Guest guest Posted March 6, 2000 Report Share Posted March 6, 2000 Dear Chayadevi, Are these ideas for a particular farm, something you're organizing or helping with, or general rules/ideas for ISKCON farms? If it is the latter, it seems too specific. For instance in countries like our own, we are planning to do it- set ourselves up in self-sufficiency by going on social security until we are set up enough and paid off the land enough, to be able to get by without it. Thats what devotees in Australia do to set themselves up, because social security is so easy to get- just proof of a low income is enough. Anyway, it factors into a lot of schemes we have here and you might find that also in countries where gov't assistance is easily available, it is a big factor. Once the land is paid for, we plan to do without rent, so its not rent actually its mortgage repayment. Then all equipment will be shared, there will be no cost to use it. Anyone, non-devotee can come and help work the land in return for cabin-accomodation. Devotees will be the permanent residents, though. We can't get a lot of devotees interested, but we figure as they see its a nice life they may join in. Best if there's no economic pressure, just rent until the land's paid off. That's the idea of one farmer I know, who is already on his land plus my friend who will be soon. If you can get gov't assistance till the land is paid off, less pressure is there, then such assistance should not be necessary down the track a bit when we're set up to face the challenges of going wholly self-sufficient. Anyway, its applicable here, might be applicable in some other countries too. ys, niscala. ____ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 6, 2000 Report Share Posted March 6, 2000 Dear Niscula, I was dismayed to read your recent comments on your idea of "self sufficiency". Your idea of just claiming social security is totally the opposite to the true meaning. Srila Prabhupada was very much against this dole bludging mentality. It is poisonus to the mind and soul. Self sufficiency means just that. Looking after ones self and taking responsibility for ones own actions (or inactions).To create ones own resources rather than rely on everyone elses. At the end of the day, $ has to be created from somewhere and us taxpayers get fed up with people who expect it to come from our hard work. You may have great intentions to stop claiming once you get set up, but the reality is that if its easy to claim, then why stop? This mentality seems to breed through into our second and third generation devotee mood and is very insidious to stamp out. Self sufficiency to be NOT DEPENDENT on others. Your servant, Ananta Krsna Dasi. Email: ann (AT) akn (DOT) quik.co.nz - Noelene Hawkins <niscala99 (AT) hotmail (DOT) com> Cow (Protection and related issues) <Cow (AT) pamho (DOT) net> Monday, 6 March 2000 16:46 Can we get back to this discussion Dear Chayadevi, Are these ideas for a particular farm, something you're organizing or helping with, or general rules/ideas for ISKCON farms? If it is the latter, it seems too specific. For instance in countries like our own, we are planning to do it- set ourselves up in self-sufficiency by going on social security until we are set up enough and paid off the land enough, to be able to get by without it. Thats what devotees in Australia do to set themselves up, because social security is so easy to get- just proof of a low income is enough. Anyway, it factors into a lot of schemes we have here and you might find that also in countries where gov't assistance is easily available, it is a big factor. Once the land is paid for, we plan to do without rent, so its not rent actually its mortgage repayment. Then all equipment will be shared, there will be no cost to use it. Anyone, non-devotee can come and help work the land in return for cabin-accomodation. Devotees will be the permanent residents, though. We can't get a lot of devotees interested, but we figure as they see its a nice life they may join in. Best if there's no economic pressure, just rent until the land's paid off. That's the idea of one farmer I know, who is already on his land plus my friend who will be soon. If you can get gov't assistance till the land is paid off, less pressure is there, then such assistance should not be necessary down the track a bit when we're set up to face the challenges of going wholly self-sufficient. Anyway, its applicable here, might be applicable in some other countries too. ys, niscala. ____ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 7, 2000 Report Share Posted March 7, 2000 Dear Ananta Krsna, As you know there is a great number of devotees on social security anyway in Australia and New Zealand. A great number of them have no plans to get off. I am just speaking from personal experience, it may have changed in New Zealand, it is that way in Australia now. If they are on social security anyway, what is wrong with staying on it until you can be self-sufficient, using their funds to set themselves up. It is surely better than staying on it indefinitely, and it is surely better than getting a permanent job supporting ugra-karma, though the latter may be an option to the better end as well. It takes money to buy land, and the