Guest guest Posted June 14, 2001 Report Share Posted June 14, 2001 Dandavad. Prabhupada kijaya! Despite reading this passage and many others like it for many years I still am confused on certain points. Srila Prabhupada says: > This complete arrangement > affords the proper quota of wealth for everyone according to his real > needs, and thus everyone may live peacefully according to the principle of > plain living and high thinking. My question is how do we know what is our "quota" or what are our "real needs"? On the purely physical level, we do not "need" anything more than what a primitive, tribal, type of life provides. When Srila Prabhupada says "plain living" how plain does he mean? How far "back to nature" are we meant to go? Where, in this economic vision, does the creation of new wealth come? New wealth involves the organization of human power and natures supply towards productive activity. Generally this requires leadership and some sacrifice. So what drives a person to lead others towards creating new wealth? Either there must be some personal self-interest or direction from a higher power. IN the above statement there seems to be no scope for self-interest beyond just basics to live on. That leaves us with higher power. HOw does that higher power manifest to tell us how far to endeavor for creating new wealth? Or are we meant to find some sort of perfect balance with nature and remain there? Where does that leave the creative urge? Or the urge to minimize suffering on account of old age, disease and death, if not for ourselves, for those we are attached to? Finally, how does this model fit with the model of "dovetailing" one's material desires with the desires of Krishna? IN other words, channeling the urge to create wealth, and enjoy a more opulent life into a lifestyle centered on the opulent service of the Deity and Harinam? Where do we draw the line between creating wealth for Krishna's service and enjoying the "remnants", and taking more than we "need"? My answer is that we must be conscious of the principles of sustainability, stewardship, and equity, to make sure we don't create wealth by stealing from the future or from our social capital or from fellow inhabitants of this planet. However, this does not really answer the question. How do I know what is my quota? I am looking forward to hearing from the enlightened souls of this conference. Your servant, Pancaratna das Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 14, 2001 Report Share Posted June 14, 2001 Dear Pancaratna et al, How much I like to read your highly pertinent observations. Myself, I am pushing for the dovetailing of our material desires into an obviously superior farming system. I often feel very frustrated when such quotes of Prabhupada come up, which seem to say - live a very simple peasant life, no electricity, piped water, gas, cars, medical services, nothing of the modern entrapments we are all so engaged in. This year zero rural peasantry may be the goal of simple living, but I don't think at this moment we'll have many takers. But the quotes themselves negate the drive I am pushing forward in terms of dovetailing our desires in a better way. You say: > Despite reading this passage and many others like it > for many years I still > am confused on certain points. Srila Prabhupada > says: > > > This complete arrangement > > affords the proper quota of wealth for everyone > according to his real > > needs, and thus everyone may live peacefully > according to the principle of > > plain living and high thinking. > > My question is how do we know what is our "quota" or > what are our "real > needs"? On the purely physical level, we do not > "need" anything more than > what a primitive, tribal, type of life provides. > When Srila Prabhupada says > "plain living" how plain does he mean? How far "back > to nature" are we meant > to go? > > Where, in this economic vision, does the creation of > new wealth come? New > wealth involves > the organization of human power and natures supply > towards productive > activity. Generally this requires leadership and > some sacrifice. So what > drives a person to lead others towards creating new > wealth? > > Either there must be some personal self-interest or > direction from a higher > power. IN the above statement there seems to be no > scope for self-interest > beyond just basics to live on. That leaves us with > higher power. HOw does > that higher power manifest to tell us how far to > endeavor for creating new > wealth? Or are we meant to find some sort of perfect > balance with nature and > remain there? > > Where does that leave the creative urge? Or the urge > to minimize suffering > on account of old age, disease and death, if not for > ourselves, for those we > are attached to? > > Finally, how does this model fit with the model of > "dovetailing" one's > material desires with the desires of Krishna? IN > other words, channeling the > urge to create wealth, and enjoy a more opulent life > into a lifestyle > centered on the opulent service of the Deity and > Harinam? Where do we draw > the line between creating wealth for Krishna's > service and enjoying the > "remnants", and taking more than we "need"? > > My answer is that we must be conscious of the > principles of