Guest guest Posted July 14, 2005 Report Share Posted July 14, 2005 Giri-nayaka (das) BVS (Ljubljana - SLO) wrote: >Dear Prabhus. >Pamho. AgtSP. > >Is there any ISKCON definition about what means Unity in Diversity? > > > <SNIP> >Is it discussed regularly? Any solutions, any results? > >ys gnd > > > Dear Prabhu, PAMHO AGTSP. Last year I wrote the below essay for a PAMHO conference. This may have had something to do with this year's GBC resolution which noted that "unity in diversity" means acintya-bhedabheda-tattva. (The essay is slightly edited.) Your servant, Krishna-kirti das (HDG) ##################### ------- Unity in Diversity, different cultures, different understandings, different outcomes. Fri, 24 Dec 2004 13:00 -0700 Christopher Shannon <cshannon (AT) all2ez (DOT) net> Christopher Shannon <cshannon (AT) all2ez (DOT) net> (Understanding and Implementing Prabhupada's) Teachings <Teachings (AT) pamho (DOT) net> For the record, there are at least 10 identifiable places from the Folio with the phrase "unity in diversity": ------------------------- (1) In order to achieve real peace, one should see everything and every living entity, including Lord Brahma and Lord Siva, as nondifferent from the Supreme Personality of Godhead. No one is independent. Every one of us is an expansion of the Supreme Personality of Godhead. This accounts for unity in diversity. There are diverse manifestations, but, at the same time, they are one in Visnu. Everything is an expansion of Visnu's energy. >>> Ref. VedaBase => SB 4.7.54 >> Comment: The phrase "unity in diversity" (UID) appears to be used to label a concept regarding the fundamental nature of being. Srila Prabhupada seems to be using UID to specifically designate an ontological precept, not a cultural precept. Classification: UID == achintya-bhedabheda-tattva --------------------------- (2) The Supreme Personality of Godhead, the living entities, the material energy, the spiritual energy and the entire creation are all individual substances. In the ultimate analysis, however, together they constitute the supreme one, the Personality of Godhead. Therefore those who are advanced in spiritual knowledge see unity in diversity. For such advanced persons, the Lord's bodily decorations, His name, His fame, His attributes and forms and the weapons in His hand are manifestations of the strength of His potency. According to their elevated spiritual understanding, the omniscient Lord, who manifests various forms, is present everywhere. May He always protect us everywhere from all calamities. >>> Ref. VedaBase => SB 6.8.32, SB 6.8.33, SB 6.8.32-33 >> Comment: Another statement about the Lord's simultaneous oneness and difference. Classification: UID == achintya-bhedabheda-tattva ------------------------------ (3) Mayavadis and those who imagine forms of God are misguided. According to them, worship of the Deity or any other form of the Lord is a result of the conditioned soul's illusion. However, Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu confirms the conclusion of Srimad-Bhagavatam on the strength of His philosophy of acintya-bhedabheda-tattva. That philosophy holds that the Supreme Lord is simultaneously one with and different from His creation. That is to say, there is unity in diversity. In this way Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu proved the impotence of fruitive workers, speculative empiric philosophers and mystic yogis. The realization of such men is simply a waste of time and energy. >>> Ref. VedaBase => Madhya 9.360 >> Comment: Srila Prabhupada explicitly designates UID as a synonym for achintya-bhedabheda-tattva Classification: UID == achintya-bhedabheda-tattva ------------------------------- (4) Bhakti-siddhanta-viruddha refers to that which is against the principle of unity in diversity, philosophically known as acintya-bhedabheda-simultaneous oneness and difference-whereas rasabhasa is something that may appear to be a transcendental mellow but actually is not. Those who are pure Vaisnavas should avoid both these things opposed to devotional service. These misconceptions practically parallel the Mayavada philosophy. >>> Ref. VedaBase => Madhya 10.113 >> Comment: Here again Srila Prabhupada explicitly designates UID as a synonym for achintya-bhedabheda-tattva Classification: UID == achintya-bhedabheda-tattva -------------------------------- (5) Srila Prabhupada: Sometimes a variety of examples helps us to understand or appreciate the problem better. In the vase there is a variety of flowers, and that variety helps us better appreciate the idea of flowers. From any point of view, Krsna can resolve all problems. Why just the problems of Irishmen or Englishmen? All problems. That is called unity in diversity. Our students come from different backgrounds, but because they are all in Krsna consciousness, they are unified. >>> Ref. VedaBase => An Awareness of What Is Best and Most Beautiful >> Comment: This seems to be a more pragmatic usage of UID. The context is both social (problems) and cultural (of X or Y cultural groups), with emphasis on the pragmatic solutions the view engendered by UID can provide for everyone. Classification: UID == a socio-cultural paradigm that can resolve all significant social disturbances. (6) Self-realization leads to the