Is it ok for devotees to give motivational classes without mentioning Krishna at all? (8 min. audio)
Answer by HG Chaitanya Charan das.
Listen to it below or here: https://goo.gl/uA752J
The example of Brahmana performing Karma-kanda for someone's material well being is completely different from what a "motivational speaker" does. A Brahmana speaks from scriptures and base their solutions on Vedas and, brings his audience's attention to the timeless teachings of Vedas given by Lord Krsna, whereas a "motivational speaker" speaks from or base his/her solutions on his/her own subjective analysis of issues, which is based on his/her personal experience that makes an impression in the minds of the audience that there is nothing as laws of Karma–the law and order of the Lord, and just by little adjustments we can enjoy life better without surrendering to any divine authority.
.
The former gives rise to faith and submission to the divine authority–demigods or the God, and this leads to purification as ordained by Lord Krsna whereas the later case gives rise to atheism or humanism, that do not accept any such divine authority to improve their life. Thus, it only serves as a misinformation about the life and its purpose and everything else!
Which messenger of God has given solutions to people while editing "God"?–None!
Preaching to a scientist and preaching to a lay man are not the same. The former (as a majority) stubbornly believes in Pratyaksa or direct pramana (in public at least) whereas the later (as a majority) may be more open to the sabda pramana presentation or might be searching for the solutions from some divine source but, with unclear ideas, and thus confused. Kindly think about it..
The example of Brahmana performing Karma-kanda for someone's material well being is completely different from what a "motivational speaker" does. A Brahmana speaks from scriptures and base their solutions on Vedas and, brings his audience's attention to the timeless teachings of Vedas given by Lord Krsna, whereas a "motivational speaker" speaks from or base his/her solutions on his/her own subjective analysis of issues, which is based on his/her personal experience that makes an impression in the minds of the audience that there is nothing as laws of Karma–the law and order of the Lord, and just by little adjustments we can enjoy life better without surrendering to any divine authority.
.
The former gives rise to faith and submission to the divine authority–demigods or the God, and this leads to purification as ordained by Lord Krsna whereas the later case gives rise to atheism or humanism, that do not accept any such divine authority to improve their life. Thus, it only serves as a misinformation about the life and its purpose and everything else!
Which messenger of God has given solutions to people while editing "God"?–None!
Preaching to a scientist and preaching to a lay man are not the same. The former (as a majority) stubbornly believes in Pratyaksa or direct pramana (in public at least) whereas the later (as a majority) may be more open to the sabda pramana presentation or might be searching for the solutions from some divine source but, with unclear ideas, and thus confused. Kindly think about it..
I had been wondering about this issue and you have made valid observations and presented valuable thoughts. Thank you.