Fw: RDP Principles

October 9, 2001

-

"markjon chatburn" <protection_farms >

"iscowp" <iscowp (AT) earthlink (DOT) net>

Tuesday, October 09, 2001 7:54 PM

RDP Principles

> Dear all,

>

> What I am about to present may seem as a divergence

> from the themes that have been seen so far. What I

> want to look at first are principles of land use, not

> practices. Principles must supercede practices. So

> before any practical measurements can be observed let

> us dive into the theory of principles.

>

> A major flaw of statistical models is that the

> collection of data becomes the raison d'etre.

> Empirical data should be collected to allow analysis

> leading to synthesis. Meaning observe, ask all the

> questions and do the experiments to lead to a

> conclusion to synthesise into a managment objective.

> Statistics, as all things in life, are there to serve

> us, not for us to serve them. Too much 'science'

> becomes a slave to statistical measurements.

>

> So, what is the key? It must be to bring the type and

> amount of data down to the optimum. What really is the

> quality that we need to measure? The measuring must

> serve for the purpose which is management. So what are

> the qualities that we can observe that need

> statistical references to allow for the intelligent

> synthesis of management to bring forth progress?

>

> I have been meditating for some time on the qualities

> that we need to measure to judge the development

> criteria by and I have an idea that I am still working

> on. The idea is to set principles based on Sankya

> Yoga's 24 component parts (but a problem I have here

> is that I only have in the UK the abridged version of

> the Bhagavad Gita which does not have the details I

> want that are in the non-abridged version with the

> full purport to chapter 13, slokás 6&7. If you know

> where I can get that basic analysis of the 24

> component parts then I would really like to see that

> text, otherwise I'm working on memory).

>

> The need for principles as I see it is that throughout

> the world practical conditions vary but there are

> underlying principles that can be seen. If we can

> grasp these principles and see how betterment or

> worsening conditions can relate to the principles then

> it can be applicable throughout the world; therefore

> principles would be universal and practices would be

> location-specific.

>

> In many parts of the world there is anthropological

> evidence that local cultures know their soils, water,

> trees, everything on their land. They would make

> judgements based on their scientific analysis, which

> would be just as valid as the 'Western' approach. They

> understood basic principles, whilst western science

> looked for specific data on a limited quantifiable

> quality. Here western science would be purely

> analytical and local cultures would be subjective

> (based on their reasoned logic based on sound

> principles).

>

> Just a short description of how these principles of

> land use would work: the practices would then be a

> sub-group within the principles. Basically there would

> be 3 divisions of 5 principles each.

>

> For LAND (the environment): earth and smell, water and

> taste, fire and sight, air and touch, and ether and

> sound would form the basis of measuring land

> principles.

>

> Earth - both earth and smell could be a measure. In a

> system where the rural area is being transformed out

> of the modes of ignorance to passion and goodness then

> there must be a transformation that would have

> quantifiable changes in various qualities. One could

> be smell itself. In one's land area as the

> transormation takes place then the smells must go from

> poor to excellent as the herbage, flowers and animals

> add their aroma. Another one would be soil structure.

> Throughout all the soils in the world an increase in

> fertility directly correlates to a betterment in soil

> structure. This can be easily measured, both

> analytically and subjectively.

>

> Water - water and taste. Taste could be measured like

> smell, but here meaning in the food produced, the

> quality and variety; leading to more biodiversity.

> Another one would be the quantity of water absorbed in

> one's land area. In water resource management there is

> a direct correlation between the land fertility and

> productivity and the amount of water trapped in the

> soil, biomass and microclimate. This can be easily

> measured, both analytically and subjectively.

>

> Fire - visual and energy (trophic). As the above two.

> Both analytical and subjective measurements. One's

> land area would be more visually excellent the more

> developed according to RDP values. Also the more

> developed land area would have greater amount of

> energy trapped in the soil, water and biomass, this

> can be analytically measured.

>

> Air - presence and vibe. The 3D architecture of

> landuse according to more use of forestry,

> agroforestry and homegardens would lend to it this

> feeling of presence. The contrasts can be found in an

> Argentine open Pampa land compared to a dense forest.

> An Eden, a managed cornocapia must have excellent 3D

> land use architecture, and thus presence.