equipment for self-sufficiency. Rather than be permanent dole-bludgers, the funds from the dole should be used to get off it. That's all I was saying, not that I'm in support of devotees staying on the dole, just the opposite in fact. Also there is other forms of social security that do not require one to fill in a form saying one is looking for work. There is single mothers pension which I am now getting and with careful budgetting can save quite a bit of it- about a third, plus there is other types. So don't get me wrong- but rather condemn dole collectors, we should encourage them to use it to get off it. I mean it makes sense- you can't starve while you're saving up for land, and paying it off. To try to work at a karmi job while you're on your land and at the same time show IDEAL agriculture with the bullocks=- who would have the time and still be able to chant 16 rounds? This is the challenge facing those devotees in countries without social security. It must be so difficult. It could be what is putting a lot of devotees off following these directions of Prabhupadas, so why make it harder. By encouraging dole-dependent devotees top use it to be self-sufficient, the numbers on the dole would decrease! So I am not encouraging devotees to stay on social security but if they are on it (the majority of devotees here), to use it to get off it, that's all. Its just factored a lot into setting up self-sufficient farms in Australia, so I just thought I'd mention it. Let me know what you think. Sorry I didn't make it more clear, ys, niscala. >"Ann Fletcher" <ann (AT) akn (DOT) quik.co.nz> >"Ann Fletcher" <ann (AT) akn (DOT) quik.co.nz> >"Noelene Hawkins" <niscala99 (AT) hotmail (DOT) com>, <Cow (AT) pamho (DOT) net> >Re: Can we get back to this discussion >Tue, 7 Mar 2000 12:25:44 +1300 > >Dear Niscula, >I was dismayed to read your recent comments on your idea of "self >sufficiency". Your idea of just claiming social security is totally the >opposite to the true meaning. Srila Prabhupada was very much against this >dole bludging mentality. It is poisonus to the mind and soul. Self >sufficiency means just that. Looking after ones self and taking >responsibility for ones own actions (or inactions).To create ones own >resources rather than rely on everyone elses. At the end of the day, $ has >to be created from somewhere and us taxpayers get fed up with people who >expect it to come from our hard work. You may have great intentions to stop >claiming once you get set up, but the reality is that if its easy to claim, >then why stop? This mentality seems to breed through into our second and >third generation devotee mood and is very insidious to stamp out. >Self sufficiency to be NOT DEPENDENT on others. >Your servant, >Ananta Krsna Dasi. >Email: ann (AT) akn (DOT) quik.co.nz >- >Noelene Hawkins <niscala99 (AT) hotmail (DOT) com> >Cow (Protection and related issues) <Cow (AT) pamho (DOT) net> >Monday, 6 March 2000 16:46 >Can we get back to this discussion > > >Dear Chayadevi, > >Are these ideas for a particular farm, something you're organizing or >helping with, or general rules/ideas for ISKCON farms? If it is the >latter, >it seems too specific. For instance in countries like our own, we are >planning to do it- set ourselves up in self-sufficiency by going on social >security until we are set up enough and paid off the land enough, to be >able >to get by without it. Thats what devotees in Australia do to set themselves >up, because social security is so easy to get- just proof of a low income >is >enough. Anyway, it factors into a lot of schemes we have here and you might >find that also in countries where gov't assistance is easily available, it >is a big factor. > >Once the land is paid for, we plan to do without rent, so its not rent >actually its mortgage repayment. Then all equipment will be shared, there >will be no cost to use it. Anyone, non-devotee can come and help work the >land in return for cabin-accomodation. >Devotees will be the permanent residents, though. > >We can't get a lot of devotees interested, but we figure as they see its a >nice life they may join in. Best if there's no economic pressure, just rent >until the land's paid off. > >That's the idea of one farmer I know, who is already on his land plus my >friend who will be soon. > >If you can get gov't assistance till the land is paid off, less pressure is >there, then such assistance should not be necessary down the track a bit >when we're set up to face the challenges of going wholly self-sufficient. > >Anyway, its applicable here, might be applicable in some other countries >too. > >ys, niscala. > > > >____ >Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com > > > ____ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 7, 2000 Report Share Posted March 7, 2000 At 14:24 -0800 3/7/2000, Noelene Hawkins wrote: >If they are on social security anyway, what is wrong with staying on it >until you can be self-sufficient, using their funds to set themselves up. It >is surely better than staying on it indefinitely, and it is surely better >than getting a permanent job supporting ugra-karma, though the latter may be >an option to the better end as well. I find this attitude disturbing to say the least. If someone is an able-bodied