By Krsnacandra dasa
Dear Maharaja’s and prabhu’s. All glories to Srila Prabhupada.
In modern times the term compromise is understood to be the synthesis of differing views or attitudes etc to form an acceptable interaction between various conflicting parties via a process of negotiation. This is a concept that has taken a prominent role in contemporary secular society. In the broader sense compromise is where solutions to problems are achieved via either arbitration or negotiation. The former meaning, where an ‘arbiter’ is used, comes from the archaic Latin ‘root meaning’ of the word compromise, where both parties accepts the decision of an arbiter. However, in the secular world the latter meaning, a process of negotiation, is more widely used.
As the years unfold, scientists, academics, moralists, religionists, philosophers etc become more and more secure in their belief systems as they seek to aid man in adapting to evolving trends and methodologies in order to make a safer and more efficient society. This process is how the concept of ‘compromise’, usually the latter meaning, affects and impacts on the development of human society.
The process of decision making is usually where the more intelligent, practical, moral, ethical or forceful opinion is accepted over ‘so called’ inferior opinions. This process is easily demonstrated in the field of science where a scientific hypothesis when posited is considered under ‘Poppers Law of ‘Falsifiability’ and is then either accepted or rejected by the scientific community. This law loosely translates as the process of ‘If the hypothesis can be disproved – by scientifically accepted methods ‘ then it is rejected and if it is not able to be disproved it is accepted as a theory.’ In this way science makes advancement and builds its knowledge base.
In the socio-political communities the processes of decision making varies. They range from ‘top down’ Despotic regimes to ‘bottom up’ Democratic systems. The Democratic system is in the majority in human society. Here the decision making process is by ‘vox populi’ where the higher percentile averages of voting public make the decisions. Here, it is by precedent and laws, that society makes advancement.
The basic tenet of the various processes outlined above is ‘sophistry’. Where one view can be accepted as the predominant view over other views due to either intellectual / practical or sentimental considerations.
An individual’s view can be changed, modified or consolidated by the influence of the considerations described above. For example: In post-9/11 US Gallup polls were conducted, to gain the people’s views on Capital Punishment and to seek people’s views on whether the US should ‘nuke’ Iraq, to eradicate the perceived threat of Iraq’s ability to make and use weapons of mass destruction.
The percentage of people ‘for’ capital punishment for rapists / murderers etc had dropped since 9/11 and the percentage of people ‘for’ the ‘nuking’ of Iraq –
(innocent women and children included) was 29%, that is over one quarter of people were in support of using nuclear weapons against Iraq much more powerful than the ones that the US used against Japan.
The question here – is this a case of simple compromise where people made two mutually exclusive decisions based on sentimental / intelligent / moral/ ethical or practical terms? Or is this a simple case of mass stupidity?
How can this be a simple case of mass stupidity when the average person has been educated by a society that has been created by intelligent / western educated majorities? All of whom are graduates of the American education system.
The decision to nuke Iraq by the voters is of course not done without precedent, for the US is the only country that has used weapons of mass destruction, namely nuclear bombs, on another country.
The process of ‘vox populi’ is very infectious as seen above. Thus we saw sentimentality, taking precedence over the practical and/or intellectual considerations of the general population.
The Media in all its forms are very important ‘normalization’ tools. Here governing bodies can manipulate the masses by using multimedia process in order to appeal to the individua’ls sentimental mind as opposed to rational mind.
The rational mind seeks to protect the life of one’s child, spouse, sibling, friend or fellow human being. In the case of one’s child, spouse or friend being raped and murdered the natural response for the average person would be to have the culprit be given the death penalty. If one was to witness the act then one may, according to the circumstance, enact that death penalty on the spot in order to protect the victim whom they care about. However, once emotionally detached from the victim then it now appears easy to protect the living, in this case the perpetrator.
The societal trend is to abolish the death penalty. It is seen as being more civilized and therefore advanced. Yet how is this so? How did a society come to this conclusion?
As we progress and advance in so called modern society we are seeing more and more lenient punishment for the perpetrators of crime. Lawmakers influenced by public opinion modify laws in order to ensure that the rights of the criminal are more important than the rights of the victim. Therefore we are seeing punitive measures being increasingly watered down.
Recidivist rates increase and jails become overcrowded, therefore more criminals are released early by probationary boards. Yet crimes become more and more heinous. Children begin entering into the more heinous crime bracket and we call this advancement.
