Varnashrama: the essence or the details?

[Guest guest]

I'm responding to various comments posted under the subjects "Vote #1"

and "Thread #6: Proposal by Krsna-kirtan dasi."

 

I want to preface my specific comments by addressing a basic fallacy that

cripples our ability to institute meaningful varnashrama and to solve our

managerial problems. Many of us are idealists; and we have come searching

for the truth because of that idealism. Our reaching up for the very best is

the source of strength that motivates our continued endeavors. But when we

fail to moderate our idealism with reality, we risk becoming irrelevant.

 

We do not live in a Vedic culture. We never will live in a Vedic

culture -- at least not on this planet, in this yuga. While Lord Caitanya

and the disciplic succession have promised us a Golden Age, they never

promised the restoration of traditional Vedic culture. To act on a stated or

unstated belief that we are living -- or at any time in the future will

live -- in Vedic culture is to encourage another quarter century of spinning

our wheels.

 

What we do have is Srila Prabhupada's desire that we implement the

principles of varnashrama dharma. To do this successfully, we must put them

to work in the environment we live in every day, not into an imagined

environment of lion-hearted kshatriyas and independent brahmanas, living in

forests, free of all desires to partake in ordinary society.

 

In order to preserve ISKCON while implementing varnashrama dharma, we

must have the discrimination to know what is important and what is not. The

principles of varnashrama are the essential part, not the details of how it

was practiced in a bygone age.

 

When we hear "institutional checks and balances are not needed because

there's no example of such a thing in Vedic culture," remember that in Vedic

culture, there is no such thing as an institution, society or movement like

ISKCON. The Srimad Bhagavatam contains the history of our universe -- up to

the present, a period of roughly 150,000,000,000,000 years. Yet we never

hear one mention of an institution for preaching.

 

It is our responsibility to fulfill the "other half" of Srila

Prabhupada's mission. This is not going to be done quickly, easily,

painlessly, with a few resolutions or some fine tuning of the current GBC

program. It can only be accomplished by looking deeply into the underlying

principles of varnashrama and struggling to find their meaningful

application in our present environment.

 

|Sri Rama wrote:

|The problem comes when managers make interpretations on the basis of what

is amenable to their management program.

|

|Bhaktarupa answered:

|This is not a problem at all. Perhaps here is the real flaw in the whole

idea. We |should not take away this power, otherwise who will agree to

manage? But we should |endeavor to get the best managers, meaning especially

those who are intent on taking |guidance from the brahmanas of their choice

(not forced to take guidance from some |particular institutionalized

brahminical body). This will minimize mistakes and |anomalies. Elimination

of mistakes is not possible.

 

The power being referred to here is determining how the philosophy and

theology of Krishna consciousness is to be interpreted for practical

application in ISKCON. I understand the point here is that if the GBC

doesn't have power, who will want to be GBC. In answer, I suggest that many

of our current GBC may not wish to continue and I, for one, would view that

as a positive development. Yes, power is something that is traditionally

supplied to the kshatriya for motivation, along with wealth, women,

independence and facility to engage in ego battles. Just because these

things are awarded to the kshatriyas in the Varnashrama system, doesn't mean

they are intrinsically healthy and should be encouraged. Rather, they are

tolerated by the rest of society as a "necessary evil."

 

Historically, ISKCON leaders are notorious for not taking voluntary

guidance from anyone -- sometimes not even from Srila Prabhupada. We could

make lists of hundreds of examples along with the consequences of the

ignored advice. There is no particular reason to think the next generation

of GBC would voluntarily act any differently then the last. After all, most

of the present GBC were the reformers of the 1980's. The system as it is

corrupts. Change the system to bring it in line with present environment or

continue the corruption. Let me give an example of what I mean by dealing

with "present reality":

 

We are not generally in favor of democracy. Better to have a saintly

king. But what do you do when you don't have a saintly king? I recently read

an article by an Indian writer on the practical nature of democracy, wherein

he points out that there has never been a famine in a country with a genuine

democratic government. Never. Not one. Why? Because the elected leaders will

simply not allow a famine to happen because they know they will be dragged

down from power. They will always find some means to get a minimum amount of

food to the voters and their families. Beg, borrow or steal, they will get

it. Since the advent of Kali Yuga, people have watched the changing of the

guard again and again -- one unsaintly king after another for thousands of

years. Finally, they realized there are no saintly kings coming and they

changed the system.

 

Of course, we have hope for something better because we participate in a

spiritual system that cleanses the heart. We expect to see saintly kings --

eventually. But personally, I never expect to see one unless it takes me

more than five or six more births to get out of this material world. So I'd

rather deal with present reality. We need external, non-voluntary limits of

the power of all groups in society.

 

|Sri Rama wrote:

|To say that this function is within the managerial purview of every

individual is to deny the system of varnashrama division.

|

|Bhaktarupa replied:

|Brahmanas are independent. They may be listened to or not. They don't

|care. But they will instruct those who ask them. Rather than an HBC, why

|not institute a culture in ISKCON that makes it generally practiced that

|the managers regularly inquire from whomever they consider to be detached

|and intelligent brahmanas.

 

You can't institute or legislate a culture. But you can build one with

regular, determined effort, usually over several generations. We have in our

possession, the most powerful system of knowledge and practice in the entire

creation -- but still we haven't even become steady in recreating ourselves,

what to speak of an entire culture. While we are building this culture, we

need effective management with definite checks and balances or we won't

survive as a society long enough to make a culture.

