YOUR IDEA OF A STRONG RULER IS WARPED

[Guest guest]

Dear Akhilesvara prabhu,

 

Well I'm certainly not surprised that you would utterly misinterpret my text.

It's not the first time, and I'm sure it won't be the last.

 

Your idea of a "sword" government has nothing to do with what I'm writing

about. As if by reflex, you read the words "sword" and "strong" and apply to

it the worst that Kali Yuga materialists have to offer. Rather than what I

wrote, which concerned the proper way for government to deal with

abortionists, murderers, et al, you invoke Stalinesque and Pol Pottish visions

of brute tyranny. Surely you could do a little better than that. You mention

your home of Algeria, but I see little to equate its current state of affairs

with a country which has a strong ruler that keeps criminals in check and

protects the citizens. How silly of you to think I'm advocating the rule of

demons. Perhaps you do need therapy!

 

Our most important business is to spread the congregational chanting of the

Holy Names. I seem to need to repeat this, for it escapes you. However, I do

not think it mistaken to desire that the rogues, murderers and thieves in this

age be brought under the heel of a well-qualified ruler, someone who

acknowledges and follows the instructions of the Vaishnava brahmanas and who

acts for the protection of the innocent.

 

You quote "a sword by all means" while blithely ignoring "appropriate

punishments for breaking the law." Actually, your sentiments run toward the

illusions of 'democracy' which have become, in the United States and other

places, a mere front for the advancement of the selfish interests of an elite

few, through the aggregation and consolidation of corporate wealth and power.

In due course of time these "bastions of freedom" will be divided starkly into

'haves' and 'have-nots,' and the latter class will see their liberty

evaporate. Just watch.

 

You present the story of Nelson Mandela, which is very nice, but at the moment

South Africa is a very dangerous and unstable place. Devotees from there I've

spoken to say that murder and burglary are completely out of control. Where is

the ruler who protects his people?

 

Why do you jerk at the knee and equate a strong ruler with persecution of the

intelligencia? We are dealing with fundamentally different definitions. Please

try to understand.

 

Maybe a few quotes from Srimad Bhagavatam will help you, and keep you from

spending all your money unnecessarily on therapy:

 

TRANSLATION:

 

"Conjecturing on the origin of the storm, they said: There is no wind blowing,

and no cows are passing, nor is it possible that this dust storm could be

raised by plunderers, for there is still the strong King Barhi, who would

punish them. Where is this dust storm blowing from? Is the dissolution of the

planet now to occur?"

 

PURPORT:

 

"Specifically significant in this verse is pracina-barhir jivati. The king of

that part of the land was known as Barhi, and although he was old, he was

still living, and he was a very strong ruler. Thus there was no possibility of

an invasion by thieves and plunderers. Indirectly it is stated here that

thieves, plunderers, rogues and unwanted population can exist only in a state

or kingdom where there is no strong ruler. When, in the name of justice,

thieves are allowed liberty, the state and kingdom are disturbed by such

plunderers and unwanted population. The dust storm created by the soldiers and

assistants of Lord Siva resembled the situation at the time of the dissolution

of this world. When there is a need for the dissolution of the material

creation, this function is conducted by Lord Siva. Therefore the situation now

created by him resembled the dissolution of the cosmic manifestation."

 

SB 4.5.8

 

TRANSLATION:

 

"O King Pariksit, when the autumn sun rose, all the lotus flowers blossomed

happily, except the night-blooming kumut, just as in the presence of a strong

ruler everyone becomes fearless, except the thieves."

 

SB 10.20.48

 

PURPORT FRAGMENT:

 

"One is compared to the lion when one is very strong in chasing an enemy. One

should be a lamb at home and a lion in the chase. The lion never fails in the

chase of an animal; similarly, the head of the state should never fail in

chasing an enemy."

 

SB 1.12.22

 

PURPORT:

 

"An administrative head or king like Maharaja Pariksit, with full majestic

authority, well equipped with weapons to chastise miscreants, can challenge

the agents of the age of Kali. Then only will it be possible to counteract the

degraded age. And in the absence of such strong executive heads, there is

always disruption of tranquillity. The elected show-bottle executive head, as

representative of a degraded public, cannot be equal with a strong king like

Maharaja Pariksit. The dress or style of royal order does not count. It is

one’s actions which are counted."

 

SB 1.17.5

 

 

I repeat for emphasis: "An administrative head or king like Maharaja Pariksit,

with full majestic authority, well equipped with weapons to chastise

miscreants, can challenge the agents of the age of Kali. Then only will it be

possible to counteract the degraded age."

 

There are many such references. Now, you were saying?

 

 

 

Your servant,

 

Pancha Tattva dasa

 

 

 

 

 

On 15 Dec 1999, Akhilesvara das wrote:

 

> INDIA NEEDS A STRONG RULER and I need a therapy.

>

> Dear Pancha Tattva Prabhu.

>

> I told my wife about your thinking mode: " The sword is necessary. When

> dealing with the Personality of Kali. [...] yes, the sword by all means."

> And she told me how Mandela transformed a whole country bent on racism and

> demonic (and this is not an euphemism) government. He succeeded because he

> loved his people. Pardon her, she's just a sentimental woman. (She don't

> understand what real love is.)

>

> Lord Chaitanya "at first refused to intervene" you said. His dear devotee

> was going to be through on stakes and He thought that justice must be done.

> This is your standard of justice. Happily there were devotees who thought

> that this cruel sentence by the Muslim ruler should be avoided at any cost.

> I want to serve such devotees who are against the "raised stakes" and who

> plotted against the Lord so that He changes His mind.

>

> You choose this example to make your point and I prefere to choose the one

> when Lord Caitanya advised his followers not to use violence against the

> Kazi, but congregational chanting. Just like Jesus Christ who abandoned the

> old laws, "Eye for an eye, teeth for a teeth", Lord Caitanya proposed a new

> Vedic approached.

>

> A new system of thinking is in place in our present world and to go against

> it is unconscious. The technological reality makes all this "dharma" concept

> obsolete, or at least of an other age. Anyway, I don't think I am talking to

> the right person when sharing these concerns. But what I like to say is that

> Caitanya's preaching example, I just gave, suits me better than the "sword

> by all mean."

>

> Do you know what a "sword" government does when they want to "protect" its

> people? They cut off the head of the intelligencia. They shut down the

> newspapers and forbid free speech. The real power in a country is not the

> politicians, it is its singers, its poets; its artists. They are always the

> first to be killed. That is what they did in my country, Algeria. I like to

> see myself as an artist, that why I feel pained to hear your iron rule. I

> feel that if governments were to adopt your "sword" policy, KC will never be

> able to develop. And this is evident by what I hear on these forums, here,

> amongst my own people.

>

> In his Dictionary of Philosophy, Voltaire paraphrases the old Bible: If a

> prophet arises and speaks of wonderful things; if his preaching is sincere

> and his prediction comes truth, but he advises you to worship foreign gods,

> then kill him right away.

>

> Etc... As I recalled it. It is the dharma scriptures of the West. Thanks God

> that they don't follow it anymore!

>

> When I was 6 years old, my parents quited they community and went to leave

> with "Kefirs" (karmis for us). They felt they were more civilized. It was in

> contradiction with their beleave. The vague reason which I remember, stuck

> in my subconscious, is that: they were harassing them with their fanaticism.

> Will that pattern repeats for me? I really need a therapy.

> Ys