Guest guest Posted August 17, 1998 Report Share Posted August 17, 1998 I hereby send a text which I received from Damodara prabhu (BCS), the 11th of March this year, which I personally found very interesting. The text is quite long, but the content is definately worth the time it takes to read it, in my humble opinion. If someone wants to comment on this text, please make sure that Damodara prabhu is added as receiver. The text was originally sent to many of ISKCON's sannyasis. ---------- Forwarded Message ---------- Letter COM:1079571 (413 lines) [W1] Damodara BCS 01-Feb-98 21:12 Bhakti Vikasa Swami Cc: Prahladananda Swami Cc: Babhru (das) ACBSP (San Diego - USA) Cc: Isvara (das) GGS (Kenya) Cc: Krishna Dharma (das) MG (Manchester - GB) Cc: Kripamoya (das) ACBSP (UK) For: Tridandi Sannyasa Reference: Text COM:1077321 by Bhakti Vikasa Swami Comment: Text COM:1080368 by Prahladananda Swami Comment: Text COM:1082256 by Bhakti Vikasa Swami Comment: Text COM:1082273 by Bhakti Vikasa Swami Comment: Text COM:1082289 by Bhakti Vikasa Swami reflections on the renounced order --------------------------- Dear Maharajas and other readers, Please accept my humble obeisances. All glories to Srila Prabhupada. I submit these thoughts for your deliberation having been requested to do so. I apologise if any of these points or points previously made cause any disquiet. My intention relates only to the betterment of ISKCON. These opinions are subjective - our Society gathers little data - but I sense that they will resonate with the experiences of others. Background ISKCON is going through a trying time in its development. There are many matters which need addressing. The points that I will raise in this short "essay" relate specifically to the following:- 1. There is a general perception that ISKCON's leadership is out of touch and uncaring. 2. There is a legacy of mistrust towards the leaders - our "sadhus" lack a certain credibility in the minds of many devotees (hence the tendencies to look outside of ISKCON for "advanced devotees" or circumvent the parampara altogether). 3. ISKCON's social development is stunted. 4. The majority of people subscribing to a faith in KC receive insufficient ministering, support, guidance, etc. The points that I will recommend are not panaceas but I believe that they are absolutely essential parts of the solution. My comments pertain specifically to the role and the standards of the sannyasa asrama within our Society. I have used these two terms (i.e. role and standards) as the sub-headings for my observations and recommendations. ROLE I would hope that we'd all agree that the traditional role of the sannyasi is one of an itinerant preacher whose specific focus is to enlighten the householders who are prone to losing sight of the mission of the human form of life. His sva-dharma is not only an important social role but is the means by which he sustains his own existence (not just economically but also in terms of his consciousness). If there are any doubts about this, hopefully the following quotes will alleviate them:- “Sannyasa means he should distribute spiritual knowledge from door to door. That is his business.” (Lecture on SB 7.6.6-9, Montreal, 23rd June ‘68) “The sannyasis beg from door to door, not for money but for missionary purposes. The system is that they go from door to door to awaken the householders from the slumber of ignorance. Because the householders are engaged in family affairs and have forgotten their actual purpose in life--awakening their Krsna consciousness--it is the business of the sannyasis to go as beggars to the householders and encourage them to be Krsna conscious.” (purport to Bg 10. 4-5) “Sannyasi life is meant for distributing knowledge to the householders and others who have forgotten their real life of spiritual advancement. A sannyasi is supposed to beg from door to door for his livelihood, but this does not mean that he is a beggar. Humility is also one of the qualifications of a transcendentally situated person, and out of sheer humility the sannyasi goes from door to door, not exactly for the purpose of begging, but to see the householders and awaken them to Krsna consciousness. This is the duty of a sannyasi.” (purport to Bg 16. 1-3) “A sannyasi, or one who is in the renounced order of life, should wander from door to door, from village to village, from town to town and from country to country, all over the world as far as he is able to travel, and enlighten the householders about Krsna consciousness. A person who is a householder but is initiated by a sannyasi has the duty to spread Krsna consciousness at home; as far as possible, he should call his friends and neighbors to his house and hold classes in Krsna consciousness. Holding a class means chanting the holy name of Krsna and speaking from Bhagavad-gita or Srimad-Bhagavatam. There are immense literatures for spreading Krsna consciousness, and it is the duty of each and every householder to learn about Krsna from his sannyasi spiritual master. There is a division of labor in the Lord's service. The householder's duty is to earn money because a sannyasi is not supposed to earn money but is completely dependent on the householder.” (purport to 3.21.31) “Sometimes renounced order of life, sannyasi, they go to the householders... Of course, that is their duty.