person who is sponging off the work from others, they need to cease this practice immediately. It doesn't help to say that they're eventually planning on doing so. It needs to stop now because it is simply immoral. Here in California, hard-working, tax paying individuals are beginning to greatly resent those who simply want a free ride and as a result, welfare payments are becoming very limited, which ends up hurting those who truly need them, like children and the disabled. Devotees may feel that working is somehow beneath them, but strangely enough they don't seem to have the same feelings about taking the money of those individuals who do work- when they have done nothing to deserve it? That must surely be even lower class. Prabhupada wanted us to be perfect ladies and gentlemen and to be honest. I find this behavior anything but. If someone doesn't want to work for someone else, then they can start their own business, however modest. At least that's truly practicing what we preach about self sufficiency. If they can't do that, there are plenty of jobs that wouldn't invovle compromising our principles. Lots of devotees have jobs and are able to use them for preaching, either directly (by talking about Krsna with our colleagues, distributing prasadam at work etc) or indirectly (by showing that one can be a devotee and still a good human being and not just an unethical collector, sticker-seller or free-loader). >So I am not encouraging devotees to stay on social security but if they are >on it (the majority of devotees here), to use it to get off it, that's all. That is a really pathetic statement. No wonder we are having such an image problem and difficulties attracting any respectable new members into our society. Do any of the memebrs here have any idea if this is the case in other parts of the world too? Your servant, Madhusudani dasi Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 8, 2000 Report Share Posted March 8, 2000 If the economy is based on blood, whether it is the blood of the earth (oil) which fuels our generators, heaters, motors, etc. or the violent domination of people to acquire their natural resources (Central America), then the person who gains from this is glorious because? In other words, if I use force to steal from Joe, then have I earned my livelihood? I think this is the ugra-karma that Niscala talks about. Then she mentions that it's practically impossible to be a full-time farmer without some financial help. I think the reality of our personal wealth (how much land and cows we have) cannot be overlooked. Many devotees give their career-building, educational years to working (and collecting) for a non-profit organization, and when they come out on the other side, they are completely impoverished. Many devotees have an extremely hard time picking up from there, and M.R.'s tone seems a little cold to me. I would hope that in the future devotees who devote years of their lives can walk out on the other side in a less-depleted, possibly even improved economic situation. I believe that's possible, if the focus of the temple is concerned with devotees spiritual AND physical well-being. Welfare, however, does not seem to be the answer. I think that grants and donations are the answer, and that honesty, the quality of the brahmanas, can bring about a better result than diversions from the truth. If we say that we need money to take care of our family, and we get $25,000 for a year, that's probably the right dollar figure to take care of a family. If we say that we need money to establish a farm based on ahimsa principles, we may get $300,000 or $10 million (these are good economic times), which is probably more than the 35% that you can save in your cookie jar. I agree with M.R. in the sense that devotees can and must work. It's not that only Hindus can work, and we "hit them up" for their dough. "Whatever binds one, when dedicated to the service of Lord Krishna, cuts down the tree of work." (1.5.34?) We can go into a "karmic situation" and not get bound (if we dedicate our work to the service of the Lord). I also agree with Niscala, that devotee farmers, who, like in Spain, seem to have no institutional support (save "Hope all is well") must continue to protect the cows. It'd be great if the two seemingly diverse lifestyles could come closer and closer together to the point where devotees who work in a city have access to a farm, and where devotees from the farm have access to a city. Instead of the city-dwellers seeing the farmers as "sponges," they could be seen as providers of farm products. If you're gonna rail me, M.R., go easy on me, I've had a long day at work. Igno Rama Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 8, 2000 Report Share Posted March 8, 2000 >If you're gonna rail me, M.R., go easy on me, I've had a long day at work. Far be it from me to rail on a fellow hard worker. If you tell me you voted today too, I'll even send you some cyber flowers. ;-) Madhu Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 8, 2000 Report Share Posted March 8, 2000 >Many devotees give their >career-building, educational years to working (and collecting) for a >non-profit organization, and when they come out on the other side, they are >completely impoverished. Many