The average citizen is reluctant to report crime for various reasons that are usually based on fearfulness of retaliation by the ‘soon to be released’ criminal.
It is more like the system has turned upside down. The mentality of the citizen becomes more like a ‘criminal mentality’ as opposed to an empowered citizen. Why punish the criminal? Why report the criminal? Why get involved?
But is this really the mentality of criminals? What happens to a child molester in jail? What happens to a child murderer in Jail? They are usually isolated for fear that other criminals will kill them. Yet the law protects them. The same law, the average citizen, has voted for.
This is one of the results of compromise based on sophistry.
Decisions are based on an emotional imperative, desire. So in a hedonistic society where a person’s desires are stimulated and encouraged we see an increasing number of decisions made out of over stimulated desires, derived mainly under the modes of passion or ignorance.
When a person enters into mainstream ‘normalization’ processes such as the educational system (School) they more or less knowingly fall prey to the predominating trend or point of view.
The students are “schooled” to confuse process and substance. Once these become blurred, a new logic is assumed. The student believes that more educational process equals better results; or, escalation leads to success.
The pupil is thereby “schooled” to confuse teaching with learning, grade advancement with education, a degree with competence, and fluency with being independently intelligent. The curriculum becomes a systematic and ritualistic (test / degree / diploma) process in order to judge ones worth, inside the school system as well as where they fit into the consumer based bureaucratic workforce.
Ones imagination is “schooled” to accept service or a position, in a place that mainstream society values. Medical treatment is mistaken for health care, social work for community development, police protection for safety, military poise for national security, the rat race for productive work.
Health, learning, dignity, independence, and creative endeavor are defined as little more than the performance of the institutions which claim to serve these ends. Further that any improvement in their results will be entirely dependent on the allocation of more resources to the management of hospitals, schools, and other agencies in question.
Institutionalization of values leads inevitably to physical dis-ease, social polarization, and disempowerment (psychological impotence). This leaves the individual in a highly susceptible state and therefore easily influenced by institutional values.
This process is accelerated when material needs are transformed into demands for commodities; when health, education, personal mobility, welfare, or psychological healing are defined as merely the result of services or “treatments by agencies.”
Rich and poor alike depend on schools and hospitals which guide their lives, form their world view, and define for them what is legitimate and what is not. Both view healing oneself as irresponsible, learning on one’s own as unreliable, and community organization, when not funded by those in authority, as a form of aggression or subversion. For both groups the reliance on institutional treatment renders independent accomplishment suspect.
In the past it was the normal thing to be born and to die in one’s own home and to be buried by one’s friends. Now to begin and end life at home become signs either of poverty or of special privilege. Dying and death have come under the institutional management of doctors and undertakers. Society dictates that a student is put through a process that conditions them to accept and value institutional life as the best and only way of life.
The student graduate is one of the best “consumers” for this corporate/institutional/consumer world that we live in. This is noticeable in second and third world countries where the difference between the educated and the villager is more pronounced. The graduate is a much better consumer than the villager.
In the sixties there was a move amongst the younger generation and many intellectuals to opt out of the mainstream ‘normalization’ system and thus the hippie generation was born. They mainly stood for Nuclear Disarmament (Hence the ubiquitous peace symbol) as they saw weapons of mass destruction as the zenith of consumer culture. Here adherents understood the problems of the “system” and rebelled against it.
Modern consumer based culture became manifest at the dawn of the “industrial revolution” in the late 18 hundreds in Britain. This is when “machines” became more important than humans in the workforce. It also meant the rapid increase of production. With that demand increased as did availability. With increasing demand
(consumers) and subsequently production, capitalism increased exponentially. This increased the need of having people trained to fit into the roles within the production side as well as the demand.
For consumer culture to be efficient then it needs absolute control of the consumers and the best way to achieve this is to set up a system that produces controllable consumers. Thus the life of a consumer had to be institutionalized from birth to death and the best way to achieve this is to instill values into the consumer such as the ‘work ethic’ etc that ensures compliance to the system.
The exponential increase in Credantialism and Professionalism has led to a ‘deskilling’ of the individual who is trapped in a disempowering consumer based culture that is grounded in secularism which leaves no room for true spiritual thought.
Thus the Hippies opted out of the work force, refusing to accept institutionalized positions as they saw it was the only way to break the cycle. They were thinking that by the use of ‘passive resistance’ they could achieve both: awareness of the problem in consumers and/or a ‘revolution in thinking’ that would lead to creating a better society.