 

|Krsna-kirtan said:

|They have never been trained like that, even when Srila Prabhupada

|was there personally, most of the time they ignored his advice. (I have so

many

|examples to share on this matter).

 

I concur. Can anyone supply some examples of where the GBC voluntarily

and successfully inquired from qualified brahmanas? Because when I try, I

come up with only negative examples like how they ignored Pradyumna and

instead came back with the zonal acharya system.

 

|Bhaktarupa wrote:

|And also preach about the importance of supporting detached brahmanas so

they can |engage in brahminical work. This will create a real brahminical

class integrated |within the social fabric, rather than an institutionally

mandated brahminical caste. |Management would become so much easier in such

a climate, which is natural

|varnasrama rather than forced varnasrama.

 

This is a non sequitur [A statement that does not follow logically from

what preceded it.] Preaching about supporting detached brahmanas does not

create a brahminical class. We've heard the preaching for decades. It's

action we've been waiting for and it's clear the GBC are not capable of

restructuring themselves voluntarily. If the issue hadn't been forced by

others, there's no reason to believe we wouldn't still being living under

the zonal acharyas.

 

There is no such thing as "natural varnashrama", except in the broadest

sense that it is given by Krishna and the divisions exist intrinsically in

all cultures whether they are recognized or not. It is no more likely that a

varnashrama culture will self-organize than it is that life will arise

spontaneously from matter. The direction of the material world is always

toward disintegration and anarchy. The scriptures tell us that the rulers

are responsible to see that everyone is engaged according to their varna and

ashrama. When the kshatriyas neglect their duties, it is up to the brahmanas

to force the issue. Of course some type of force is required.

 

Any sort of implementation of varnashrama at the GBC level is going to

require painful personal choices -- acceptance of the principle, "you can't

have it all." No one enjoys have limits placed on their behavior. (Actually,

this is not completely true. Children say they want no restrictions, but if

they are in fact allowed to do as they please, they become unhappy, thinking

no one cares. Reasonable restrictions generally make people feel more

secure.)

 

|Krsna-kirtan commented:

|If you do not set the example at the head by what you call a "forced

|varnasram" nobody will start doing it spontaneously as ISKCON has such an

|horrible past on this issue. The leaders first have to accept to be guided

|by qualified brahmanas (in the form of a council to start with) in order to

|be trained to confirm with genuine authority, before they take any

|decisions.

 

This is much closer to the truth. I don't think many of us would

satisfied by promises of the GBC to be "guided" by personally chosen

independent brahmanas. A clear division of brahminical and ksatriya power

would be much satisfying. I believe the thrust of Bhaktarupa's concept is

that "brahminical power" is really kshatriya power in disguise. While this

is a very interesting perception, in the context of the realty we live in, I

don't think it will stand up to scrutiny. Within the scope of an institution

engaged in world-wide preaching, power derived through knowledge and

preaching is very real. Under the circumstances, it will be far safer that

the power is divided between more than one group.

 

|Bhaktarupa Prabhu:

|Any institution must give guidance. Primarily ISKCON should guide the

|members to take spiritual guidance from truly detached souls, not formally

|appointed ones.

 

Nice sentiment, but it falls totally short of the need. When there is an

issue such as the ritvik concept, should we tell people, "Ask whichever

truly-detached soul you have faith in"? "How do I know who is a

truly-detached soul?Read Srila Prabhupada's books and ask a

truly-detached soul!" Prabhupada left us a world-wide preaching

organization, not a grass hut by the bank of holy river in the forest.

ISKCON cannot go on any longer being an institution that pretends it's not

an institution. There is no question of force. Not everyone needs or wants

to a member or leader of an institution. But if one wishes to be a member or

acts as a leader in an institution, then the institution has a role to play

that cannot be ignored. If you wish to to the independent brahmana

program, than just make sure you've not tied yourself to the institution.

Then there's no conflict.

 

|Bhaktarupa Prabhu:

|And as for application of the philosophy is concerned, we

|should not kid ourselves that anything other than managers can do this

|best.

 

Personally, I've had enough of managers spooning out convenient

realizations on the philosophy for one lifetime. I'd much rather listen to

brahmanas explain the philosophy and then decide for myself whether the

managers are managing according to principles of Krishna consciousness and

if I'm going to follow them.

 

|Bhaktarupa wrote:

|It is not that a qualified ksatriya needs to consult with a qualified

|brahmana over every little matter. The main idea is that ksatriyas should

|clearly understand that although they are highly qualified to lead others

|they are in a dangerous position, as attachment can leak in and cause the

|leading to be done for one's own pleasure rather than the pleasure of guru

|and Krishna. Thus they will strongly feel the need for protection and

|regularly take the association of brahmanas who will remind them of their

|true responsibilities. Thus naturally they will make good decisions.

 

I understand this to mean that the kshatriyas really don't need to

consult with brahmanas on any practical matter. Just through association

they can be trusted to make good decisions. Why, if our leaders couldn't do

this when they had Srila Prabhupada's personal association, are they going

to do it now? Because they have more faith in the truly-detached souls they

currently know than they did in Prabhupada?

 

In essence, I consider any plan which offers no tangible counter-balance

to the GBC, other than good intentions, to be not up to the task at hand. We

have several decades of a proven track record of failure based on ignoring

human nature. Now we need a solid structure which will encourage and support

the development of real love and trust based on the recognition of our

personal strengths and weaknesses and respect for personal rights and

dignity.