By Visakha Priya dasi
Our acaryas are very merciful. Because in this age kalau sudra sambhavah—we are all born sudras—and because we are mandah sumanda-matayo—unlucky and always disturbed, they keep giving us clear instructions for us to follow according to our times, places, and circumstances. Today, by chance—or the will of the Lord—I came across Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakura’s Sri Caitanya-siksamrta.
In the second chapter, Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakura remarks that “Some people may question the efficacy of the varnasrama system, since the countries of Europe attained great feats and fame without having a varnasrama system. But such a doubt has no substance, because these people are all recent. Due to being very bold and energetic, they have taken all the previous skills, arts and sciences, and begun to act. But gradually with time, these societies will fall, because of lack of scientific organization of varnas. Though the Aryan civilization is much older, it has remained intact with the same characteristics because of the varnasrama system.”
This striking statement helped me understand better the reasons why some of our deep-thinking ISKCON members are so keen on implementing the varnasrama system within our Society. The world today is in a horrendous state—perhaps even beyond the point of no return—and it is to the credit of those committed members of our society who advocate varnasrama within ISKCON that they vigorously pursue an ideal given by Srila Prabhupada and his immediate predecessors.
In the second chapter of Sri Caitanya-siksamrta, Srila Bhaktivinoda raises a question: “Is the system of varna in India now in a healthy state? No, though the system was established in a perfect way, it gradually deteriorated, and that is responsible for the troubles and degradation of present India. If that were not the case, India could have taken the role of an elder brother, who, in old age and retirement, could give good instruction to other nations. One should deeply consider the reason for India’s deteriorated state. The varnasrama system was established in India at the beginning of Treta Yuga, at which time the Aryans had advanced knowledge. The rule was established that each person took up a varna according to his nature, and getting a qualification through that varna, he would carry out his duties and work designated by the varna. By following this system of asrama and varna according to nature, the work of society went on smoothly. Varna was decided solely on the basis of nature for those people whose father had no varna. Jabali, Gautama, Janasruti and Citraratha are examples from Vedic history. For those whose father had a varna, their varna was decided on the basis of both father’s varna and individual nature….
“….The varnasrama system continued purely for a long time, until Jamadagni and his son Parasurama, of ksatriya nature, claimed themselves as brahmanas. By following a varna contrary to their nature, out of self interest, they created friction between the brahmana and ksatriya classes. Because of this seed of enmity between the two classes, the procedure of judging varna by birth became fixed. In time, this system of varnas without reference to nature entered covertly in the Manu Samhita and other scriptures. Without possibility of attaining a higher varna, out of frustration, the ksatriyas created Buddhism to destroy the brahmana varna. But for every action there is an equally strong reaction. Therefore the class distinction based on birth became even stronger. With the conflict between exploitation of position, based on birth (the brahmanas), and disloyalty to one’s culture (ksatriyas), they gradually destroyed themselves. Those with no brahmana qualities, brahmanas in name only, began to write scriptures with their own interest at heart, thus cheating the other classes. Ksatriyas without ksatriya qualities were defeated in battle. Without their kingdoms, they began to support Buddhism. Vaisyas without vaisya nature began to preach Jainism. By this act, the great mercantile community became weakened. Laborers without sudra nature, without qualification for works of specific nature, became thieves. Running without any scriptural reference, the country came under the control of the Muslims. Shipping companies entered. The concept of service vanished. Gradually the influence of Kali deepened. The present pitiful condition of India, which was once the controller and teacher of the whole world, is not because of old age, but because of the corruption of the varnasrama system. By the desire of the Lord, the controller of all living beings and rules, may there arise again in India an empowered person who can establish the varnasrama system. The writer of the Puranas also expectantly awaits the action of Kalki.”
After describing the qualities pertaining to each varna, Srila Bhaktivinoda mentions that “all men and women of all varnas are qualified for marriage rites, worship of the Lord, helping others in distress, charity, service to guru, welcoming guests, purity of body and mind, observing festivals, serving the cow, maintaining the population, and proper conduct. Women’s special qualification is serving the husband.” And in the next paragraph he says that “a person should do that work and follow those rules of varna which are most suitable to his nature. By honest judgment a person can determine the work and lifestyle most suitable to himself, and if he cannot do so, he should consult a competent authority. Those Vaisnavas who would like additional information on these matters should consult Gopala Bhatta Gosvami’s Sat Kriya Sara Dipika.”
Now, in the first chapter of his book, Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakura remarks that “some unknowledgeable people think that sadhana bhakti is not necessary. Some prefer varnasrama and others prefer to relish prema. But from seeing the instructions concerning bhakti, a gradual process is recommended and fruitful. First a person should attain steadiness in good conduct by practicing varnasrama. Then he must progress to vaidhi bhakti. Finally, with prema, he reaches perfection. According to the amount of qualification of the individual, this form of advancement may slightly change.”
