’t think like that. So if we use, there will be no such thing as crime at all. We cannot live like that. So after that, one of the user of the top executives at Amazon, he came and told me that, you know, we in our website also, they’re a materialistic company, but they say that we don’t want to promote any kind of child sexual abuse. So when they show apparel, when they show clothes, it’s for men and women.
They will show men and women wearing those clothes. But for children, they don’t show children babies wearing the clothes. So the idea is there also, they have some boundaries, the materialistic company, but there also they have boundaries. It’s not all relative. I was in Dubai, and in Dubai, there are very weird shaped buildings.
The triangular and pentagons and hexagons, all kind of buildings are there. And that’s considered the part of, like, postmodern or cutting edge architecture. Now we can have buildings of all kinds of shapes, but we can’t have foundations of all kinds of shapes. The foundation of a building has to be in a particular way so that we can sustain the building. So like that, yes, there can be something which is relative.
But there is something which is not just relative. Oh, I like this kind of foundation. I’ll have this kind of foundation. No. The foundation has to sustain the building.
So absolutizing is not right. Relativizing is also not right. So most people think only in these two terms. Absolutize or relativize. And what happens when we go into these two terms?
It becomes very polarizing. That, you know, if you absolutize, you’re being so irrational, you’re being fanatical. How can you believe something like this? And your relativize, who do you think you are? You think you are cleverer than scripture?
You think you’re cleverer than the Acharya? You think you know better? So there’s this in between absolutizing and relativizing is contextualizing. Now what does contextualizing mean? So I’ll talk about this in terms of one particular as I said, the second thing I’ll talk about is the cut how to cut through emotions.
So generally, whenever scripture is to be understood, you know, there is okay. Let’s put it this way. Let me put it another way here. There is something which is called as a ladder of abstraction. It’s often used in, literature.
So what is the ladder of abstraction? That whenever we want to understand something, at the top of the ladder let me just repeat this ladder. So this is a ladder. At the bottom of the ladder are specific details. At the top of the ladder are universal principles.
So the idea is for any if you want to actually retain interest and give a meaningful message, then we need to go up and down this ladder of abstraction. So specific details, often they catch interest. They’re interesting. So if I come and say that, okay. Today, I’m going to talk about how the population of bears in Alaska is decreasing.
What has that got to do with the disease? Why are you talking about that in the Bhagavatam? Now there’s a specific deal. It might be interesting, but how is it relevant? Then I say, based on that, I talk about how the climate is changing and how materialism is causing exploitation of nature.
And therefore, even for the survival of species, we humans need a spiritual consciousness. So then it makes it more relevant. So universal principles are what make it sorry. This is universal. That is what makes it more relevant.
So there is they show how it’s relevant. Show relevance. So, you know, we have to do both things, catch interest and show relevance. So for example, we may watch a movie or, read a novel. That may be interesting.
But unless we can relate something with our life, there’s nothing to learn over there. We can read Ramayana and Mahabharata, and that could just be entertaining stories. But then our acharyas give purports, give commentaries in which you learn some lessons. So generally, when anything is to be understood, anything is to be communicated, there is this idea of ladder of abstraction. So abstract is something which is not very, tangible, something that’s more universal.
So there’s a bottom, which is specific, top, which is more abstract or universal. So now when scripture is to be understood also, this idea that scripture is spoken at a particular time, there’s a contextual there’s a contextual statement. A statement is made in a particular context. Now we don’t just say, okay, in that context, and doesn’t apply today. That would be relativizing.
And it’s just those people’s opinion at that time. But from there, we rise upward from the contextual statement. We rise to look at what is the universal principle over here. What is the universal principle? And then from that universal principle, so cut is the acronym, then there is today’s application.
How does it apply today? So this going up and down the ladder of abstraction is what enables us to actually make script or see how scripture is relevant to us. Now Srila Prabhupada may not have specifically mentioned this, but he uses it many times. For example, in prayer prayers, where he’s telling how a person who who is not controlling their senses is pulled in various directions by the senses just like a person who has multiple wives and is pulled by them. And there, so one of the things is that the Sanskrit says that the ears are attracted to tempting music.