understanding that everything is situated in the Supreme Lord. At that time there is no more illusion or lamentation, and everything is wonderfully harmonized. One sees the whole material universe as a manifestation of unity in diversity. On this platform everything is full of happiness, knowledge, and eternity. This is the platform of Brahman realization. >>> Ref. VedaBase => RTW 5.1: The Highest Use of Intelligence >> Comment: UID is again used as an ontological precept as opposed to social or cultural precepts, in this case "the universe" as a manifestation of UID. This particular vision, or realization, of unity in diversity appears to be concomitant with the attainment of Brahman realization. Only when one attains the Brahma-bhuta platform of realizatin can one see the world in terms of "unity in diversity." Classification: UID == a world view that emerges simultaneously with Brahman realization. - (7) So Mayavadi philosophers, they take one side only, that it is one. They do not understand what is the difference, what is the different taste, varieties. They cannot understand the varieties, unity in diversity. They cannot understand. Just like sugar and milk-you prepare so many sweetmeats: "This is rasagulla, this is sandesa, this is burfi, this is this, this is that." Hundreds of preparation you can... But what is that? That sugar and milk. So similarly, variety is the mother of enjoyment. The Mayavadi philosophers, they cannot understand. >>> Ref. VedaBase => Sri Caitanya-caritamrta, Adi-lila 7.5 -- Mayapur, >> March 7, 1974 Comment: UID is used in demonstrating the deficiency of Mayavada. Specifically it is used to point out the inability of Mayavada to account for variety that coexists with the oneness that all transcendentalists agree exists. The example is very nice: "hundreds of preparations" (variety, many) can be made from "sugar and milk" (oneness). The use of UID is again ontological, with reference to achintya-bhedabheda-tattval. Classification: UID == achintya-bhedabheda-tattva -- (8) The Sankaracarya's philosophy is monism, one, and Sri Ramanujacarya explains, "Yes, one-unity in diversity." So this is unity. The sun deity, the sun planet and the sunshine is one unit, but still, there is diversity. The division of the sunshine is different from the sun planet, the sun planet is different from the predominating deity in the sun planet. If you try to understand this way, then you will understand what is Paramatma, the Supersoul; the individual soul; the impersonal Brahman; the personal Brahman-everything. >>> Ref. VedaBase => Lecture -- Seattle, October 7, 1968 >> Comment: UID is used here to designate Vishishtadvaita. "special" or qualified oneness. This simultaneous oneness and difference is again an ontological designation, so Srila Prabhupada's usage of UID can also refer to other views that approximate achintya-bhedabheda-tattva. Classification: UID == concepts that are similar to achintya-bhedabheda-tattva. --- (9) So energy may be one. Just like in your country, by electric energy you are working in so many ways. So do not, I mean to say, make minus all these varieties, the energy in diverse varieties. Therefore the whole conception is, Brahman conception is, that unity in diversity. Everything is working by the energy of the Supreme Brahman, and in the energy we have got different diversities. So we cannot neglect the diversities, although the energy is one. >>> Ref. VedaBase => Northeastern University Lecture -- Boston, April >> 30, 1969 Comment: UID is used to designate the the conception of Brahman. Srila Prabhupada's particular emphasis is on the variety aspect, as in the variety of sweets from milk and sugar. Srila Prabhupada overtly defined his mission in terms of delivering the Western countries, which are filled with impersonalism and voidism. Thus it is not surprising that whenever he mentions this point of UID within the context of monism or Mayavada that he goes out of his way to make the point of there being variety. Srila Prabhupada tends to stress the diversity aspect in his teachings if, for no other reason, the "oneness" part of achintya-bhedabheda-tattva was well conceived of by his largely Western audience. Of course, India is also presently deeply mired in impersonalism, but perhaps not to the extent of countries outside of India's geo-cultral boundaries. We can likely ascribe widespread impersonalism as a symptom Kaili-yuga. Classification: UID == Brahman conception. ---- (10) Material nature means dissension and disagreement, especially in this Kali yuga. But, for this Krsna consciousness movement its success will depend on agreement, even though there are varieties of engagements. . In the material world there are varieties, but there is no agreement. In the spiritual world there are varieties, but there is agreement. That is the difference. The materialist without being able to adjust the varieties and the disagreements makes everything zero. They cannot come into agreement with varieties, but if we keep Krsna in the center, then there will be agreement in varieties. This is called unity in diversity. I am therefore suggesting that all our men meet in Mayapur every year during the birth anniversary of Lord Caitanya Mahaprabhu. With all GBC and senior men present we should discuss