“ (Lecture) To me, these quotes are very clear. When Srila Prabhupada uses terms such as "of course, that is their duty", "that is their business", "sannyasa life is meant for...", etc. then it is clear that he is outlining the essential purpose which should be a matter of common agreement/understanding. Varnasrama is a scientific arrangement designed by the Lord to facilitate the smooth running of society. It is a way of living that supports the development of spiritual life. When these codes for living are not followed then society has problems. Currently the sannyasis in ISKCON tend not to be following the above sva-dharma. Sannyasis appear to function more in executive leadership roles. Those that do focus on pastoral care tend not to focus on the ministerial-needs of householders so much as temple residents (many of whom tend to be adoring disciples). Various kinds of explanations (or justifications) tend to be offered in support/defence of this:- 1. "Well, who's following varnasrama anyway? It's just not appropriate to talk about those ideals today. I mean, the householders should be doing their bit, shouldn't they?" 2. "But I must minister to my disciple's needs and we must take care of the devotees in the asrama. They've surrendered everything for the service of the Lord. The ones who don't live in the asrama aren't so deserving. They're in a compromised spirit of devotional service- they're not unalloyed." 3. "We have to do the management of the Society's affairs. I'd love to sit down and chant but who else will do it?" There may be other arguments. But these are the ones that seem to occur most often. Here's what I think of them:- 1. "Well, who's following varnasrama anyway? It's just not appropriate to talk about those ideals today. I mean, the householders should be doing their bit, shouldn't they?" This appears to be a reactive and irresponsible approach. The sannyasis are meant to be the social leaders. We've got to begin somewhere. It appears to me that the onus is on the "leaders of society" to lead by example - hard though it may be at first. To refer to varnasrama as impractical to apply nowadays is to relativise the Lord's creation which seems quite offensive. Here's what Srila Prabhupada says in a 3rd Canto purport:- “It is the duty of a responsible king to protect the social and spiritual orders in human society... Human society means that society which is making progress toward spiritual realization. The most advanced human society was known as arya; arya refers to those who are advancing. So the question is, "Which society is advancing?" Advancement does not mean creating material "necessities" unnecessarily and thus wasting human energy in aggravation over so-called material comforts. Real advancement is advancement toward spiritual realization, and the community which acted toward this end was known as the Aryan civilization... The institution of four varnas and four asramas is confirmed herewith to be bhagavad-racita, which means "designed by the Supreme Personality of Godhead." In Bhagavad-gita this is also confirmed: catur-varnyam maya srstam. The Lord says that the institution of four varnas and four asramas "is created by Me." Anything created by the Lord cannot be closed or covered. The divisions of varnas and asramas will continue to exist, either in their original form or in degraded form, but because they are created by the Lord, the Supreme Personality of Godhead, they cannot be extinguished. They are like the sun, a creation of God, and therefore will remain. Either covered by clouds or in a clear sky, the sun will continue to exist. Similarly, when the varnasrama system becomes degraded, it appears as a hereditary caste system, but in every society there is an intelligent class of men, a martial class, a mercantile class and a laborer class. When they are regulated for cooperation among communities according to the Vedic principles, then there is peace and spiritual advancement. But when there is hatred and malpractice and mutual mistrust in the caste system, the whole system becomes degraded, and as stated herein, it creates a deplorable state. At the present moment, the entire world is in this deplorable condition because of giving rights to so many interests. This