>

> Ether - sound. In the above Eden the sounds can be

> measured in fauna and flora. To go from industrial

> agriculture (or in cases an unstewarded wild forest)

> must take the sounds into a new dimension, and can be

> measured.

>

> The next part is a bit more sketchy, that's why I need

> to refer more to Sankhya. In terms of society, we are

> looking at the kama kanda, and varnasram - diet

> (minerals, flora, fauna), housing (sudra), production

> and procreation (vaisya), protection (ksyatria),

> philosophy (brahman). And economy at Atha -

> maintenance, production, movement, administration and

> design.

>

> So much of the above could be pure speculation even

> though I have based it on my incomplete analysis of

> Sankhya. It is just that I have been formulating the

> principled qualitative analysis of the farming system

> for some years now, and this is the stage I have

> gotten to. If you think it to be too esoteric and off

> the development track, then maybe yes, maybe no. but

> at least in the LAND category it is possible to see

> how the principles tightly correlate to the movement

> from a poor farming system to a rich, diverse land

> system.

>

> I like the ideas of principles as the main basis of

> statistical analysis. Beyond that there are practices

> that can yield to statistical qualities - milk yield/

> cow lactation, quantity of crops (as biomass/ $crop

> value in PPP) / ox teams, quantity of assets (land,

> animals) once liabilities have been subtracted.

>

> Lets see what we think about principles, and then have

> a go at practices.

>

> Mark

>

> --- iscowp <iscowp (AT) earthlink (DOT) net> wrote:

> >

> > Mark wrote:

> > <The first step though, as I see

> > it, is to get the framework agreed upon, which means

> > finding specific qualities within the above env,

> > soc,

> > econ criteria, quantifying them and observing their

> > interactions thus giving each criteria a different

> > waiting.>

> >

> > Let's start with the Environmental. You have

> > suggested some qualities for

> > this category. Please write how you think it should

> > be and the rest of the

> > conference can give feedback.

> >

> > >

> > > Environmental: Land use principles and practices

> > of

> > > lifetime-protected cow-based agriculture - initial

> > > work outlined in Standards. Major work to look at

> > -

> > > increasing production and productivity in terms of

> > > land and cow/ox. Land - to use land in a

> > sustainable

> > > form that will in the long term increase fertility

> > and

> > > bio-diversity, whilst at the same time producing

> > for

> > > the short and longterm needs of the participants.

> > Key

> > > issues beyond the Standards - agroforestry,

> > > agro-ecology, permaculture (all basically the same

> > > thing), organic or biological farming,

> > biodynamics,

> > > food quality, water resource management.

> > >

> >

>

> Make a great connection at Personals.

> http://personals.

October 11, 2001

I find this approach too mind bogling and confusing.

We need something clear and simple to be pased.

The standards were simple and clear and broad.

For example some principles could be:

-Tenants of ISKCON land who are primary participants in land use ie

horticulture, agriculture etc.. cannot be removed from their household

security without Ministry of Agriculture permission.

-Land use must be at least to the standards of Low External Imputs

Sustainable Agriculture.

-Temples are oblidged to buy produce from ISKCON land users depending on

availability and need.

-ISKCON land users cannot lose their land tenancy on the basis of sadhana or

breach of three regulative principles (not including meat eating).

Obviously these are loose chuck it in the discussion sentances and are not

complete. But I think we need to make simple principles that have real

relevance to ISKCON land users. I think our focus has to be there first

because we know that is the only place the GBC can have any influence. What

ISKCON members do on their own bought land is outside our real influence

although if we could help set up a market within ISKCON for their produce

that would also be useful.

Once the ball is rolling on the principles idea we can brain storm the full

array of principles we need.

ys syam

October 11, 2001

Dear Syam,

> I find this approach too mind bogling and confusing.

>

> We need something clear and simple to be pased.

>

> The standards were simple and clear and broad.

I understand your point, but also I think that as an

Absolutist then there must be absolute principles that

we can find. If on the sliding scale A = 'the mess

we're in' then Z = Eden, Goloka. Then we have to see

what are the principles that define Z and create a

scale to elevate ourselves there, but one based firmly

on the LAND and the way that the life form utilises

it.