how to make unity in diversity. But, if we fight on account of diversity, then it is simply the material platform. Please try to maintain the philosophy of unity in diversity. That will make our movement successful. One section of men have already gone out, therefore we must be very careful to maintain unity in diversity, and remember the story in Aesop's Fables of the father of many children with the bundle of sticks. When the father asked his children to break the bundle of sticks wrapped in a bag, none of them could do it. But, when they removed the sticks from the bag, and tried one by one, the sticks were easily broken. So this is the strength in unity. If we are bunched up, we can never be broken, but when divided, then we can become broken very easily. >>> Ref. VedaBase => Letter to: Kirtanananda -- Bombay 18 October, 1973 >> Comment: This is the quote most often referred to when the topic of UID arises. There are several significant features of this reference: 1) Social problems and spiritual difficulties arise on account of variety without agreement, or failure to see the unifying thread throughout the varieties. 2) The materialists' failure to reconcile varieties leads to impersonalism, or a denial of variety. 3) UID is again referred to as a philosophy, the philosophy SP refers to is, specifically achintya-bhedabheda-tattva. 4) The yearly meeting in Mayapur is designated as a time to practically discuss how to practically implement achintya-bhedabheda-tattva within ISKCON, among its members. 5) A political anecdote is made to demonstrate the necessity of practically implementing achintya-bhedabheda-tattva in order to head of social and political infighting. All these points make this reference arguably the most important quote from Srila Prabhuapada with regard to UID. Classification: UID == philosophical basis of a pragmatic social vision essential for the peace and survival of ISKCON. ---- Now, it needs to be pointed out that "unity in diversity" is a well used term term in the Western countries, and, particularly in America, it is a conceptual reference to what is known as Multiculturalism. %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% IS THERE UNITY in diversity? Will the central core of civil culture hold? Or does the road to multiculturalism lead to exaggerated pluralism, hyper-pluralism, and even "street-fighting pluralism"? Will America become another former disintegrating megastate such as the Soviet Union, or even in its more benign form, a language-divided Switzerland? (Article Title: E Pluribus Unum: The Assimilation Paradigm Revisited. Contributors: Melvin G. Holli - author. Journal Title: The Midwest Quarterly. Volume: 44. Issue: 1. Publication Year: 2002. Page Number: 10+. COPYRIGHT 2002 Pittsburg State University - Midwest Quarterly; COPYRIGHT 2002 Gale Group) %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% Martin Luther King Jr.'s call for American society to truly reflect the ideals on which it was built succeeded in galvanizing a political and moral consensus that led to legislation guaranteeing all our citizens the right to vote, to obtain housing, to enter places of public accommodation, and to participate in all aspects of American life without regard to race, gender, background, or belief. But despite the great accomplishments of the Civil Rights Movement, we have not yet torn down every obstacle to equality. Too many of our cities are still racially segregated, and remaining barriers to education and opportunity have caused an array of social problems that disproportionately affect African Americans. As a result, blacks and whites often see the world in strikingly different ways and too often view each other through a lens of mistrust or fear. (Article Title: Clinton Urges Unity in Diversity. Newspaper Title: The Washington Times. Publication January 15, 1996. Page Number: 6. COPYRIGHT 1996 News World Communications, Inc.; COPYRIGHT 2002 Gale Group) %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% .... the ideologies of multiculturalism and diversity eroded the legitimacy of the remaining central elements of American identity, the cultural core and the American Creed. President Clinton explicitly set forth this challenge when he said that America needed a third "great revolution" (in addition to the American Revolution and the civil rights revolution) to "prove that we literally can live without having a dominant European culture."14 Attacks on the culture undermined the Creed that it produced, and were reflected in the various movements promoting group rights against individual rights.... ....America could lose its core culture, as President Clinton anticipated, and become multicultural. Yet Americans could also retain their commitment to the principles of the Creed, which would provide an ideological or political base for national unity and identity. Many people, particularly liberals, favor this alternative. It assumes, however that a nation can be based on only a political contract among individuals lacking any other commonality. This is the classic Enlightenment-based, civic concept of a nation. History and psychology, however, suggest that it is unlikely to be enough to sustain a nation for long. America with only the Creed as a basis for unity could soon