In the next paragraph, Srila Bhaktivinoda explains further that “some people think that if this process is followed, civilized life and maintenance will disintegrate. However it is simply a cheating notion to think that the goal of life is for farmers, clerks, and brahmanas to elevate themselves gradually to higher positions in varna and asrama. Such a conception of occupational duties is in terms of material advancement alone, which cannot produce any progress for the soul.” And in the next paragraph, Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakura writes: “Mahaprabhu has given instructions for surpassing such material conceptions of life and easily attaining pure spiritual life. Practice of varnasrama is for the maintenance of the body. Practice of yoga is for advancement of the mind. Sadhana bhakti is for advancement of the soul. Though the devotee may not be expert at farming, fighting, or any material occupation, he is expert in terms of the real life of the human being. A king’s minister may not be able to fire the gun expertly, but he can still act as the advisor for the soldiers and make expert arrangements for the war. Those who can see the elevated position of the devotees is actually intelligent, and can obtain the mercy of the Lord.”
Regarding the position of women in the varnasrama system, Srila Bhaktivinoda concisely sums it up as follows: “Women are allowed to enter the grhastha asrama and vanaprastha asrama only. Though some women, being exceptionally qualified, achieving high education, expert understanding of scripture and great expertise, may become a brahmacari or sannyasi, it is not the normal rule, as women are usually of weaker body, faith and discriminating power.”
I may be uninformed as to what the actual situation in the rest of the world is, but I do not get the impression that the majority of women in ISKCON are clamoring to be gurus. They would rather get a good husband and serve Krishna that way. Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakura’s and Srila Prabhupada’s statements (“Yes, but not so many,”) confirm my impression. At the same time, our acaryas do make provisions for those advanced souls presently suffering from the reactions of their past questionable activities in male forms. Since our “spiritual bank account” doesn’t get depleted at death but follows us lifetime after lifetime, I do find it surprising that some of these exceptional souls labeled as “women” cannot get the respect and spiritual facilities given to the souls labeled as “men” in this lifetime. It simply doesn’t make sense according to our acaryas.
“The household asrama may be considered the only asrama, since the other three asramas depend on it. Most of society takes up household life. Those who are specially qualified become brahmacari, vanaprasthi and sannyasi, but their numbers are few. Without such division of asramas according to different types of activity, social consciousness will not be complete.” (Sri Caitanya-siksamrta, Chapter Two)
In the beginning of this essay, I quoted Thakura Bhaktivinoda’s words to the effect that “in time, this system of varnas without reference to nature entered covertly in the Manu Samhita and other scriptures,” which led to the class distinction based on birth to become even stronger and that “the present pitiful condition of India, which was once the controller and teacher of the whole world, is not because of old age, but because of the corruption of the varnasrama system.” Based on Thakura Bhaktivinoda’s words, it appears that the Manu Samhita is presently not as reliable a source of guidance as some persons would like it to be. Ultimately, Srila Prabhupada is our authority. And as I have heard it from ISKCON authorities, Srila Prabhupada explained that of the book Bhagavata and the person Bhagavata, the person Bhagavata is better because he can catch you by the ear. We have seen many ISKCON pundits leave our movement after finding fault with Prabhupada’s spoken words and purports and even translations. As one late great soul mentioned to a vastly learned devotee in one class in Vrndavana, “we should not be so quick to dismiss what Srila Prabhupada said,” even if it appears to be contradicting whatever the pundit may have learned from the inexhaustible array of Vedic literature without reference to our founder-acarya’s express directions.
That being said, and despite the unfortunate fact that some of the readers are bound to label me as a rebel, I have never engaged in such association nor read such literature as produced by them nor had the desire to mix with them. I am simply concerned that Srila Prabhupada’s legacy should be preserved in toto, not as a box of sweets from which one can pick and choose. Personally, I am neither qualified to be guru nor do I desire such a position, nor do I endorse anyone’s whimsical desire to occupy such a position.
Hare Krsna. I hope I haven’t offended anyone in the process of writing this essay. Kindly consider that our philosophy is the sublime doctrine of acintya bheda- and abheda-tattva and proceed accordingly.
Your servant,
Visakha Priya dasi
*Acintya bedha-abheda tattva
Words like “rebel” have become loose referrals to any apparent ‘liberal’ or ‘women’ empathy in Vaisnavism. ‘Loose,’ because there is undisciplined and biased ease and common use of the terms.