You state:

> For example some principles could be:

> -Tenants of ISKCON land who are primary participants

> in land use ie

> horticulture, agriculture etc.. cannot be removed

> from their household

> security without Ministry of Agriculture permission.

>

> -Land use must be at least to the standards of Low

> External Imputs

> Sustainable Agriculture.

>

> -Temples are oblidged to buy produce from ISKCON

> land users depending on

> availability and need.

>

> -ISKCON land users cannot lose their land tenancy on

> the basis of sadhana or

> breach of three regulative principles (not including

> meat eating).

>

The principles I put forward were based solely on

LAND. Not land use. Land use is a social and economic

aspect, that I hesitated to show Absolute principles

within. My question is - If land can be given an

Absolute framework to as I believe I showed (from

Prabhupada), then what are the Absolute principles

underlying social and economic life? Especially in

relation to LAND? What do the Vedas say to this?

The above principles you state are, strictly speaking,

not principles, not values, but practices. They may

have pertinence now but that could end in the near or

distance future: ISKCON temples in the future may want

to buy from non-ISKCON land offering the same system;

by what principle is the Ministry of Agriculture to

have to give permission to remove householders from

ISKCON land; there will be a time when all farms could

be organic, or, in worsening times, when all farms

need to be agrochemical to prevent starvation.

The above 'could' be called principles, but they are

very time/place-specific, not universal; thus they are

more like time/space-locked practices.

> Obviously these are loose chuck it in the discussion

> sentances and are not

> complete. But I think we need to make simple

> principles that have real

> relevance to ISKCON land users. I think our focus

> has to be there first

> because we know that is the only place the GBC can

> have any influence. What

> ISKCON members do on their own bought land is

> outside our real influence

> although if we could help set up a market within

> ISKCON for their produce

> that would also be useful.

> Once the ball is rolling on the principles idea we

> can brain storm the full

> array of principles we need.

>

> ys syam

At the moment I believe we are brainstorming ideas. I

may have let out a cat with returning to high-thought

principles, but if the Vedas have given me anything

they have given me the notion that there is an

absolute thread that unites in a framework everything.

Most of what we are doing is out of the hands of the

GBC and general ISKCON, that is why it is very

pertinient to present a plan with clear principles

leading to clear practices that can be adapted and

adopted in a managed form. Most of what you have

written above is true, but you are putting forward

management solutions based on present reality, that is

fine, but I am trying to get together a systems

analysis based on more that present management

criteria. If it was the latter we could just say "from

present observations and analysis we should introduce

ecological land-management practices, increase overall

production and productivity of land, labour and

capital resources, establish markets for the increase

in product, etablish greater funding to pay for

training and discrepencies in costs and prices, work

out the costs and find markets more ready to pay the

price". Simple. But does it solve underlying issues

and really address to the heart of the matter in all

locations?

I am a bit busy today but I am hoping to find the time

to go over an overall systems analysis showing the

whole picture - as taught in rural resource management

degree courses. That then may make it clearer the

angle that I am looking at.

Of course, this is a brainstorm at the moment, so

don't allow me to set the pace, we need ideas and

practical steps forward.

Mark

Make a great connection at Personals.

http://personals.

October 12, 2001

haribol prabhu,

pamho agtsp

We are most certainly at the brain storming stage, but already people have

been talking of presentations, or preliminary dates. So there is an

underlying time factor in play also. Mark has time on his hands which is

good because he is obviously thinking of the benefit of the contribution. I

just want to earmark a small warning that we must take everyone along with

us in this process of brain storming and there is a growing gulf already

showing between hyper technical, brevity and clarity. We need to encapsulate

a lot into concise structured wording which everyone can feel part of. The

debate is good, but don't lets get lost at this stage in definitions, atomic

levels of rural technology etc. Let's get the skeleton of the shape of what

we want, the idea of the content and the possibilty for implementation. Then

we will put flesh on the bones. Otherwise we will be three months on

technicalities and have not proceeded beyond the first step.

By dint of the fact that we are brainstorming, it should be ideas, brief, to

the point (possibly a little more than would be normal on a flip chart) but

not too overly detailed as we are getting. We are getting bogged down. Can

we get the basics clear?

ys

October 17, 2001

Dandavad. Prabhupada kijaya!