is due to the degradation of the four castes of varnas and asramas.” The above quote appears to indicate that varnasrama already exists - it's not up to us to manifest it. It's just a question of whether individuals follow their corresponding duties or not. To the degree that they do, society experiences "peace and spiritual advancement". To the degree that they don't they contribute towards a "deplorable state". No doubt the duties required of members of such a civilised society are difficult to practice - especially without the support of the host society. But the above quote appears to imply that, until we all take up our varnasrama responsibilities, we'll experience the difficulty resulting from not following them. Such difficulties are readily appreciable in our Society today. 2. "But I must minister to my disciple's needs and we must take care of the devotees in the asrama. They've surrendered everything for the service of the Lord. The ones who don't live in the asrama aren't so deserving. They're in a compromised spirit of devotional service- they're not unalloyed." The temple residents are important. I'm not sure that the energy that leaders are putting into them presently is effective. Residents are treated as highly dependent and not prepared for future responsibility. The reason we have such a mess in the grhasta asrama is that we don't prepare people properly for it - nor do we esteem that role, nor sufficiently understand the issues involved, nor offer due support. If our "leaders" were more in touch with grhastas - as the sastra enjoins sannyasis to be - then they could give more relevant guidance to all members of Society. If the sannyasis are to act as the "leaders of society" then they are currently criminally negligent and unsympathetic (occasionally even hostile) towards society's needs - the majority of society being householders. The idea that asrama residents are "more surrendered" than grhastas is quite an immature notion. "While the dry cow-dung is burning, the wet cow-dung is laughing." The role of the grhasta is so crucial to the healthy development of society that adequate affirmation, support, etc. needs to be given. In the past (and, in many cases, at present), due to immaturity the sannyasis still engage in running this asrama down and dismissing the important issues involved as mundane (distractions from the real business of devotional service). With this kind of "social leadership" it's hardly surprising that ISKCON has such a deplorable legacy of wrecked marriages and so many unemployed devotees with no sense of work-ethic and other irresponsible attitudes towards life. 3. "We have to do the management of the Society's affairs. I'd love to sit down and chant but who else will do it?" This ends up being a self-fulfilling prophecy. It may have been true at a certain point in ISKCON's history but it is not so now. Unfortunately the leaders perceive no-one other than themselves as sufficiently competent nor do they invest time in developing others to relieve them in due course. They outwardly lament the amount of time and energy that these self-assumed managerial responsibilities take up - and their consciences remind them that they are leaving more important matters undone as a result - but the fact is that choose not to let go. It's ultimately irresponsible behaviour - though it masquerades as responsible - since, in truth, most of these "sadhus" lack the necessary administrative skills which their posts require and are averse to taking the appropriate training. There are so many devotees who could relieve the sannyasis of these duties and adequately (if not better) fulfil these responsibilities - and would be keen to if it liberated the sannyasis to focus on their true social contribution. It is the sannyasis who are holding on. Some other points “Similarly, all the acaryas who voluntarily accepted the renounced order of life aimed at benefiting human society and not at living a comfortable or irresponsible life at the cost of others. However, those who cannot give any contribution should not go to the householders for food, for such mendicants asking bread from the householders are an insult to the highest order. Sukadeva Gosvami gave this warning especially for those mendicants who adopt this line of profession to solve their economic problems. Such mendicants are in abundance in the age of Kali.” (purport to SB 2.2.5) Ouch! This is a bit "near the knuckle", isn't it? Many sannyasis are perceived as living lives of relative comfort - rather than austerity - travelling around from temple to temple (never straying from the "comfort-zone") where they can expect a royal reception, high-class cuisine, to be chauffeur-driven from A to B, doing only "set-piece" preaching (little of the hard-graft), etc. Rarely