While Iskcon is in the developmental stages of Vaisnava/i social awareness and are exploring modern/traditional ways forward, the same loose ease is used in generalised ways.
Of course, we need to discern differences between motivated rebellion and that which female devotees are entitled to. What our female devotees are entitled to within Iskcon in terms of service capacity and spiritual advancement is not all rebellion.
It appears that my dear God-sister Visakha Priya Mataji is being somewhat on the defensive, as if she is labelled one of the rebel categories. As with any important discussion, so long as one is seriously logical, balanced and refers to authority, there is little to be exposed as rebellion or whatever.
A section of us wishes to hold on to our immature versions of ‘old’ Iskcon, thinking this to be the way forward in social terms. Simply because other devotees suggest a more inclusive form of Iskcon does not make them ‘liberal’ or violators of the Iskcon order of things. They are just as concerned about Iskcon.
There are still more Iskcon reforms and radical changes yet to come, so why are we attached to how things stand right now? If things are going to change and develop for us all, trying to defend the now will be like defending the indefensible. We still haven’t an inkling to how Iskcon will be in 30 years time. We had no inkling Iskcon would be as it is today 20, 30 or 40 years ago.
We can however, try our best while being respectful of the opinions and viewpoints of other devotees. Because we think we know everything there is to know about Krishna consciousness, we find it extra hard to have to hear others who differ – pride and intolerance.
The late Isaac Asimov quipped: “People who think they know everything are a great annoyance to those of us who do.”
To clarify what I meant by Visakha Priya Mataji being “on the defensive”:
Ys Kesava Krsna Dasa.
Part Two:
Mataji wrote: “That being said, and despite the unfortunate fact that some of the readers are bound to label me as a rebel, I have never engaged in such association nor read such literature as produced by them nor had the desire to mix with them. I am simply concerned that Srila Prabhupada’s legacy should be preserved in toto…”
She has a solemn right to explore possibilities for Iskcon just as the rest of us do. No doubt, her views have caused some to label her as she mentioned towards the end of her article. Such generalised labelling is not justified if she presents her views backed with authority, which she usually does.
On this basis, there was no real need for her to show her credentials as being a none-rebel and so on. Others should observe on the merit of her long and steady allegiance to Iskcon. If her views differ, then we should be mature enough to realise that Iskcon is big enough for all of us. Or is it only small enough for ‘some’ of us?
Ys Kesava Krsna Dasa.
Mother Vishaka Priya,
Thank you so much for sharing the wisdom of Srila Bhativinoda Thakura, and explaining the logical connection between it and several points currently being debated in ISKCON.
Sometimes we hear Srila Prabhupada make a point, then when we hear it explained by another Viasnava authority and this helps us understand what our ultimate authority, Srila Prabhupada ,is saying.
For example, at the sannyasa initiation of Gurudasa Prabhu(San Francisco ,July 21, 1975) Srila Prabhupada says, ” His wife is also great devotee, you know, Yamunä. So now Yamunä has taken a very nice path. She has also become sannyäséné. Although there is no sannyäséné for women, but she has voluntarily taken.She is doing very nice; therefore I advised her husband that “You also take sannyäsa.”
So some would say that this is a precedent for women sannyasa to become a norm in ISKCON. Others will bring up quotes against women sannyas and say it is absolutely forbidden while simple ignoring Srila Prabhupada statements above. Other people know that neither of these extremes is correct and call for a nuanced understanding. But those with a political agenda are often expert at framing a nuanced perspective as the opposite of their extreme view, in other words they polarize views that are not in total agreement with their own. Therefore it is valuable to have an authoritative statement which explains why Srila Prbhpada’s says their is no sannyasa for women and at the same time calls Mother Yamuna a sannyasini.
I am referring to Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakura’s point “Women are allowed to enter the grhastha asrama and vanaprastha asrama only. Though some women, being exceptionally qualified, achieving high education, expert understanding of scripture and great expertise, may become a brahmacari or sannyasi, it is not the normal rule, as women are usually of weaker body, faith and discriminating power.”
In the December 1931 issue of the Harmonist, Srila Bhaktisiddhanta wrote an article entitled “Thakur Bhaktivinode” therein he addressed the issue of how to understand the life and teachings of Bhaktivinode. The following are some pertinent excerpts:
“There have, however, already arisen serious misunderstandings regarding the proper interpretation of the life and teachings of Srila Thakura Bhaktivinode. Those who suppose they understand the meaning of his message without securing the guiding grace of the acarya are disposed to unduly favor the method of empiric study of his writings. There are persons who have got by heart almost everything that he wrote without being able to catch the least particle of his meaning.
