BG 3.35

[Guest guest]

Hare Krishna,

 

 

 

BG 3.35 says following other's duty is dangerous. I am not able to

understand why it is "dangerous" and will appreciate if someone can throw

some light on the same.

 

 

 

Your servant,

 

 

 

Vrajalila Das

 

 

 

****************************************************************************

************

 

 

 

Vidyadhar M Karmarkar

 

Graduate Fellow, Genomics and Bioinformatics,

 

The Huck Institute of the Life Sciences,

 

The Pennsylvania State University,

 

University Park, PA 16801.

 

Lab Phone: 814-863-2513

 

Fax: 814-863-2312

 

 

 

****************************************************************************

************

 

 

 

"Essential truth spoken concisely is true eloquence."

 

- Sri Chaitanya Charitamrita Adi-Lila 1.106

[Guest guest]

On Sun, 25 Jun 2006, Vidyadhar Karmarkar wrote:

> BG 3.35 says following other's duty is dangerous. I am not able to

> understand why it is "dangerous" and will appreciate if someone can throw

> some light on the same.

 

Lord Krishna says this twice in the Gita (3.26 and 18.47). Even though one's

performance of his prescribed duty can hardly ever be perfect, it is

nonetheless the only activity that is ever authorized for him. To do another's

duty can only be flawed, as 18.47 explicates, because it creates personal as

well as social disturbance, as it cannot purify one's mundane existence. The

point is that whether in the material or spiritual realm, no one should act

independently; practical recognition of this principle is what separates suras

from asuras. There is a place for everyone in the big picture (cf. Bhagavatam

11.28.1), regardless of the nature that impels any individual's work. The varna

system is simply that in which everyone recognizes his true station, as

suggested in Bhagavatam, 11.21.2. The real principle is to offer all such

endeavors unto the Supreme Lord.

 

I hope this helps.

 

MDd

[Guest guest]

Hare Krishna Mukunda Prabhu,

 

 

 

Thank you very much for the reply.

 

 

 

>>> Even though one's performance of his prescribed duty can hardly ever be

perfect, it is nonetheless the only activity that is ever authorized for

him... The varna system is simply that in which everyone recognizes his true

station, as suggested in Bhagavatam, 11.21.2. The real principle is to offer

all such endeavors unto the Supreme Lord.<<<

 

 

 

This raises some more questions in my mind:

 

 

 

If I have understood correctly, prescribed duty is according to one's varna

and asrama. But the foundation of varna-asrama is agriculture and

cow-protection. Currently the society is based on agri-business and cow

slaughter. Since the foundation of current society is flawed, are we really

following varna-asrama? Will the Lord Govinda be satisfied by our "duties"

that essentially are based on go-hatya? So if there is really no

varna-asrama then how can there be any prescribed duty? Krishna says in BG

that a serious transcendentalist should know the difference between karma,

akarma and vikarma. Since the foundation of our society is incorrect, then

whatever follows is vikarma. Is this understanding correct? If yes, then how

can we really dovetail our actions in Krishna Consciousness and hope to get

purified. Please comment.

 

 

 

Your servant,

 

 

 

Vrajalila Das

[Guest guest]

On Wed, 28 Jun 2006, Vidyadhar Karmarkar wrote:

>>>> Even though one's performance of his prescribed duty can hardly ever be

> perfect, it is nonetheless the only activity that is ever authorized for

> him... The varna system is simply that in which everyone recognizes his true

> station, as suggested in Bhagavatam, 11.21.2. The real principle is to offer

> all such endeavors unto the Supreme Lord.<<<

>

>

>

> This raises some more questions in my mind:

>

> If I have understood correctly, prescribed duty is according to one's varna

> and asrama.

 

Yes, Srila Prabhupada stressed varnasrama, though there are other duties human

beings have to observe, both generic and more specific.

 

 

 

 

 

> But the foundation of varna-asrama is agriculture and

> cow-protection.

 

Maybe that's a vaisya perspective. Ecenomically, it's certainly true. Usually,

we see the situation relative to our own conditioning; a brahmana sees brahman

as the ultimate basis of everything (jagad-adhara), a ksatriya sees things in

terms of protecting power relationships, and sudras perceive a world of sense

gratification and work.

 

 

 

 

 

>Currently the society is based on agri-business and cow

> slaughter. Since the foundation of current society is flawed, are we really

> following varna-asrama?

 

Actually, nothing else in this day and age is very pure either, which may

explain why Srila Prabhupada sometimes also dismisses varnasrama in kaliyuga;

still, I think his general attitude seems to be that a one-eyed uncle is better

than no uncle, and he encouraged us to follow it as much as possible.

Evidently, he felt that it's benefits still outweighed its limited scope in the

modern social milieu.

 

 

 

 

 

> Will the Lord Govinda be satisfied by our "duties"

> that essentially are based on go-hatya? So if there is really no

> varna-asrama then how can there be any prescribed duty?

