Varnashrama: the essence or the details?

[Guest guest]

Dear Sri Rama Prabhu, PAMHO. AGTSP!

 

Thank you very much for your thoughtful and thought-provoking comments.

Please correct me if I am wrong, but you are suggesting that my view of the

restructuring issue is idealistic and not very practical. That to leave the

system basically unchanged and simply try to get the right persons in the

key positions is doomed to failure. Preaching about varnasrama has been

going on for years and hasn't improved anything. You suggest that we need

real checks and balances on the GBC power. Left on their own, the GBC

members will not voluntarily search out brahmanas for consultation. They

have to be forced to do so by direct limitation of their power. You suggest

that only when those who are brahminically qualified are directly in a

formal position to check the GBC's, then only will there be a real

varnasrama check and balance.

 

First of all I want to point out that I have never said (or at least I never

wanted to imply) that I oppose the creation of additional bodies as a check

and balance on the authority of a single apex managerial authority. I am

assuming that the main purpose you have in mind in creating additional

bodies is to establish a varnasrama-based system. I have only been trying to

make the point that even if such bodies are created, BY DEFINITION they will

not be brahminical in function. If you want a brahminical function you

should look at other alternatives. If we want to define brahmanas according

to guna and karma, as does the Gita, it is not brahma-karma to work as a

direct check and balance on a ksatriya. Brahmanas simply do not do that kind

of work. You may have one body working on the nuts and bolts of management,

say on the zonal level, and another body working on studying the scriptures

and judging whether the decisions of the first body are appropriate and

vetoing them if necessary. I have not been trying to oppose such a

suggestion (or whatever similar ideas you are working on in this conference)

by what I have written here previously. What I am opposing is the

terminology you are using for the arrangements. They do not represent real

brahmana/ksatriya divisions of work. Whenever anyone is in a position to

directly decide on society-wide policies, or systems, or their application

or enforcement, then this is clearly management, ksatriya-karma. And if you

were to have the research group only advising the nuts-and-bolts group with

no power to veto, then the research group would be a sudra function, as they

are assisting the ksatriyas. Neither is actually brahmana work.

 

It is most important to realize that brahmanas are not the only ones who

know the scriptures. Both brahamanas and ksatriyas are supposed to be highly

realized in sastra. Vaisyas also, and even some sudras, study sastra

extensively. But the brahmanas use their sastric knowledge for the spiritual

welfare of all, ksatriyas use it for the material welfare of all, vaisyas

use it for their own longterm welfare, and the intelligent sudras use it as

a means of livelihood only and generally do not understand its underlying

purport.

 

Thus, to assign a body the task of applying sastric knowledge to current

managerial problems and issues (and by saying that I am including the idea

of deciding which beliefs and understandings are suitable for promulgation

in the preaching of ISKCON, and other similar applications) is to assign

that body a ksatriya function. Provided you don't use the term "brahminical"

when referring to it, then I would have no such principled objection to its

formation.

 

I hope this makes my position clear. In the interest of forestalling any

futher misunderstanding, I will also comment directly on some of the points

of your text:

 

> 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.

 

I agree with this. I hope I did not give a different impression.

 

> 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.

 

If we are postulating the existence or hoped-to-come-soon existence of

genuine brahmanas or ksatriyas, then they will have the same kind of karma

and guna that brahmanas and ksatriyas have always had. I don't think I

mentioned forests, but in any case we have our modern day equivalents in

other forms of renunciation, such as travelling and preaching, and other

activities of selfless dedication to spiritual education and upliftment.

 

> 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.

 

Agreed.

 

> 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.

 

There were kings who were managing large institutions, namely countries, and

there were also temples and universities which must have had highly

structured institution-like features. Of course the exact situation is

different, but there certainly must have been similarities.

 

> 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.

 

Agreed.

 

> |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."

 

This is not at all correct. You have completely misunderstood the mentality

of the real ksatriya. You paint the picture that management is an

unfortunate necessity and someone has to do it, thus power is given to the

ksatriyas so that they will agree to do the undesireable work. This is most

distasteful to hear and, if you don't mind me saying so, sounds like

communist propaganda. Ksatriyas are by nature also compassionate. They want

to uplift the vaisyas and sudras and other lower caste people. But they see

that the nature of these subjects is such that without force they will not

act in their own self interest. By forceably controlling them through fear

of punishment they are able to keep them acting in a healthy manner. This is

opposed to the brahmanas who will instruct anyone who approaches them

voluntarily with an earnest desire to learn.

 

> 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.