“… The personal service of the pure devotee is essential for understanding the spiritual meaning of the words of Thakur Bhaktivinode.
“…The present editor has all along felt it his paramount duty to try to clear up the meaning of the life and teachings of Thakur Bhaktivinode by the method of submissive listening to the transcendental sound from the lips of the pure devotees.
“…Thakur Bhaktivinode is acknowledged by all his sincere followers as possessing the above powers of the pure devotee of Godhead. His words have to be received from the lips of a pure devotee. If his words are listened to from the lips of a non-devotee they will certainly deceive. If his works are studied in the light of one’s own worldly experience their meaning will refuse to disclose itself to such readers. His works belong to the class of eternal revealed literature of the world and must be approached for their right understanding through their exposition by the pure devotee. If no help is sought, the works of Thakur Bhaktivinode will be grossly misunderstood by their readers.”
Essentially we understand Bhaktivinode Thakura through the guru parampara, that is, Bhakti Siddhanta Sarasvati and Srila Prabhupada. Not by jumping over them. Thus if we want to understand the relevance and application of texts such as Manu Samhita we do it via the guru parampara not our speculation of what Bhaktivinode Thakura meant.
If there is a contradiction in Manu Samhita and the teaching of the Gita or Bhagavatam regarding varnashrama then we can assume it is an interpolation and only accept the conclusions of the Gita and Bhagavatam. But regarding the teaching of Manu on women, there is no contradiction with the Gita or Bhagavatam.
Balakrsna Prabhu,
Referring to Srila Prabhupada’s teachings you say, “If there is a contradiction in Manu Samhita and the teaching of the Gita or Bhagavatam regarding varnashrama then we can assume it is an interpolation and only accept the conclusions of the Gita and Bhagavatam.”.
I find this statement incomplete. In truth we can assume interpolation, OR INAPPLICABILITY,of any Vedic text if we find it contradicts the Gita, Bhagavatam, OR ANYTHING SRILA PRABHUPADA SAID OR ANY POLICIY HE ESTABLISHED REGARDING WOMEN, OR ANY OTHER ISSUE.
If we can err by skipping over Acahryas we can also err by skipping to texts that have possibly been tampered with. We know Srila Prabhupada is aware of the difference between what is genuine and what is an interpolation and what is ,or is not, applicable to ISKCON. A Vedabase search on Manu Samhita gives 228 hits. That is all we need to know about it!.
When we go to the direct text, we then must argue with our limited ability weather something is an interpolation or not, and weather something is applicable or not. This is a distractions which undermines the fundamental principal that we can ,and should, rely exclusively on the teaching of Srila Prabhupada- which give the most authoritative instructions on how to attain the goal of all Vedic Scriptures.
Comment 5:
“We Must Think for Ourselves
BY: SRILA BHAKTIVINODA THAKUR
The Bhagavata teaches us that God gives us truth as He gave it to Vyasa: when we earnestly seek for it.
Truth is eternal and unexhausted. The soul receives a revelation when anxious for it. The souls of the great thinkers of the bygone ages, who now live spiritually, often approach our inquiring spirit and assist in its development. Thus Vyasa was assisted by Narada and Brahma.
Our Shastras, or in other words, books of thought, do not contain all that we could get from the infinite Father.
No book is without its errors.
God’s revelation is absolute truth, but it is scarcely received and preserved in its natural purity. We have been advised in the 14th Chapter of 11th Skandha of the Bhagavata to believe that truth when revealed is absolute, but it gets the tincture of the nature of the receiver in course of time and is converted into error by continual exchange of hands from age to age. New revelations, therefore, are continually necessary in order to keep truth in its original purity. We are thus warned to be careful in our studies of old authors, however wise they are reputed to be.
Here we have full liberty to reject the wrong idea, which is not sanctioned by the peace of conscience. Vyasa was not satisfied with what he collected in the Vedas, arranged in the Puranas and composed in the Mahabharata. The peace of his conscience did not sanction his labors. It told him from within, “No, Vyasa! You cannot rest contented with the erroneous picture of truth which was necessarily presented to you by the sages of bygone days. You must yourself knock at the door of the inexhaustible store of truth from which the former ages drew their wealth. Go, go up to the fountainhead of truth, where no pilgrim meets with disappointment of any kind.” Vyasa did it and obtained what he wanted. We have been all advised to do so.
Liberty then is the principle which we must consider as the most valuable gift of God. We must not allow ourselves to be led by those who lived and thought before us. We must think for ourselves and try to get further truths which are still undiscovered. In the Bhagavata we have been advised to take the spirit of the Shastras and not the words. The Bhagavata is therefore a religion of liberty, unmixed truth and absolute love.”