 

I think we have to look at dharma in light of the philosophical sense of that

word as "essential property,nature,instrinsic function," etc. In that

sense, we can corrupt our dharma, and over time and by association, we can even

change it, but it can never really be eradicated, because it is the material

manifestation of our sanatana- or jaiva-dharma, which is of course para bhakti.

Srila Prabhupada encouraged this svarupa-centric view, and thus he called it

daivi-varnasrama. Govinda is pleased most by pure bhakti; others please Him as

they approach that paragon.

 

 

 

 

 

>Krishna says in BG

> that a serious transcendentalist should know the difference between karma,

> akarma and vikarma.

 

Yet some people complacently act as if there were such a thing as vikarma-yoga.

 

:-)

 

 

 

 

 

> Since the foundation of our society is incorrect, then

> whatever follows is vikarma. Is this understanding correct? If yes, then how

> can we really dovetail our actions in Krishna Consciousness and hope to get

> purified. Please comment.

 

It may seem hopeless from a perspective of traditional Vedic social conventions

that virtually no one is seen to observe anymore, but bhakti overrides karmic

limitations to the extent that it is unmotivated, and then some. Of course, any

sacrifice, austerity, and charity purifies anyone, while these are also

involved in various dharmas. Hence the stress on paro dharma. Krsna also says

in 11th canto that one who thus sincerely hears and chants about Him is

purified of flaws resulting from poor facilities, impure environment, or

personal problems. That's the tremendous redeeming power of bhakti, and it's a

good thing we have it, by Krsna's Divine grace. There are many sastric

pramanas affirming this principle.

 

 

MDd

 

>

>

>

> Your servant,

>

>

>

> Vrajalila Das

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 7/1/2006 1:25:01 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, mpt (AT) myuw (DOT) net

writes:

 

 

> But the foundation of varna-asrama is agriculture and

> cow-protection.

This is a standard response from leaders in our movement about why not to

implement varnashrama.

 

 

MDd>Maybe that's a vaisya perspective. Ecenomically, it's certainly true.

Usually,

we see the situation relative to our own conditioning; a brahmana sees

brahman

as the ultimate basis of everything (jagad-adhara)as the ultimate basis of e

terms of protecting power relationships, and sudras perceive a world of

sense

gratification and work.

 

 

 

 

 

Thank you for that a great response.

 

ys

Gerald Surya

[Guest guest]

On Sun, 2 Jul 2006 Mrgerald (AT) aol (DOT) com wrote:

> In a message dated 7/1/2006 1:25:01 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, mpt (AT) myuw (DOT) net

> writes:

>> But the foundation of varna-asrama is agriculture and

>> cow-protection.

> This is a standard response from leaders in our movement about why not to

> implement varnashrama.

 

Good point. Still, we should recognize what an awesome task attempting to

"implement" varnasrama would be, from the manager's perspective. Maybe we

should count our blessing that they don't even seem to be trying, if you catch

my drift; they're only human too. My limited experience leads me to assume that

we can't expect change to come from the top--nor is that necessarily required.

If we want the kind of "daivi" varnasrama Srila Prabhupada encouraged, the best

place to start is with ourselves, and consequently in our own lives; since the

defining characteristic that makes it "daivi" is deeper consciousness of Krsna,

it has to come from within everyone's heart anyway. Otherwise, all social

systems tend to be more or less exploitive.

 

 

 

 

> MDd>Maybe that's a vaisya perspective.

 

And maybe it matters most. After all, the pseudo-vaisyas now rule the world.

 

 

MDd

[Guest guest]

Hare Krishna prabhu. Two points you made:

 

> > MDd>Maybe that's a vaisya perspective.

>

> And maybe it matters most. After all, the pseudo-vaisyas now rule

the world.

 

-- and --

 

> My limited experience leads me to assume that

> we can't expect change to come from the top--nor is that

necessarily required.

 

Varnashrama society could be an organic development beginning with a

conceptual reorientation at the individual and local levels. That

does seem to be the macro-principle of varnashrama culture.

 

But as a corollary to that, the individuals involved in this nucleus

of development should/will take steps to rearrange their external

socio-economic conditions to the extent that circumstances permit.

There's considerable historical evidence that the means of

production in a society determine its social structures and

relationships. In fact, that was the thesis of Karl Marx -

admittedly an asura, but its still a valuable sociological insight.

 

But its a ultimately question of mentality (conceptual orientation).

Trying to simply *mimic* a medieval socio-economic model without a

deeper understanding and faith is probably misguided. A change of

heart does not automatically come from a change of circumstance,

though both act and react on one another.

 

Here's a great essay on the subject:

 

http://www.urbanmissionary.info/2006/06/15/the-network-is-the-

preacher-part-11/

 

Your servant,

Carl