Now even in the western tradition, the idea that the siren song and somebody may get caught by that. So now Prabhupada puts that as the ears are attracted to movie songs or radio songs. Now we may say and Prabhupad puts it in translation only, not even the purport. The ears are attracted to radio songs. And now we may say there was no radio at the time of Prahlad as far as we know at least.
So what is Prabhupad doing? Prabhupad is taking that particular concept. And, okay, the ears are attracted to, attracted to attract, to tempting sounds. And is giving a today’s application. Of course, today’s application means the application for him at that time.
Today, it might be the ears are attracted to what? YouTube songs or whatever. We might put it like that. But the idea is that does that. For example, also we have Prabhupa translated the idea of.
When we do, that is like paying tax. Now this is a very contemporary, easily understandable concept. But, you know, that’s not exactly the way the yagna is understood. Yagna is sacrifice. But Prabhupad says, when you’re doing yagna, you’re paying tax.
So Prabhupada this was actually Prabhupada’s expertise. He would take what was given in scripture at one time, and then he would make it relevant to us today. So similarly, we see in the fifteenth chapter when Krishna says that He says that that abode is not illuminated by the sun, moon, or fire. Now puts electricity over there. Now there is no Sanskrit word with.
No electricity over there. Now what is doing by putting electricity over there? Prabhupad is making that particular point relevant. So if you apply that that of abstraction, here is that that sun, moon, and fire. That’s what is mentioned.
That is the specific statement that is there. What is the universal principle over there? That the spiritual world this is 15.6. What is the universal principle? The spiritual world is self luminous.
The spiritual world illuminates itself, And we don’t that it does not need to be illuminated by anything else. And Krishna will contrast us later, six verses, in 15.12, when he says that the material world needs to be illuminated, and he the same three list. That I am the sun, moon, and fire by which this world is illuminated. I manifested those things. So the point is the spiritual world is different from the material world.
The spiritual world is self luminous. It does not need any external source of luminosity. Now for many people today, for them, more than the sun, moon, and fire, the source primary source of luminosity today is electricity. So Srila Prabhupada mentioned sun, moon, and fire, but he also adds electricity. So what is he doing?
He is making that universal principle relevant to us today. He’s showing what is the application in today’s world for us. So let’s now, adopt this approach and see what this particular purport how we can understand this particular purport. So now if you see the if you see Srila Prabhupada’s books. Srila Prabhupada’s books, they have both a timeless aspect to them and a timely aspect to them.
Timeless means they contain principle that are going to guide us for hundreds and thousands of years. At the time, at the same time, Srila Prabhupada wrote those books at a particular time. And he was addressing devotees at that particular time. So, you know, we cannot say that the books are timeless, so there’s nothing timely about them. It’s like, say, now when we give a talk, when initially gave a talk, he was speaking to a particular audience.
So he was he was giving his talks with some people in mind. Now he was not speaking only to those people. He is speaking for all of humanity. But can we say that he was not speaking to those audience at all? No.
He was speaking to those audience. When Srila Prabhupada was in India, he would give classes in Hindi. Because he’s speaking to that audience also. So there is a timeless component, and there’s a timely component. So for example, Srila Prabhupada speaks about generally the spiritual master in singular.
He was writing at a time when he was the spiritual master. Now when we have organization, there are multiple spiritual masters. Now how exactly are those purports to be applied? And how that principle of following the spiritual master will be universal. But how exactly is to be applied?
That has to be contextually considered. So there’s a timeless aspect, and there’s a timely aspect to it. So now keeping this in mind that what is the universal principle over here? If you consider the universal point is that the universal point over here is that, you know, we wrongdoings, especially wrongdoings that involve offenses to Brahmanas, disrespecting of Brahmanas, wrongdoings will lead to a dark place, will lead to a condemned place, will lead us to a condemned place. That is the key principle.
