Varnashrama: the essence or the details?

[Guest guest]

Dear Prabhus.

PAMHO AGTSP

First of all I must offer my profuse apologies for insulting all of your

(individual) intelligences (?) with my last text. I said;

 

"I personaly beleive that an attitude of prayer is the only thing that will

help us. If we are not self realised, then really our ideas amount to so

much speculation."

 

I must beg all of your pardon for being so rude there. I must admit that

actually I was at a loss to understand certain concepts, but then I

discovered this thread wherein Bhaktarupa prabhu is putting into words the

very concepts that I have been struggling with.

 

I must also beg your pardon Bhaktarupa prabhu, as I had no idea you were

participating in the discussion. I am completely enlivened to find you here!

I had left the restructure conference, as I felt that I could not contribute

to it (it being too specific), and I dropped into this one a day or so ago

without bothering to review all the texts. I must apologise for being so

arrogant.

 

Bhaktarupa Prabhu said;

 

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

> mentality of the real ksatriya.

 

This is an important point. We were discussing this the other day. It is

almost impossible for a person in one varna to understand (all) the ways and

dealings of those in another varna. How can we understand for instance, that

the Pandavas who were all pure devotees, could also drink, eat meat, or

gamble? Prabhupada even said that we should train ksatrias to kill. This

requires a leap in understanding for most ISKCON devotees. But one of the

aspects of the brahminical order is that they specialise in teaching

specific varnic duties and action (something that is almost completely

absent in ISKCON). Dronacarya is a good example.

 

> 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.

 

Yes. If we had sanyasis who were visibly renounced (in the Gaudiya math for

example the sanyasis can be seen serving prasad, and doing other menial

tasks) then our devotees would have a first class example of saintly

behaviour to follow. If this was expected of our ISKCON sanyasis, instead of

the 'compulsory' maha plate and first class room, we might find the sanyas

waiting list getting a bit shorter, and hence, less of the ever increasing

vomit eating. Such saintly sanyasis, would then command respect, (instead of

having to demand it nowadays). Their words would carry weight. Devotees

inspired by their saintliness would soon rally to the nearest ksatria GBC

(much as the citizens did with Rama) to make their discontent known. Of

course enforcing simplicity does not guarantee purity, but the pretenders

would find less attraction for the position.

 

> 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.

 

I wholeheartedly agree with this line of reasoning. There is no reasaon at

all why Krsna cannot provide all the help we need. The only thing between us

and a saintly king is the intense desire to have one. If enough of us

petitioned the Lord sincerely, then he would - if we were really sincere, be

bound to supply one. What we need is unity of purpose. We need to take stock

of the situation, sort out our differences, and then petition the Lord with

great intensity, from the core of our hearts to supply the persons who can

guide us. If we cannot find the shelter by looking with our eyes, we have to

pray to the Lord to reveal them from within. I agree, as Babhru prabu

pointed out, that indeed we should all be pure, but surely the best way to

become pure, is to obtain the service of the purest person(s).

 

> > 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.

 

This is also a very important point. The terminology or the identification

of tasks, positions, and responsibility within the varnasrama structure is

not well understood. We label when we shouldn't, and at other times

mislabel. For instance, there is no need to publicly refer to certain

persons as sudras (etc.), as often such labelling becomes derogatory, as in:

'he's just a bleeing sudra aint he'. But in terms of management structure we

have to know who goes where. Labelling is a very sensitive issue. As you

pointed out earlier also, some tasks which might traditionaly belong to a

certain varnic group, may also be performed by another varna, such as the

sudra studying sastra. In all varnas there are gradations of intelligence,

such as the ksatria 'ruler', a regular soldier, and a town councillor. Or

the sudra who studies sastra, as opposed to the gross sweeper. In order for

us to really implement varasrama we need to be crystal clear on these

issues.

>

> > |Krsna-kirtan said:

> > 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?

 

Improving on past mistakes has not been adopted precisely because some

leaders have a vested interest in the ignorance of their followers as per

the Pradyumna example. We need to educate our members very carefully in this

regard. You can only improve when you know exactly where you went wrong.

This is not often understood, and some are even in denial that anything IS

wrong.

 

> > 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.

 

This is something that needs to be really understood. As far as I can see,

the most essential brahmana is the self realised guru. Obtaining him is a

purely personal action of sincere prayer and hankering. Other brahmanas of

the non realised type, but who are completely honest and sincere, would

surely themselves be bounden to the service of the self realised brahmana,

as this is all they would hanker for. How to institutionalise this I dont

understand. Prabhupada was the self realised brahmana, and he created a

class of brahmana followers. Now he is not physicaly present, surely the

followers need to hanker for another self realised brahmana (or two) to act

as the final and perfect sanctioner(s)? The difficulty is that not all

within the insitution will agree that a certain person is the realised soul.

Thus the Gaudiya math 'lost' Srila (A.C. Bhaktivedanta) Prabhupada.

 

> > 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.

 

Absolutely.

 

> 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.

 

I agree. ISKCON is meant to be a training institution. Prabhupada says again

and again that ISKCON is meant to train brahmanas. The brahmanas then teach

the rest of society. They teach more brahmanas, as well as Ksatriyas and

Vaisyas. This is not going on. Prabhupada wanted to change society, he

wanted varnasrama everywhere. We are to teach it, but where is our

systematic plan to do this? This is our work, let there be thousands of

gurus, but let us teach the way to actualy get a bonafide guru, and to

recognise the ways in which cheating goes on. Ultimately if people want to

be cheated we can do nothing to help them, in ISKCON or out, but at least we

can teach the method by which one can become sincere. When Jayatirtha left

with his followers, who could help them? Only a handful of the sincere

devotees remained in ISKCON, the rest got the cheating they deserved, what

can be done?

 

> 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.

 

I have heard so many devotees say that "oh we tried Varnasrama, it doesn't

work"! the fact is that no one has tried varnasrama (as far as I know), only

lip service. When it comes to it I dont think we have ever created the kind

of Gurukula Prabhupada wanted either. After Prabhupada left us, it appears

that the movement was hijacked by the desires of certain leaders who wanted

to consolidate their positions. Since then we have never returned to ISKCON

as it was meant to be. Now it seems that the moment is approaching where we

can have another go at it. Personaly I feel this is a momentous chance to

re-examine Prabhupadas teachings in great detail, and pray to the Lord to

give us the strength, mercy, and humility to do the right thing. This should

definately be a long term effort. Not something to rush over a few emails.

 

Your servant

Samba das