evolve into a loose confederation of ethnic, racial, cultural, and political groups, with little or nothing in common apart from their location in the territory of what had been the United States of America. This could resemble the collections of diverse groups that once constituted the Austro-Hungarian, Ottoman, and Russian empires. These conglomerations were held together by the emperor and his bureaucracy. What central institutions, however, would hold together a loose American assemblage of groups? As the experiences of America in the 1780s and Germany in the 1860s suggest, past confederations normally have not lasted long. (Samuel Huntington. "Who Are We? The Challenges to America's National Identity" Simon and Schuster, New York, New York. 2004. Page 18 - 19) %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% From the above references by a statesman and two scholars, we can reasonably say that the term "unity in diversity" is associated with multiculturalism, which engenders the positive assertion of group rights, or special rights, for individuals who belong to any particular group that is designated by certain elite classes as "minority" or "disadvantaged." In ISKCON's contemporary discourse regarding "unity in diversity", it is this latter connotation of "unity in diversity" as it is commonly understood outside of ISKCON, that devotees have moved toward embracing. Some signs are as follows: 1) Group hostility has been voiced toward the cultural differences between Indians (and non-Indian Indophiles) and Western non-Indian Vaishnavas who have a preference for Western culture has dominated the UID discourse. On this forum already we have seen allusions to India's "bride-burning" culture (as if that's how Indians typically conduct themselves), and there has certainly been a long history of deprecatory remarks against Western culture. When speaking of contemporary Hindu civilization, it is often spoken of by Western cultural adherents in the negative while speaking of Western culture in the positive. The same is true of the other side, but with Western culture as spoken of in deprecating terms and contemporary Indian culture in positive terms. Those are the differences sans unity Srila Prabhupada speaks of in the last UID reference. 2) There has been a near total absence of discussion about the prominence of achintya-bhedabheda-tattva as the basis of cultures and civilizations described in the Puranas and Itihasas. The discourse has centered almost exclusively on resolving contemporary differences with little attention (if any) given to a civilization that may well be considered a template on which a current and future sociology may be based. If we are accepting the Puranas and Itihasas as legitimate historical records, then we have a seemingly stable culture and civilization that has persisted for literally millions of years, with little significant change to its core principles or their external customs. The reason this has largely been absent from the discourse is that a significant presense of an historical Vedic civilization in the discussion would go a long way toward discrediting the conventional meaning of "unitiy in diversity", which tends to promote the idea of Western civilization as being a merely a misunderstood form of Vedic civilization. This is another instance of an absense of unity in the face of highlighted differences, but with the specific exlusion of shastra as an historical reference. Acceptance of shastra by the "Westophilic" camp as a source material has more or less been in defining abstract core principles. By contrast, the Indophilic camp tends to stress the historical significance of these sources. These signs point to a movement among ISKCON's members, particularly those active in the public discourse, toward the convetional understanding of "unity in diversity", as understood by non-devotees, because (a) the first point describes symptoms which fit with the description of confilict over differences without a unifying and underlying understanding of their oneness, and (b) there is a significant lack of agreement with regard to what that core understanding (unity) is, as evidenced by the significant disagreements over what roles shastra and the statements of our acharyas have in our fundamental understanding. In other words, the lack of unity with regard to the unity aspect of "unity in diversity" (point (b)) explains why we are experiencing the symptoms of point (a). There are important shorcomings that belie unity in thinking, so dissension on account of differences is an inevitbility. Just as we have seen with multicultralism outside of ISKCON that certain groups along the lines of ethnicity and gender lobby for and receive preferential, or special rights, we have also seen similar movements within ISKCON. Reflecting its mundane Western host culture, ISKCON also has a minority feminist movement which has made significant political and intellectual inroads, and now more recently we are seeing within ISKCON the emergence of a homosexual rights movement. (It is notable that within American mainstream Protestant denominations, this sequence of groups who assert their rights, one after another, is also to be found. Almost without exception in these denominations, first women asserted their