sustainability, > stewardship, and equity, to make sure we don't > create wealth by stealing > from the future or from our social capital or from > fellow inhabitants of > this planet. > > However, this does not really answer the question. > How do I know what is my > quota? > > I am looking forward to hearing from the enlightened > souls of this > conference. > > Your servant, > Pancaratna das My opinion is that to follow the terms perfectly is the direction of the Vedic quotes - a little hut, some veg and grains, a cow or two - and live. So I don't feel that there is no higher advice here. Subsistence life is seen as the place to be to live simply - permaculture, home gardens, agroforests - whatever name is given to it, it is to live within a natural cornocopia and to take enough to satisfy needs, be that for today or to store for future needs. One of the last quotes de jour, talked about how man creates surpluses, which other animals don't do. This is not correct, many animals store for leaner times, whether it is a squirrel of a bear (with its fat). Also in the Vedic times the kings ensured surplus, how else could Krsna raid the butter, if it was not a store, or wear silk cloth if it was not a sign of wealth? So, I think the absolute position is to not pre-occupy oneself with too much activity that does not just give shelter, food, sex and protection for the whole year and ensure its continuity in the years to come. My point is - who is going to live that simply? I've done it and loved it, but now with a child and (ex)wife, unless I am prepared to go back to the hills and leave my child, I will not do it. So, I need to dovetail what I can do, and that means living within the system around us and paying the way with minimum or above minimum desires. The principles of sustainable development are certainly a stepping stone towards the simplest life, but a stepping stone that takes into consideration our "needs" of today and modifies consumption and production to meet these perceived needs in a way that respects inter and intra-generational equity (equality within and between generations). I feel we are missing an enormous opportunity if we do not take on board sustainable development, as I'm sure Prabhupada would have, and see it as a progression on the alphabet soup back to nature, to Godhead. That is why with Protection Farms I try to bring it into modern terms of sustainability as a halfway house progression. To negate it as it is too "worldly", as we shouldn't be so "developed" is strange whilst we do not live the simple life to the full. And even if we are one of the few who do live peasant life, surely it should be seen as a progression. For many of us it will be a long time before the simplest life is in our grasps, surely a progression in the right direction is better than slagging off the present system and then presenting the true utopia even though we find it unattinable? Mark __________ Get your free @.co.uk address at http://mail..co.uk or your free @.ie address at http://mail..ie Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 14, 2001 Report Share Posted June 14, 2001 Yes, a fellow associate who also writes in a similar vein is a devotee named Prabhupada das, he has a website at: He is difficult to get a hold of and his website is in its formative stages. I have one story about him that may prove informative, in the early 70's he was the temple commander at the Vancover temple. He tried hard to make sure all devotees where fully engaged and and noted that associating with advanced devotees was rare. No sannyasis hardly ever visited Vancover it was off the beaten path - so Prabhupada das wrote to Srila Prabhupada asking if such people could be scheduled to come and lecture. Srila Prabhupada's reply was it was better that he (Prabhupada das) become fixed up and preach to the temple devotees. So it looks like we are all charge with taking up the order of the guru not just the leadership, 'you become guru and tell others about Krishna. ' ys, Rohita dasa - Samba (das) SDG (Planning/Varnasrama) <Samba.SDG (AT) pamho (DOT) net> Cow (Protection and related issues) <Cow (AT) pamho (DOT) net>; cowz <cowz (AT) jc-net (DOT) com>; Taraka dasa <tarakadas (AT) aol (DOT) com> Thursday, June 14, 2001 10:31 AM Le Cow Quote Du Jour # 96 > > Dandavad. Prabhupada kijaya! > > > > Despite reading this passage and many others like it for many years I > > still am confused on certain points. Srila Prabhupada says: > > > > > This complete arrangement > > > affords the proper quota of wealth for everyone according to his real > > > needs, and thus everyone may live peacefully according to the principle > > > of plain living and high thinking. > > > > My question is how do we know what is our "quota" or what are our "real > > needs"? On the purely physical level, we do not "need" anything more than > > what a primitive, tribal, type of life provides. When Srila Prabhupada > > says "plain living" how plain does he mean? How far "back to nature" are > > we meant to go? > > Prabhupada gave the example of the bag of rice, and that the greedy > mentality or the human tendency to hoard means imbalance of resources, and > hence the trouble the world faces today. If the humans are engaged according > to their nature, they would naturaly be happy