devotees have an extremely hard time picking up >from there, and M.R.'s tone seems a little cold to me. Sorry, I didn't mean to sound cold. But I think it's a world of difference between people who are desperate and who need some temporary help while between jobs or while they get trained to work, and those who are able but unwilling to work and somehow feel entitled to long term welfare, or feel like working is "beneath" them, but that taking money from those who work is perfectly acceptable. However, the long term solution to this problem is going to have to involve discouraging future generations of devotees from getting into that situation to begin with. We have to stop preaching that education and job training is maya. The reality is that most devotees will want to get married and will need to have the skills to support their families one day. Maybe we can excuse the first generation because of their naive enthusiasm, but this "preaching" continues even today - and that's inexcusable. Ys, Madhusudani dasi Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 8, 2000 Report Share Posted March 8, 2000 I de voted today. Are the flowers offered? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 8, 2000 Report Share Posted March 8, 2000 To be honest, I like the Mormon approach: 2 years of volunteer service (preaching), and 10% of the income for the rest of the life. This'll really show my new age leanings, but, anyway, here it comes. M. Scott Peck, The Road Less Travelled, defines love as "the willingness to let someone grow materially and spiritually." If the temples focus on helping new devotees grow materially and spiritually so that after two years they are much better off in both categories, then the soul will forever be grateful for the kind treatment. If, on the other hand, the devotee is bled dry, he's done a great service for the temple, but probably won't be able to make further contributions until he gets a new life. The concept of serving the servants of Krishna is not so revolutionary unless you go to the roots of the word "revolution," which if I recall my Latin means "coming back around." This is the idea, to make people happy. A nonprofit organization has to make a contribution to society, and I believe that temples ought to strive to train people spiritually and return them to their productive lives and offer them spiritual support in those productive years in exchange for monetary support. There will certainly be devotees who want to and must live in the temple and do full-time service. These devotees should be budgeted for and taken care of exactly as any non-profit employer takes care of workers. I am in favor of devotees getting paid (so that they can afford to take care of their children or parents and so that they can save up for a house even). Do clergy from other institutions get paid? THe argument can then be made that it's not really "devotional" service. It's a job. My rebuttal would be that these things must be paid for--you can't cut off the head of a chicken because that's the part that eats. Some may prefer to centralize the funds and dole them out to the devotees as necessary, but I think it's far too easy to dip into money that ought to be saved for emergencies. Ram Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 10, 2000 Report Share Posted March 10, 2000 On 07 Mar 2000, Madhusudani Radha wrote: > But I think it's a world of > difference between people who are desperate and who need some > temporary help while between jobs or while they get trained to work, > and those who are able but unwilling to work and somehow feel > entitled to long term welfare, or feel like working is "beneath" > them, but that taking money from those who work is perfectly > acceptable. From Srimad Bhagavatam, 11.8.16: "Just as a hunter takes away the honey laboriously produced by the honeybees, similarly, saintly mendicants such as brahmacaris and sannyasis are entitled to enjoy the property painstakingly accumulated by householders dedicated to family enjoyment." MDd Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 10, 2000 Report Share Posted March 10, 2000 "WWW: Mukunda Datta (Dasa) ACBSP (Seattle WA - USA)" wrote: > On 07 Mar 2000, Madhusudani Radha wrote: > > But I think it's a world of > > difference between people who are desperate and who need some > > temporary help while between jobs or while they get trained to work, > > and those who are able but unwilling to work and somehow feel > > entitled to long term welfare, or feel like working is "beneath" > > them, but that taking money from those who work is perfectly > > acceptable. > > From Srimad Bhagavatam, 11.8.16: > > "Just as a hunter takes away the honey laboriously produced by the > honeybees, similarly, saintly mendicants such as brahmacaris and sannyasis are > entitled to enjoy the property painstakingly accumulated > by householders dedicated to family enjoyment." > > MDd If you look up the word mendicant in your dictionery, you may easily come to the conclusion that many of our contemporary brahmacaris and sannyasis, none of whom I know of that live in the forest, or can carry everything they own, fall into the first category and not the second. 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.