Many social commentators of the sixties and seventies considered that monies saved from say the school system could be diverted back into the community in the form of training centers that were apprenticeship based and aimed at teaching children and adults in a more “experiential” way with emphasis being placed on ability and aptitude.
Srila Prabhupada arrived in the US at the dawn of the Hippie movement. He offered a profound replacement for mainstream institutionalized consumer based culture. The Vedic Culture. A system that’s epistemology was based on the instructions of the Supreme Lord Sri Krsna Himself and not man-made de-constructions.
Krsna Himself constructed this super-excellent system for perfecting life; however, humans have been busy changing this absolute system for relative systems since time immemorial.
The “idea” of compromise, as it has been presented in this essay, is redundant in the Vedic system. In the Vedic system the ‘former’ meaning is utilized, where views of Sastra, Guru and Sadhu are accepted when they align. Guru or Sadhu makes the knowledge of Sastra readily available and understandable to the general population.
ISKCON is a spiritual organization that is here to teach the absolute truth as given by Sri Krsna Himself and explained by the disciplic succession. It teaches by use of “religious principals” a moral and spiritual way of life. Srila Prabhupada has further explained the principals of the disciplic succession in a very practical manner for us to use in order to live our life together in Krsna Consciousness.
There is no question of compromise in the “relative” sense. Srila Prabhupada has given us instructions on both mundane and supramundane matters from the “absolute” sense. Thus we can readily find instruction on all aspects of devotional life to aid us. We also can find in the form of another devotee, who is also attempting to follow Srila Prabhupada, a practical aid (Siksa) to help us understand and practice our Krsna Consciousness.
Difficulty comes when devotees who, failing to understand Srila Prabhupada and therefore weak in their spiritual resolve, become influenced by secular trends and methodologies by being “enamored” and “valuing” institutional consumer culture. This is especially noticeable when the devotee is in a leadership position. Their advice and support is tainted with institutional jargon and perspective and contradictory, thus ultimately confusing as it conflicts with the higher Vaisnava philosophical view point.
In all religious movements we see both the mundane influenced and Sastrically influenced devotee attempting to work side by side. They eventually form into two distinct streams: the Traditionalists and the Modernists.
The Traditionalist devotee is someone who understands the process as described by the spiritual preceptors under the authority of Scripture and thus seeks to adhere to its tenets as closely as possible. The Modernist seeks compromise by “blending” modern trends and methodologies with traditional ones in the understanding that their opinions or views are for the betterment of the society. Another term for the modernist is ‘Latitudarianism’ as this meaning pertains more accurately to the adherents of this attitude within our movement.
We must be very careful not to change the principals that our Archaryas have laid down. When we attempt to “change” or “adapt” specifics in regard to the implementation of the philosophy or its practice, we must first ascertain if these changes are based on correct Vaisnava or Vedic principals.
For example with the education of our children and adults it is extremely vital that we do not accept the modernistic secular idea of using the western educational curriculum and syllabus process. It instills in our devotees values of mainstream consumer culture and not Vaisnava spiritual culture and is therefore diametrically opposed to the instructions of our spiritual master Srila Prabhupada in other words it is considered guru aparadha.
Most of the changes that ‘Latitudinarian’ devotees promote are in regard to secular considerations and/ or sensibilities, therefore they are specifics of secular principals and not appropriate for inclusion in our Vaisnava tradition.
There is no place in Vaisnava society for Latitudinarian thought and practice that is born out of speculative ideas from contemporary secular society which makes the assumption that spiritual thought and culture is evolving and therefore it can be modified by what they believe is the best and most appropriate ideas and programs of modern thought.
History attests that so called modern thought changes as newer and newer views, opinions and attitudes become manifest from the minds of mental speculators/philosophers. The modernist believes that views, opinions and attitudes “evolve” as society “evolves” therefore modern thought is more civilized as it has evolved by the processes outlined in this essay and is therefore more ‘advantageous’ and appropriate than traditional thought.
Yet in the Vedic Scriptures we find that many if not all these views have been postulated over the history of the material manifestation and are not necessarily “new”. They have predominated as time, place and circumstance change, in the relative world of the non Vedantist.
The Vedic views, opinions and attitudes remain the same after all this time. It’s adherents accepting them and making advancement. While the other views and opinions are in a constant state of flux. The latitudinarian view while seemingly advantageous will only be temporary as will the devotional lives of the modernist devotees, unless of course they begin to understand and accept the truth in what Srila Prabhupada and the previous Acaryas have given us and try and maintain their life in the service of our more spiritually advanced preceptors.
