Is living in villages better for cultivating goodness and devotion?

We should live more southwically, and yes, we should live more southwically. Is it true that villages are created by God and cities by humans? That might be so. But does that mean humans have no influence in villages?

Well, today, the influence of Kali has reached the villages as well; the influence of Kali is everywhere. Relatively speaking, we could say that those who live in religious surroundings are closer to nature, and nature can often be a source of sattva (purity). In that sense, there is definitely something positive about village life. But the point is, we all have to find out what is the most sustainable way for us to practice bhakti.

Different devotees come with different inspirations, and we all come from varied backgrounds. We all have certain experiences in our lives and in our devotional lives. Based on these, certain aspects of Prabhupada’s teachings or certain scriptural statements resonate with us.

So, if something inspires a particular devotee, that’s wonderful. However, in bhakti, there is a tendency to universalize what inspires us personally—that is, we think, “This works for me, it makes immediate sense to me, so everyone should do it.” But everyone is an individual, not only with their conditioned individuality but also spiritually unique.

Prabhupada did talk a lot about living close to nature. At the same time, we cannot take those statements to neglect everything else that Prabhupada said or did. When did Prabhupada himself live in a village? He said that if you have one plot of land and a cow, you can take care of your needs. But when did he actually live like that? Prabhupada had his service and was very devoted, of course, but he believed that through his pharmaceutical business he could earn wealth (Lakshmi) to support his spiritual master’s mission.

With that motivation, rather than living in villages, Prabhupada traveled across cities—Calcutta, Allahabad, Mumbai. Throughout his professional career as a pharmacist, there is no instance of him living in a small town or village. So there are other factors to consider.

We say Prabhupada is a pure devotee, exalted, and not affected by circumstances—that is true. But we also have to understand that sattva broadly means harmony. Harmony with what? One part of harmony is harmony with ourselves.

What does harmony with ourselves mean? If someone has grown up since childhood with a certain level of comfort and then is put into an environment that may be externally sattvic—like living close to nature in a village—but lacks the basic comforts they are used to, that environment may cause disharmony. Their mind may become agitated and resentful. Small things may take a lot of effort and time. For example, if I want to drink water but there is no tap and I have to draw water from a well, it’s not a criticism of village life, but such small things do take time.

One might say, “I am in harmony with nature here,” but may not be in harmony with their own nature. Our nature is shaped not only by past karmas but also by how we live this life. For some people, city life is what they are accustomed to, and the austerities of village life may seem minor or even welcome. They may love the peace and absence of traffic noise. But for others, it doesn’t work. Individuality is irreducible.

We cannot deny or reject people’s individuality by forcing them into preconceived ideas about what is foremost in bhakti. Everyone has to find the best way to practice bhakti sustainably.

Prabhupada gave us many books and left us a legacy that is ongoing and extends beyond him. Many acharyas live in different ways. Which of our acharyas actually lived in villages? If they had, they might not have become acharyas. Bhaktisiddhanta Thakur or Bhaktivedanta Thakur are examples. Garmeshwar Bawaji lived in a village, but he was not an acharya.

So, various factors must be considered. We have to find the best way to fulfill our responsibilities, serve Krishna, and grow spiritually. Sattva does not depend solely on the external environment but also on our harmony with it—what keeps our body and mind in harmony with the surroundings.

That harmony sustains a person’s self-worth. It is important for a person to take responsibility for creating or choosing such an environment. Sometimes we cannot choose and must make the best of the environment we are in.

If you consider the eleventh canto, the Uddhavamrita, many factors are described that affect a person’s mood—it’s not just the external environment, but also association and activity.

If someone is used to intellectual activity and suddenly put into strenuous physical work—even if close to nature—they may become disharmonious with their psycho-physical nature. They might enjoy physical activity as a break occasionally, but lifelong physical labor may be difficult.

Yes, village life can be sattvic, relatively speaking, but the sattva in our consciousness depends on many factors—the books we read, our activities, the company we keep, the food we eat, and more.

We can try to adjust our lives to have as many sattvic stimuli as possible, but one stimulus alone will not instantly make our consciousness sattvic. We must see the whole picture and figure out how best to grow spiritually.