I am jumping into this a little late but I am concerned that we haven't

considered our goal well enough here.

So far what has come out is:

> To reinvigorate ISKCON farm communities in accordance

> with the wishes of His Divine Grace A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada,

> the ISKCON Ministry of Cow Protection and Agriculture presents a Rural

> Development Plan to establish sustainable principles and practices of land

> use that encourage participation in lifetime-protected cow-based

> agriculture and provides tenure security for the participants.

My concern is with the term "ISKCON farm communities". What defines such a

community? Is it ISKCON legal ownership of the land? If so, is this a

sustainable platform?

I would like to see more thought on this including the issues of control and

decision-making, especially in relation to ISKCON heirarchy.

I have some doubts whether ISKCON ownership is the best platform for a

sustainable farm community guided by ISKCON's principles.

I would like to see this aspect discussed as part of this brain-storming on

what to do with ISKCON's farms.

I believe that much of any plan to reinvigorate these farms will be

influenced by how the project is controlled.

I wonder if our goal should also include ISKCON guided farming communities

outside the legal ownership of ISKCON.

I also suggest that we should pick one of the farms that is willing and

eager to be reinvigorated as a farm community (not just as a

preaching/tourism project) and see what it would take for that particular

community. In doing so we would look at what could be replicated.

Your servant,

Pancaratna das

October 17, 2001

Dear Pancaratna prabhu,

PAMHO. AGTSP.

I have some doubts whether ISKCON ownership is the best platform for a

> sustainable farm community guided by ISKCON's principles.

>

> I would like to see this aspect discussed as part of this brain-storming

on

> what to do with ISKCON's farms.

My feeling is that, espescially with the tenure aspect, we will sink in the

mud of politics trying to get this plan as ISKCON Law for ISKCON properties.

Rather we should write the VRDP for devotees regardless of whether they are

in an ISKCON legally owned property or affliated. A general plan you might

say. I see the plan not as potential ISKCON Law but something like approved

by GBC or recommended by GBC. We can have suggestions of maybe three ways to

secure tenure or we can leave it up to the individual communities. A plan

that shows a path to follow but it must be the choice of a group of

individuals within a community that this is a path they want to follow. The

majority of devotees do not trust their futures to ISKCON, lets face it.

Even if there is a law, they know that laws can be avoided without any

ISKCON Justice system.

> I believe that much of any plan to reinvigorate these farms will be

> influenced by how the project is controlled.

This is all to true. More and more nothing can be legislated. On this issue

we can try to inspire by presenting a possible path. It is up to the desire

of the individuals whether they will go down that path. But at least there

is information. This is different from the Cow Standards in the fact that

the cows have been too many times neglected and there needed to be a law to

protect them.

>

> I wonder if our goal should also include ISKCON guided farming communities

> outside the legal ownership of ISKCON.

I think so.

>

> I also suggest that we should pick one of the farms that is willing and

> eager to be reinvigorated as a farm community (not just as a

> preaching/tourism project) and see what it would take for that particular

> community. In doing so we would look at what could be replicated.

In different locations there will be differetn experiences as to what it

would take. Therefore it would only be replicated within it's own

geogrpahical area. But that is one approach. Possibly as we develop the plan

it could be presented to the said community to see what their reactions are

to it. See if it is practically applicable to their community. Get feedback.

I'd be interestd in what everyone else thinks.

>

Your servant,

Chayadevi

October 18, 2001

Lots of good angles, all of which need time ("I need more time captain!"

Scottie)

-

Pancaratna ACBSP <Pancaratna.ACBSP (AT) pamho (DOT) net>

markjon chatburn <protection_farms >; Cow (Protection and

related issues) <Cow (AT) pamho (DOT) net>

Wednesday, October 17, 2001 6:23 AM

Re: Fw: RDP Principles

> Dandavad. Prabhupada kijaya!

>

> I am jumping into this a little late but I am concerned that we haven't

> considered our goal well enough here.

>

> So far what has come out is:

>

> > To reinvigorate ISKCON farm communities in accordance

> > with the wishes of His Divine Grace A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami

Prabhupada,

> > the ISKCON Ministry of Cow Protection and Agriculture presents a Rural

> > Development Plan to establish sustainable principles and practices of

land

> > use that encourage participation in lifetime-protected cow-based

> > agriculture and provides tenure security for the participants.