ISKCON must seriously look at this issue. We must ascertain where we are developing our movement by using consumer based mainstream cultural principals and therefore processes and make the necessary changes. This may seem like a drastic step but we must remember that these processes are ‘a 180 degree turn around’ from the direction that Srila Prabhupada and the previous Archaryas intended or instructed.
Mainstream consumer culture is very aware of the potency of “school” to shape a child’s world view, values and future and so should we. Our children must learn to devalue Credentialism and Professionalism or other governmental secular normalization procedures and processes and value true spiritual progress.
Monies, manpower, resources and buildings need to be redirected to look at finding training and employment or service within our own communities which are according to our own samskaras, procedures and processes.
Srila Prabhupada did not want us to focus our movement to “Krishnaizing” the mainstream consumer based culture he wanted that we create our own spiritual, agrarian culture whose economic base is to be primarily ‘Book Distribution’ and ‘Life Membership’ (Book Distribution). For this, mainstream consumer based culture has no idea.
So please forgive my mistakes and sometimes the “force” of my presentation. I have tried my best to present this essay as balanced as possible and hope that I have not offended anyone in the process. I sincerely pray that you think about what I am saying.
Yours in the service of Srila Prabhupada and Sri Sri RadhaSyamasunda
Krsnacandra dasa
Vrndavana Dham
July 2005 Revised 2008
at the risk of sounding like a hopeless contrarian, it could appear that according to Srila Prabhupada’s statement below, pragmatic “compromise” is an integral part of instilling Krsna consciousness in society at large. Possibly, then, the key issue is being self aware of your purpose, your ultimate goal.
It would be difficult to argue that Srila Prabhupada was something other than exceedingly pragmatic in establishing a world wide movement, a vision he expressed from the very start.
ys Sthita-dhi
———————————–
These are the examples. Nothing is bad… Nothing is good if it is not purposeful. That is the whole purpose of teaching Bhagavd-gita. Nothing is good; nothing is bad. Everything is good, everything is bad, in this material world, but we have to see. Just as the common phrase goes, “The end justifies the means. The end justifies the means.”
Bg Lecture: 3.21-25
NYC 30May1966
“Krishnaizing” the mainstream consumer-based culture and creating a separate, spiritual, agrarian culture can go on side by side, can’t they? Won’t they?
“Book distribution” utilizes modern techniques of publishing. “Life membership” has always entailed outreach to people who were not fully committed to moving into an ISKCON ashram full time.
It is true that Prabhupada’s focus has always been on pure devotional service, “unalloyed.” He often said the goal was to make one pure devotee rather than thousands of cheap followers.
But the principle is utility. Yukta vairagya. Take advantage of everything in the world around us and engage it in preaching Krishna’s glories. It is not a “compromise” to use modern techniques or modern technology in the service of Krishna, when we do it right. It’s practical, and we judge by the results.
We should think, when we go out with the sankirtan party, that all these people who are hearing the name, chanting the name, purchasing a book or even touching a book are becoming “Krishnaized” according to their capacity. That is a good thing. We are not out to make war on them if they do not immediately abandon their consumerist ways and move into an ISKCON farm community. We do not challenge in that way.
Most of us are going to go through a gradual stage of more or less cheap following before we come to the point of complete surrender. Let’s make war on the consumerism in our own hearts while being tolerant of those around us.
Preachers have to encourage whatever kernel of surrender is there, and tolerate the anarthas of those not yet cleansed. “You can’t blame a dirty man who is in the shower.”
Sri Krishna Sankirtan is like a giant shower for everyone (sarvatma snapanam), and thus the goal of Krishnaizing modern consumer culture is also laudable. It will change in time.
How can we purify ourselves if we do not Krishnaize our own culture? Even the idea of creating a separate, ideal spiritual community is meant to set an example for others. We are ghostyanandis in ISKCON, not separatists.
This reminds me of old debates between Stalinist “socialism in one country” and Trotskyist “permanent revolution”. In the ISKCON context it is a false dichotomy. Our revolution is a heart revolution. We needn’t fear. If our hearts are dedicated to Krishna we can’t be checked by reactionary agents of Kali yuga or Maya Devi. Light doesn’t “compromise” with darkness, it gradually illuminates.