in their engagement. Happy > workers produce abundantly, and the ksatria manages the abundance which is > produced over and above the needs of the individual families, which is > distributed as required or stored for emergencies. The whole idea is based > on the instructions we find in the Gita regarding our right to work but no > right to the fruits of our action. > > > > Where, in this economic vision, does the creation of new wealth come? New > > wealth involves > > the organization of human power and natures supply towards productive > > activity. Generally this requires leadership and some sacrifice. > > Absolutely! Who is going to do all this if the leaders don't set the > example. I feel that is why simple living is so unpopular, everyone wants to > be a wealthy jet setting Swami! The drive should come from renounced people > who actualy live up to the Bhagavad Gitas teachings. > > > > Either there must be some personal self-interest or direction from a > > higher power. IN the above statement there seems to be no scope for > > self-interest beyond just basics to live on. That leaves us with higher > > power. HOw does that higher power manifest to tell us how far to endeavor > > for creating new wealth? Or are we meant to find some sort of perfect > > balance with nature and remain there? > > The higher power comes when people recognise that they need to accept the > authority of a higher power. Good citizens deserve good leaders, cheating > citizens get cheating leaders, we get what we deserve. When you have > 'higher' powers that thrive from the legacy of purity set by previous > acaryas, but exploit such legacy for their own comfort or aggrandizement, > then people loose faith in 'spiritual' authority, mistaking the imitation > for the real thing. > > > Where does that leave the creative urge? > Not everyone has a creative urge in the full sense of the term. > > Or the urge to minimize suffering > > on account of old age, disease and death, if not for ourselves, for those > > we are attached to? > > This is the urge of the true Ksatria, to protect others. Such an urge is the > tell tale sign of ksatriya dharma. > > > > Finally, how does this model fit with the model of "dovetailing" one's > > material desires with the desires of Krishna? IN other words, channeling > > the urge to create wealth, and enjoy a more opulent life into a lifestyle > > centered on the opulent service of the Deity and Harinam? Where do we draw > > the line between creating wealth for Krishna's service and enjoying the > > "remnants", and taking more than we "need"? > > Generaly ones guru should be available to help people discern their level of > requirement, and general position in society. Of course in the situation we > are now in, it is very difficult to know what the standard should or could > be. A lot depends on where you are goegraphicaly. > > > My answer is that we must be conscious of the principles of > > sustainability, stewardship, and equity, to make sure we don't create > > wealth by stealing from the future or from our social capital or from > > fellow inhabitants of this planet. > > Right! > > > However, this does not really answer the question. How do I know what is > > my quota? > > In general it seems that Prabhupadas idea was that we only take as much as > we need to keep body and soul together, and to have the faith that Krsna is > really there, and that he will take care of his devotees, just as he takes > care of all the animals. This whole arrangement also supposes that the > Ksatriya will be there to help out if there is an emergency so people will > not starve. But the premise is that such a society of enlightened people are > going to win the favour of the Lord, and that problems will be minimised, > and in fact there will be heaven on earth! Its just a matter of how much > faith we have in the words of the acarya! > > If we dont have the faith that Krsna will take care of us, then we must have > faith in our own abilities to survive, a lot of which depends on how good we > are at aquiring more than we need and selling it at a profit. This mentality > assures that we will have a lot of anxiety. This is the current scenario. > > I dont think we are going to see much simple living or varnasrama > development until enough people act on their supposed acceptance of Krsnas > mercy and love for his devotees. > > Just think of the automatic abundance that would result from people situated > according to their natures, working happily and without attachment to the > result, for the sake of pleasing Krsna, and the kind of grace and > enlightenment such a society of people would be awarded. I guess it is a > case of the 'proof of the pudding is in the eating'. > > > I am looking forward to hearing from the enlightened souls of this > > conference. > > Well this is my dogmatic and theoretical understanding, if only we could see > it happening! But then I dont think we ever will until someone decides to > really give it a good go. Prabhupada wanted our leadership to do it, but I > guess anyone who does give it a go, becomes a leader. > > Your servant > Samba das > > PS I got much of the understanding for this worldview from Dhanesvara > prabhus excellent paper. > 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.