 

I agree that the present system corrupts. But we should understand what

aspect of the present system is the actual corrupting factor. My sincere

contention is that the problems have mostly come from not having a strong

and detached sannyas asrama. The sannyasis have been managing. If

non-sannyasis manage and the sannyasis tour and visit while preaching

strongly about how things should be then they would provide a natural check

and balance on the managers. This point can be elaborated if necessary, but

do not assume that the problem is the system, when we have not really yet

tried to use it properly.

 

> 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.

 

This sounds like an extreme oversimplification, but even if we accept it as

being true, the fact is that Srila Prabhupada already allowed for it. While

the other Gaudiya Maths rely on an acarya system, ISKCON has a committee

system. Thus we are not waiting for the emergence of a single powerful and

qualified ksatriya to lead us. While individually the GBC members may one

after another fade, in the aggregate some ksatriya qualities may manifest.

Now, we may want to spread ISKCON's committee idea out thinner and wider so

that it functions better (like dividing the function into two or the like),

that's fine on this point, but then we have not really changed the

fundamental system at all, only broadened the base. We have not created a

brahmana/ksatriya check and balance but only a ksatriya/ksatriya check and

balance.

 

However, if you are advocating some form of total democracy, then that is

certainly a change in the system. Are you?

 

> 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.

 

Krishna sent Srila Prabhupada, why can't he send a saintly king? But are we

willing to be led by one? If Srila Prabhupada said he wanted to create a

class of brahmanas, why should we assume there can't also be a class of

ksatriyas? Brahmanas are far more rare than ksatriyas and brahmanas will

naturally create ksatriyas. So it seems you are saying that Srila Prabhupada

wanted something unlikely and not worth planning for.

 

> |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.

 

I agree. Just don't call those checks and balances as brahmana/ksatriya

checks and balances.

 

> |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.

 

They have been busy promoting themselves as the brahmanas (or more). But if

we have now learned our lessons and explain the facts as we now know them

why should the next generation not be an improvement?

 

> |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.

 

I agree with this. But rubber stamping a certain group as brahmanas does

even less to create such a class.

 

> 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.

 

So force a change again. I'm all for that. But let's go in the right

direction, even if it looks like it will take a long time to get there.

 

> 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.

 

I guess my term "preach about the importance of brahmanas" has struck a

discordant note with you. Sorry for that. But forcing changes upon ksatriyas

is ksatriya work and not brahmana work. I for one am not going to label

myself a brahmana and demand that I be listened to. Brahmanas preach and by

their brahma tejas the ksatriya's power eventually pales. Brahmanas never

lose faith in the power of the spoken, realized, word to accomplish the

proper goal.

 

> |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!"

 

NO! We say CHANT HARE KRISHNA and be happy! The holy name will solve all

these problems. But some people are unfortunate and won't put faith in the

chanting. If you want to tell them to have more faith in the institution's

official policies than in the chanting of the holy name then I don't think

your policy will be effective.

 

> 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.

 

This was exactly what Gaudiya Vaishnavism was like before Bhaktivinode

Thakur. But in the environment of the modern world no one knows that they

should seek out independent brahmanas, nor is there any encouragement for

the independent brahmanas to exist. The institution is supposed to

facilitate this education and guidance function, but it is not supposed to

change the basic face of our Gaudiya Vaishnava heritage.

 

> |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.

 

That's because you have been around for a long time and have matured, thanks

to the opportunity given by ISKCON, for all its faults. But if there was no

one around in the beginning to spoon feed you then you would have starved.

And don't think that the spoon feeding of convenient realizations on the

philosophy was something concocted by our prominent godbrothers. Srila

Prabhupada directly encouraged it as the only hope to rescue us from our

immature condition. If you want to talk about necessary evils, this spooning

of convenient realizations by spritual institutions is one for sure! And

Srila Prabhupada wanted it for sure! Don't now try to legislate that only

mature and independent thinkers should join ISKCON. Let the immature

dependent types join and get the opportunity to chant Hare Krishna and be

purified. Then later they will hopefully understand more, give up the

immature spoon fed realizations, and grow into strong devotees. I am frankly

surprised at your bitterness.

 

> |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?

 

I think it is quite possible that there may be a junior leader out there who

has more faith in the representatives Krishna has sent to them than I do or

did in the representative Krishna sent to me, Srila Prabhupada. Yes, I am

sure there are many such sincere souls. And I want to be managed by them!

 

> 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.

 

First apply force to drag our leadership down, then naturally love and trust

will develop. Is this your idea? It sounds like you have no real alternative

other than effective democracy. But Srila Prabhupada specifically warned us

against it. If that's what everyone wants, then so be it. But I suggest we

have to be a little more patient with what he gave us.

 

Your servant, Bhaktarupa Das