Stitha-dhi wrote:
In the matter of Srila Prabhupada’s notion of “pragmatic compromise” among ISKCON’s devotees there are two different views: one is utilitarian and the other normative.
On the one hand, those who think SP’s pragmaticism was utilitarian generally consider all but the highest rules and regulations as widely subject to innovation or non-use. For example there are some devotees who feel that it is possible to build a Krishna concsious society without varnashram. If some arrangement not mentioned in the shastras, or in tradition, can help you “always remember Krishna and never forget Him,” and this novel way of becoming Krishna conscious is more acceptable to some people in a given time, place, and circumstance, then this new way should be adopted instead of blindly following tradition.
On the other hand, those who think SP’s pragmaticism was normative believe that his time, place, and circumstance adjustments were generally meant bring us to the highest standards by gradually qualifying us to first follow so-called lesser standardsāfirst sadhana, then prema. If the purpose of such lesser standards are to help us come to the higher standards, and these lesser standards are sanctioned by shastra and tradition, then without following them, coming to the highest standards would be all but impossible. In other words, the normative view of SPās pragmaticism sees time, place, and circumstance adjustments as temporary detours which are meant to eventually bring us back to the right path.
Devotees who tend to be liberal, or progressive, in their social views tend to think of all but the highest rules and regulations of shastra as utilitarian, or a means to some desired end. Devotees who tend to be more conservative and traditionalist in their views tend to think of the rules and regulations of shastra as normative, or the means to some desired end.
It is the normative view, not the utilitarian view, that best explains Srila Prabhupada’s time, place, and circumstance adjustments together with his persistent advocacy of the proper standards of behavior found in a civilized society.
Haribol Krishna Kirti,
Dandavats. Good to see you here after some time.
I suppose Rupa Goswami has taught both things: First, that the primary prescription and prohibition is to always remember Krishna and to never forget Him, and all other rules and regulations should be seen as servants of this one principle. (I think you were referring to this verse from Bhaktirasamrtasindhu in your comment. It does have a “utilitarian” quality, not in the sense of materialist utilitarians like Bentham, but in the sense you seem to use the term, that there is a clear conception of the desired end of all rules and sadhana. It is not just some blind tradition we follow.)
But second, so-called bhakti without reference to sruti-smrti-purana-pancaratra is simply a disturbance. Bhakti cannot be achieved through some imaginary or concocted, whimsical process. It has to be received from higher authority.
In NOI the word niyamaagraha is explained in two ways: First, it is wrong to be simply attached to the niyamas without understanding the purposes behind them, but second, one cannot abandon those regulations and act whimsically.
athah pumbhir dvija-srestha . . . samsiddhir hari-tosanam (S.B.1.2.13) The highest result achieved by discharging one’s proper duties is to please Lord Hari.
tyaktva sva-dharmam caranambhujam harer . . . (S.B. 1.5.17) A nondevotee can engage in all the rules and regulations and gain nothing, whereas a devotee, even if sometimes deviating due to immaturity, is assured of ultimate success in the end.
So. . . I think the synthesis of the two opposing views you raise is that, first, we must all agree that bhakti is supreme. It is the highest good and the only way to really please Krishna. We should not love rules and regulations as ends in themselves, but only because they are *a* means to the desired end (Krishna). First of all make people devotees and their behavior will eventually fall into line.
But second, we cannot whimsically manufacture some unauthorized method thinking it is also a means to the end. We have to accept what we have been given from Prabhupada as *the* means, at least for us. Prabhupada gave us in ISKCON some relaxed details (e.g., we are not required to chant more than 16 rounds, we are permitted to eat non-grains on ekadasi rather than abstaining from all food and water, etc.) We accept what SP gave as *the* only means to achieve bhakti: sri guru carana padma kevala bhakati sadma
If SP made some time, place and circumstances adjustments to gradually bring unqualified people through lower standards until eventually they could reach the highest stage, as undoubtedly he did, one question for his followers today may be: “How quickly and in what circumstances should we increase standards beyond what Srila Prabhupada gave us?”
Obviously, some standards can and should be increased whenever possible. We can always be cleaner, we can always be kinder. However, when it comes to insisting on greater renunciation or austerity than SP required, or trying to impose social hierarchies that chafe those who are supposed to be subordinated, we should probably go slowly and procede with great caution. If we are chasing people away that SP wanted us to draw in, he’s not going to be happy with us.