That is a universal principle that we will be punished. Wrong now wrong rules will be condemned. And more specifically, offenses to Brahmanas, disrespecting Brahmanas, that will lead to hell or hellish conditions. This is the universal principle that Shilpa Upadis, that the scripture itself is talking about. That’s the word that’s what the verse is about.
And now within that context, now what does this particular statement about dogs, dogs being condemned species, mean? So, you know, I’ll I’ll talk about this from a philosophical perspective, a scriptural perspective, a historical perspective. And this is how we’ll try to contextualize it. Now from a philosophical perspective, the idea that the word dogs are considered it’s not that there’s a statement of hating dogs in particular. Dogs are often seen as representing, in general, nonhuman species.
Dogs, they represent nonhuman species. And we have, there are many places where the our dogs are taken. And the point over here is that it represents nonhuman species in general. Now there can be many nonhumans. And the point is that in that particular species, a soul who has gone is has lost the human life the opportunity of human life.
And that soul is going to get opportunity after a long time. So that con condemned is certainly not in the religious sense of Christianity or some religions where there’s eternal damnation. It’s not used condemned in that sense. Condemned is also not used in today’s sense where the idea is, you know, I hate you and I condemn you. It is used in a philosophical sense where the opportunity for spiritual life is lost.
And now you see that that that that well known words, that a person who considers a person who considers their own land to be worshipable. A person who goes to a holy place just to bathe. It is said, sir, Such a person is like a cow or a What is a? Ass. A donkey.
Now we may say, cows are considered sacred. Why are cows and donkeys put together in one category? Isn’t this a? So the point is in that context, both of them are representative of animal species. So the key point is that another context, a cow is considered very special.
Cow is dear to Krishna, and we don’t technically worship cows. You know? But cows are also respectable. Now there is a go puja which is contextual. It’s not that we’d consider cows to be gods.
In the western context, worship means considering them to god. That’s not exactly the same. But the point is, in some context, cows may be very elevated. And in some context, the whole idea of a cow may be considered unintelligent, like a donkey. Now cows and donkeys are very different.
Yet so in context, sometimes animals are referred to the whole animal species as a nonhuman species, which lacks philosophical intelligence to pursue spiritual life. So certain beings may be taken as representatives of that. So it is not so much singling out on dogs itself, but it’s more a symbolic reference to dogs. Now when we talk about dogs from a scriptural perspective, So there is a story associated with the Ramayana. It it comes in the Ananda Ramayana.
Now where there is a dog named Sarama. So lord Ram, it is said, this is he he had he was so open to ensure that there’s justice everywhere that he had a big bell in the center of his the center of in a central marketplace, in a central, crossroad. Anybody could ring that bell, and then their case would be taken to lord Ram, and justice would be given to them. So one time it happened that a dog started pulling that bell. And then the dog was brought before Lord Ram.
And the dog said, you know, my life is so miserable. All other dogs are picking on me. You know, all other dogs are hurting me. Why is my life so miserable? And then Lord Ram talked with the Brahmanas, and the Brahmanas gave a vision that this dog in a previous life had been a Matadipati.
So a is like a is like a a managerial head of a religious institution. And as a managerial head of a religious institution, he while managing, he had offended the Brahmanas living in that monastery, in that matter. And because he had offended the Brahmanas, he became a dog. And because he had troubled others, now other dogs are troubling him. So now one devotee who was who was a manager, he told me after I heard this story, I thought I should resign from management.
It’s a difficult service. Prabhupad wanted us to do that service. But I tried to find out whether Prabhupad is referring to the story. There’s no other place where I’ve seen Prabhupad refers to this particular story. But, you know, there are context where the dog’s specie and this particular idea of a dog being condemned.
So this Brahmana was named Sarama in a previous life, and this Sarama was condemned. So now there could be this scriptural context is the story of, of a Matadipati becoming a dog. So now now beyond that, if you consider, as I said, the same cow example of the cow I gave, in some cases, it’s considered very positive. Oh, cows are so dear to Krishna. Another context, it’s considered, that, oh, they are unintelligent.