does one find a sannyasi "in the trenches" - with his sleeves rolled up like the common "foot-soldiers". There are notable exceptions, of course. Very few actively minister to householders - i.e. go out to them. They meet with their householder disciples or the occasional godbrother or life-member that invites them for lunch. But who in the Society ministers to the lapsed devotees and the neglected souls? The brahmacaris are too young and green to do it. They can lead a kirtan and so on but can't effectively reach the concerns of older devotees. The householders tend to be preoccupied. This is the specific responsibility of the sannyasis, n'est-ce pas? It sometimes appears to be a fairly cushy insitutional role - a far cry from the Vedic ideal of the poor mendicant who ventures out with few belongings not knowing exactly where his next meal will come from or where he'll lay his head that night. Exactly how does the "executive sannyasi" compensate for the lack of austerity in terms of his own character development? “Generally the sannyasis, or those in the renounced order of life, take trouble to enlighten the householders.” (purport to SB 4.22.11) Yes, it's a real hassle. But isn't it the spirit of a saintly person to take voluntary inconvenience upon himself in order to relieve the sufferings of others? Some say that ISKCON has lost its preaching "edge". Hardly surprising with the example set by the "social leaders". Our leaders are rarely seen to put themselves out - preferring the comfortable surroundings of the temple atmosphere than hearing the concerns of grhastas and ministering to their complex needs. “Then this is a hint by Lord Caitanya that a sannyasi who has renounced everything, if he lives very gorgeously, with good dress, and good house, and apartment... No. This is not approved by Caitanya Mahaprabhu. Then what is that? What does it mean? A sannyasi living like a first-class gentleman, smoking, and very nice apartment, and some, I mean to say, lady assistant, secretary... What is this? Caitanya Mahaprabhu did not approve. He must be, as far as possible... Whatever is absolutely necessity, he should accept, not more. Yes. That is renounced order of life, not that in the name of renounced order of life he should live at the expense of the householders, very gorgeously. No. This is not sannyasa. It is not accepted by Caitanya Mahaprabhu's sampradaya. So He says that "You live by begging from door to door, and you have a valuable blanket on your body. This is contradictory.” (Lecture Cc Mad 20. 66-96) Well, apart from the smoking, this appears to describe ISKCON's executive sannyasis. "But it's all yukta-vairajna, I'm telling you. These are the austerities I accept for the sake of preaching." Yeah right! Hardly surprising that our "sadhus" have a credibility problem - in India and even amongst our own members. “The sannyasa-asrama is meant for complete freedom from all anxieties, and it is meant for uplifting the fallen souls, who are merged in materialism. But unless the sannyasi is freed from all cares and anxieties, like a white cloud, it is difficult for him to do anything good for society.” (Light of the Bhagavata) Should the sannyasi be engaged in ISKCON's "business-like" activities or should they stick to the ministerial (preaching and spiritual leadership) roles? “The sannyasi preachers should go from door to door to preach the sense of God consciousness, not to build mathas and temples but to enlighten the people.” (Light of the Bhagavata) Should they be obsessed with and absorbed in (i.e. almost exclusively focussed on) elaborate projects and maintaining the institution and trouble-shooting, etc? I suggest that they should only be focussed on people. These should be their legacies - not grandiose construction projects. “So this madhukari system means a renounced order of sannyasi or avairagi, he should not accept in one place sumptuously.” (Lecture Cc Madhya 20.66-96, New York 21st Nov ‘66) It is often perceived that ISKCON's sannyasis stick to specific routes and visit those temples where they can be assured of a nice reception and good care. This seems contrary to the spirit of detachment. I believe that our sannyasis need to divest themselves of administrative posts as soon as possible - which will mean ensuring that suitable devotees are trained up to carry these responsibilities. The sannyasis then need to focus on their important social contribution of spiritual leadership for society as a whole. They should not simply be involved in travelling (in style) from temple to temple and staying there (in style) giving lectures to the eager, young devotees but should minister to the needs of the growing communities of devotees and individual householders and so on. Even this is a far cry from walking into the