>

> My concern is with the term "ISKCON farm communities". What defines such a

> community? Is it ISKCON legal ownership of the land? If so, is this a

> sustainable platform?

>

> I would like to see more thought on this including the issues of control

and

> decision-making, especially in relation to ISKCON heirarchy.

>

> I have some doubts whether ISKCON ownership is the best platform for a

> sustainable farm community guided by ISKCON's principles.

>

> I would like to see this aspect discussed as part of this brain-storming

on

> what to do with ISKCON's farms.

>

> I believe that much of any plan to reinvigorate these farms will be

> influenced by how the project is controlled.

>

> I wonder if our goal should also include ISKCON guided farming communities

> outside the legal ownership of ISKCON.

>

> I also suggest that we should pick one of the farms that is willing and

> eager to be reinvigorated as a farm community (not just as a

> preaching/tourism project) and see what it would take for that particular

> community. In doing so we would look at what could be replicated.

>

> Your servant,

> Pancaratna das

>

October 18, 2001

Dear Pancaratna and all,

ISKCON

Let's not get lost in what is, or should be, ISKCON.

For a start, ISKCON is not what most people see it as

- a small-minded sectarian religion. No, it is a state

of consciousness that is universal, just like to be

catholic means to be universal, all embracing, so is

ISKCON. It is when in comes down to the business of a

religion and the ownership of property and religious

paraphenalia etc., that it becomes totally peroquial.

At least most of us on this conference, no matter how

well we follow spiritual instructions, realise ISKCON

in the wider-aspect, so let us not get caught up in

religious peroquialsim. Surrender all forms of

religions to the all-embracing Absolute Truth, in what

ever form it presents itself.

> I also suggest that we should pick one of the farms

> that is willing and

> eager to be reinvigorated as a farm community (not

> just as a

> preaching/tourism project) and see what it would

> take for that particular

> community. In doing so we would look at what could

> be replicated.

Secondly, I did not understand HKDD's point on the

Prabhupada walks of 1974, but to the above the term

"replicability" is fundamental. Therefore, non-farming

activities must not be the raison d'etre, but just an

added bonus. The basis must be in a farming system

that can be replicated across the board.

Mark

Make a great connection at Personals.

http://personals.

October 22, 2001

>Pancaratna

> I am jumping into this a little late but I am concerned that we haven't

considered our goal well enough here. So far what has come out is:

>>To reinvigorate ISKCON farm communities in accordance with the wishes of

His Divine Grace A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada, the ISKCON Ministry of

Cow Protection and Agriculture presents a Rural Development Plan to

establish sustainable principles and practices of land use that encourage

participation in lifetime-protected cow-based agriculture and provides

tenure security for the participants.

> My concern is with the term "ISKCON farm communities".

> What defines such a community?

> Is it ISKCON legal ownership of the land?

> If so, is this a sustainable platform?

Mark:

Let's not get lost in what is, or should be, ISKCON. For a start, ISKCON is

not what most people see it as - a small-minded sectarian religion. No, it

is a state of consciousness that is universal, just like to be catholic

means to be universal, all embracing, so is

ISKCON. It is when in comes down to the business of a religion and the

ownership of property and religious paraphenalia etc., that it becomes

totally parochial. At least most of us on this conference, no matter how

well we follow spiritual instructions, realise ISKCON in the wider-aspect,

so let us not get caught up in religious parochialism. Surrender all forms

of religions to the all-embracing Absolute Truth, in what ever form it

presents itself.

Comment:

You may have misinterpreted his questions; he is interested in land

ownership, whether it is sustainable or not and just how or what this

collection of individuals is constituted?

------------------------------

>Pancaratna

>I would like to see more thought on this including the issues of control

and decision-making, especially in relation to ISKCON hierarchy. I have some

doubts whether ISKCON ownership is the best platform for a sustainable farm

community guided by ISKCON's principles. I would like to see this aspect

discussed as part of this brainstorming on what to do with ISKCON's farms.

Chayadevi:

My feeling is that, espescially with the tenure aspect; we will sink in the