rights and made their way into the ecclesiastical establishment, and then next, in similar fashion, followed the homosexual lobby.) All these signs suggest that ISKCON's members who are active in the public discourse have to a significant extent imbibed, though inadvertantly, the conventional understanding of "unity in diversity" (as opposed to a specific reference to achintya-bhedabheda-tattva) and for the most part apply the conventional understanding in their discussion of these topics. One effect of this has been the attempt to equate Western culture as something different but equal to what we understand to historically be Vedic culture. This is nowhere more starkly demonstrated than in the realm of sex and gender relations. For example, a prominent leader in our movement two years ago told me that the widespread Western custom of men and women choosing their own mates was no less civilized than the custom of arranged marriages. Indeed, arranged marriage itself (and not simply the circumstance of a bad match) has been consistently described by all levels of ISKCON's Western members as something contributing to marital strife and domestic abuse. The effort of this equalization seems to be aimed at denying differences, and this is where many of us fear that ISKCON is headed toward an impersonalist understanding of its own scripture and acharyas. The impersonalism of this effort at equalization, or a devaluation of customs identified by our Srila Prabhupada as Vedic and sometimes exemplified by Srila Prabhupada by references of such customs in contemporary Hindu culture, arises from a denial that there are also differences of quality. One culture, in spite of reports of bride burnings, might still in fact be more advanced than another culture that seems to have become comfortable with the fact that half of its marriages end in divorce. * 500 years ago Lord Chaitanya described India as a land where the most fortunate people take birth (bharita bhumite haila) * Srila Prabhupada in describing the standard of married life to his disciples often referred to the way Indians conduct themselves in marriage. * Srila Prabhupada himself praised his disciples for having adopted the Vedic way of marriage and accepting a husband or wife on his order. Conversely, Srila Prabhuapada criticised the custom of allowing girls to "go out in the street" to find a husband for themselves. * Srila Prabhupada also criticized the gender-egalitarian society in terms of its equal occupational roles for both genders. For example, ----------------- As we learn from the history of the Mahabharata, or "Greater India," the wives and daughters of the ruling class, the ksatriyas, knew the political game, but we never find that a woman was given the post of chief executive. This is in accordance with the injunctions of Manu-samhita, but unfortunately Manu-samhita is now being insulted, and the Aryans, the members of Vedic society, cannot do anything. Such is the nature of Kali-yuga. >>> Ref. VedaBase => SB 10.4.5 >> ------------------ It is unmistakeable from this reference that Srila Prabhupada considered a patriarchal society as something far superior to a society that embraces occupational equality between the sexes. (It is the difference between being civilized and uncivilized.) And this statement is not unique. There are such things as superior and inferior with regard to culture, custom and social structure which exist in the here and now and which have been pointed out to us by Srila Prabhupada in conjunction with scripture. Nonetheless, it is these differences, varieties, that some seem to be working to eliminate. This would partly explain ISKCON's emerging revisionist movement. The movement toward equalization and revisionism is essentially a denial of such variety--especially notions of social and cultural superiority and inferiority. Because it is a denial of variety, in essense it is similar to impersonalism, wherein Mayavadis also deny the existence of variety. Hence, ISKCON's emerging revisionism tries to adjust these varieties by denying them, in much the same manner Srila Prabhupada describes, "The materialist without being able to adjust the varieties and the disagreements makes everything zero." Unity in diversity is a beautifully profound phrase that means many things to many people. To us, it should specifically be a reference to the philosophy of achintya-bhedabheda-tattva, and that social and cultural issues need to center on this. Right now, it seems that ISKCON's cultural discourse is largely absent of this central idea, and that it has been replaced by a more conventional socio-political understanding of the same term. Because the term "unity in diversity" is a well used (and even symbolic) term within the Western mind, it might be helpful to start explicitly using the term achintya-bhedabheda-tattva where we now use the term "unity in diversity" in order to prevent confusion and keep discourse on the right track and in the center of the discussion. The alternative, which arises from embracing the conventional understanding of "unity in diversity", is an inexorable move toward impersonalism--the very thing Srila Prabhupada came to save us from. Your servant, Krishna-kirti das (HDG) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.