unknown which appears to be the Vedic ideal - however, it will fulfil an important need (currently unmet - and not within the means of other members) in our Society. ISKCON is crying out for true spiritual leadership. It is also needs organisational leadership but this is not the dharma of a sannyasa. When sannyasis try to fulfil such responsibilities they fail to discharge their own duties while attempting to do the duties of another - which Bhagavad-gita rightly condemns. STANDARDS Implicit in all the above points are comments about the lifestyle of sannyasis. When sannyasis live like executives and celebrities then it appears that they compromise their integrity as renunciants. Certainly there is a credibility issue around this - perhaps not with gullible neophytes but definitely with more seasoned devotees and the yukta-vairajna argument tends to wear thin after a while. It's little wonder that devotees get attracted to the more simple demeanour that some sadhus outside ISKCON have - it's not just charisma that draws them away. It's sometimes simply aversion to the "showbiz sadhus" that people experience in ISKCON. There appears little monitoring of the guru-daksina inspite of ISKCON laws about relevant controls for its spending. ISKCON's "mendicants" often wear expensive silks, flash watches, wield "gold" credit-cards, have the latest "top-of-the-range" computers, are chauffeur-driven in fancy cars and stay in opulent digs (sometimes even large houses that have personally purchased or had built). Surely there need to be some standards about what is and what isn't appropriate. The traditional model is of "mendicant" with no personal effects except for perhaps an extra set of cloth, a kamandalu, a danda, etc. OK, so devotees need necessary equipment for their service - but if the sannyasis divest themselves of "executive" responsibilities then their needs should be minimal. And many live far in excess of their "service-requirements" anyway. Sadhus in other traditions (e.g. Swami Narayana Mission) have far more credibility than ours simply because they live as sadhus and leave all the monetary dealings to others. Recommendations 1. Divest all the sannyasis of administrative roles and define their responsibilities in terms of preaching to society's "little people". (Those with disciples will naturally stay in touch with them but should not focus exclusively on their adoring flock - this ends up being another form of family life. Lord Caitanya is exemplary in this regard in connection with his dealings with the Kurma brahmana and others). The role of sannyasa needs to be much more anonymous - i.e. someone who's meant to be "socially-dead" can hardly expect to behave like a celebrity without compromising his integrity. 2. Sannyasis need to be trained about how to minister to the needs of householders effectively - otherwise how can they be considered to be effective "leaders of society". They should focus on providing spiritual leadership. 3. The GBC or sannyasa-ministry need to define clear codes of acceptable and unacceptable codes of conduct for sannyasis - including defined parameters in terms of the quality of life that they should accept. Lord Caitanya's followers always wanted to offer Him the best but He was very conscientious about providing proper example. Sannyasis should embody simple-living focussing on spiritual life minimising all other engagements/entanglements/paraphernalia. 4. Sannyasis should spend only a limited time in the comfort-zones of temples and maximise their efforts to "reach out" to touch those who are otherwise neglected by the movement. Conclusion These are some initial thoughts thrown together since I've been asked to submit something. As I think further and as others respond, my thoughts will no doubt develop and I'll submit more. I recognise that some of these points may appear extreme to some - perhaps idealistic and, to some, even downright offensive. It may be perceived as full of generalisations and bias. I acknowledge that these points are subjective - yet I think that some important things have been raised for deliberation/discussion. I hope the spirit in which they have been raised will not be misunderstood. My intention is not to be disrespectful or cause pain or diminish the service of others. It is simply to address some social imbalances which seem to plague our Society. The role of the sannyasis is but one area - but, if we accept the definition which Srila Prabhupada offers (i.e. they are "leaders of society") then it is an essential one (if not the most essential). I look forward to participating in mature dialogue about these matters with all of you and pray for forgiveness for any offences that I may cause. Your servant Damodara dasa 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.