And it is also there are some places, you know, sometimes you have a imitation calf brought in front of a cow. And that calf seems to start tackling its milk, and the cow starts giving milk. So there are cases where it’s talking about how a cow is not so intelligent. So gentleness, purity, dearness to Krishna, these are positives of a cow. But there are also cases where it’s negative.
So now if we consider dogs okay, before this, I’m going more into psychological perspective before I go into historical with which I’ll conclude. So if we consider dogs from a psychological perspective, so on one side, their loyalty has always been praised. And within our tradition also, we have, Bakhtul Thakur says, Tomar Kukuru. He says that, oh, I want to be like your dog. That is so from the loyalty, it’s considered very positive.
But that same loyalty can lead to territoriality. Territoriality is this is my territory, and you cannot come in over here. And Srila Prabhupad would use this to refer to immigration. You say that, you know, that, you know, we are not criminals. We are not thieves.
Why should we be frisked in security? It’s like a dog saying that this is my territory. You cannot come in. Now from security considerations perspective, we understand that the people who are coming into country, they need to be frisked. But Prabhupada is making a particular point, and he would compare immigration officers to dogs.
Not all the time. He said they are being so territorial. You think everything is Krishna’s property, you think it is my property. So from that perspective of territoriality, dogs can be quite territorial. It’s not only dogs who are territorial.
Tigers and lions can also be territorial. But dogs can be territorial. And when they are territorial oh, I didn’t realize it. Sorry. Oh, okay.
We’ll fix something today. So dogs can be quite territorial, and the territoriality can lead to some severe fighting among dogs also. So when the condemned is being talked about, it is not a blanket condemnation of dogs. That dogs are themselves among all species, they are bad. They represent animal life.
And even among dogs specifically, there are attribute that are good also. And themselves as where we have the story of Shivananda Singh being so compassionate to a dog. And the dog getting elevated, dog getting liberated. So the point is now last point I make it is historical. From a historical perspective, Srila Prabhupada came to the West in his when he was almost, 70.
And it’s remarkable that in the last ten years of his life, he was able to, he was able to do so much in terms of spreading Krishna consciousness all over the world. Now traditionally, dogs, and you could say in pre industrial society, They sold certain functions. They were for guarding. They were for hunting, and they were for herding. These were the main functions.
Guarding is they guard the house. Hunting is, you know, people dogs hunt people who are some people who want to go to hunt. In hunting, partying, they have dogs which will corner the animal, and then the person will shoot them. And herding is if you have cattle, it’ll herd them. So from that perspective, Prabhupada would often say that dogs should always be outdoors.
And so now when they’re outdoors, dogs mark their territory. And sometimes they can be territorial. They can fight over it. Now if you consider, this is how it was traditional even in the West. But in the modern times, after urbanization started, after urbanization led to fragmentation of the extended family, then there was dislocation.
There’s a lot more loneliness. So it is only in modern times that dogs have become more as pets. It’s not that people would have pets so extensively. Queen Victoria, she had a pet and she made a pet dog. And from that time, just to please her, all the British royals started having dogs as pets.
And then that’s how the idea of it is not just like a psychological need, but also become like a status symbol, a prestige symbol. A cool cultural trend to have a dog. So dogs as pets is relatively a modern phenomenon. Now we also have we have dogs as service dogs, the therapy dogs for people with special needs. And those dogs may come indoors.
Some people have psychological needs. So relatively speaking, the cultural context today is different. And the cultural context, Prabhupada was that was different. So the today’s application is, a, the Prabhupada said dogs are condemned. If you don’t agree with that, you are deviating from Prabhupada.
Now that would be absolutizing the statement. Now relativizing the statement would be, you know, that is just Prabhupada’s opinion. No. Contextualizing the statement would be there’s a universal principle over there. Universal principle is there are states of existence that are condemned.
And if we offend Brahmanas, if we offend devotees, we will go to those condemned states. And we have to be careful not to act in ways that will be offensive. And that way, we can avoid going into those condemned states. I’ll just make one last point and conclude this. And now what those condemned states might be, that can be very different.
There was a survey done among Indians who went to America. And Indians come to America, and sometimes they don’t get visa extension. They go back to India. The survey, sometimes people just in their board meetings, they have icebreakers. So they ask different questions, get to know people.
So they asked a question to about it was, like, 500 Indians that all these Indians had gone to America and come back or come to America and gone back to India. So I said, if reincarnation were real, which species would like to be born you to be born in? And out of these 500 Indians, more than hundred Indians, the majority said, we would like to be born as a dog in America. Because the dogs live so comfortably. Now should have proved that worse.
Now normally from the traditional contextual perspective, birth in the West is considered to be a relatively degraded world. The West is materialistic, West is godless. So out birth in Bharat Varsha is considered to be auspicious. Birth outside is considered not so auspicious. But in that particular verse, when Jann Maheshwari Prayers, I mean, Prabhupadhu is a lecture on that, and he talks about the appearance of birth.
And he’s speaking to Americans. He says, all of you are born America. This is such a prosperous country. And you are fortunate to be born over here. Now use your good fortune.
So now is birth in America auspicious or inauspicious? Well, it depends on context. Now if we consider from a traditional cultural context, yes, birth outside India is inauspicious. But if you consider from a contemporary, say, geopolitical or economic context, birth in America, gives a certain level of comfort, a certain level of freedom from at least anxiety for basic survival. But so now the statement of what is auspicious or what is auspicious may also vary according to context.
And that’s why contextualizing is extremely important. And when he is giving us this statement, it’s through his own example also. He is showing how to contextualize. And when we learn to contextualize, we won’t get caught in particular statements and fixate on either trying to defend them or reject them, accept them or absolutize them or relativize them. We’ll understand what is the essential principle over here.
What are the universal principle? Srila Prabhupada did not start the international society for dog condemnation or dog glorification for that matter. His precise international society for Krishna consciousness. And what will further Krishna consciousness in today’s world is what we should be focusing on in order to carry on legacy responsibly. So I summarize, and the topic today was how to understand difficult statements, or statement that seem difficult for whatever reason.
So first I thought is three approaches we discussed. They’re based on the acronym ARC. We simply can absolutize, but that’s a problem. Are we all meant to take up weapons and fight like Arjuna did? We can relate to wise, but that would mean that there is no value in those statements now for us.
It is just those people’s subjective opinions. But what we do is contextualize. And we discuss various examples of how himself does the contextualization. How do we do the contextualization? We discussed this acronym of cut.
There is a contextual statement. Now from that contextual statement, we see what is the universal principle over there. And from that universal principle, we try to see what is today’s application. So takes the contextual statement that in that about, there’s no sun, moon, light. And based on that, he says that there’s no in that about, there’s no electricity also.
So is making it applicable for us today. So with respect to the specific statement about dogs, I talk about contextualizing in multiple ways. Contextualizing is philosophical. The dogs symbolically represent the nonhuman specie where they’re condemned in the sense that they don’t have the opportunity to be elevated. Opportunity to grow spiritually because they don’t have the philosophical intelligence.
And then I give the example of how cows can also be seen negatively, positively. Scriptural contextualization, the story from the Ramayana about how a person who offended a Brahmana became a dog. Then we talked about psychological contextualization that depending on context, a positive or negative attribute may be emphasized. So the dog’s loyalty and also their territoriality. And then lastly, I talked about from a historical perspective that in the past, dog served a particular function, and now they’re serving a different function.
So at that time, mostly, it was their function with outdoors. Now their function they’re serving is different. So our focus should be on the universal principle that that actions which involve offending Brahmanas and Vaishnavas and people that will lead us to a condemned state. And that’s why we try to avoid such offensive actions. Thank you very much.
Hare Krishna.