I do not know that socially “liberal” versus “conservative” devotees really divide along the lines Krishna-kirti says, with the liberals emphasizing “yena tena prakarena manah krishna nivesatet”, and the conservatives emphasizing “sruti-smrti. . . vidhim vina . . . utpatayaiva kalpate.” There may be more at work.
For one thing, devotees who are really concerned about the true meaning of the “sruti smrti” verse can (and often do) take their own vows to increase standards for themselves, while being tolerant of the inability of others to change or follow strictly. Some of these “socially liberal” devotees are very renounced, austere and regulated in their own lives, but just disagree with “social conservatives” on what ISKCON should emphasise in its general preaching and outreach efforts.
For another thing, some “social liberals” are skeptical about our ability and knowledge how to properly introduce and apply certain new rules from sruti-smrti-pancaratra. Some of our efforts to separate ourselves and establish our idea of a Vedic society have been notoriously culty and lacking in common sense. There are traps that radical and separatist social movements have fallen into that ISKCON should be wise enough to avoid.
(Actually, our social liberals’ wariness of extremism is more properly a “conservative” attitude–we do not have to upset every apple cart, overturn every custom of society at once. There is a certain practical logic to settled social traditions that have grown historically over generations of usage. We might need to keep going “in like a needle” for a long time. The plough will come when its ready.)
Akruranathji, Hare Krishna.
This particular statement of yours is in comment #5 interesting:
I agree with you that some past attempts to establish a Vedic society have been faulty, yet the fault itself was, at the time of implementation, considered definite knowledge. But if it was knowledge in error, then what was the nature of the error?
I suggest that the nature of the erroneous conception (ajnana) is that it is usually based on whatever values and ways of thinking about the world we bring with us to Krishna consciousness. Indeed, when we join ISKCON rarely if ever do we leave all of our misconceptions and patterns of thinking about ourselves and the world at the temple entrance. Since these misconceptions pre-exist our lives as devotees, they are in most every case based on Western ideologies. Thus, the non-Vedic conceptions that in some circumstances produced some very evil consequences were in actuality the application of Western patterns of thought that masqueraded as the Vedic way.
Krishna-kirti prabhu, I think I am beginning to understand your point. I think some of the fault also lies in attempting to mimic certain aspects of the Vedic culture, especially external ones, without other supporting details.
For example: demanding that women be surrendered and dependent, but without ensuring that men are dependable (for example: abusing children in the gurukula system).
Developing the whole Vedic culture is an organic process more akin to gardening than to house construction. At different times in the life of a devotee different measures are needed, and an expert gardener can help them to apply that. Trying to artificially jump to higher stages of development, either personally or collectively, is unhealthy and counter productive.
Virtue is indeed relative, as the Bhagavatam declares:
“Steadiness in oneās own position is declared to be actual piety, whereas deviation from oneās position is considered impiety. In this way the two are definitely ascertained.” SB. 11.21.2
We need expert gardeners to help individuals and communities to grow organically and healthily, without niyamagraha in either direction – either imposing inappropriate arrangements which while valid in their own right are not progressive for the people who adopt them at this point in their development, or else whimsically transforming the standard rather than progressively transforming ourselves to meet the standard.
I don’t think there is another solution apart from persons who will fulfill this role. These are the brahmanas that Srila Prabhupada wanted to create as the first order of action in establishing varnasrama-dharma.
>
āKrishnaizingā the mainstream consumer-based culture and creating a separate, spiritual, agrarian culture can go on side by side, canāt they? Wonāt they?
>
Oh, Iād definitely agree on that point. It does go on.
Obviously there are a vast array of limitations regarding modern consumer/industrial capitalism to which not just the 60s hippies and esoteric Vaisnavas are aware. For example the Catholic Church regularly complains about the commodification of human life under modern capitalistic social/economic systems, which Iām also under the impression is one of their angles in arguing against freely legally available abortion as something that cheapens human existence into a disposable product.
But even within the āgrand american experiment,ā which also predates the rise of market capitalism, there has always been an undercurrent of disenchantment with mindless mudha-holic consumerism as per NE Transcendentalisn, elements of the Second Great Awakening, much of the 20th Century intellectual left, and of course the Beats and Hippies who came forward to help Srila Prabhupada establish Gaudiya Vaisnavism beyond the limitations of South Asia.
So in a sense, nothing new under the sun on some of these points.
But beyond all that, Iād add that much of the Varnasrama model is also a means to an end. That end being, of course, unalloyed devotional service, hardly a bitter experience! Cultural paradigms rooted in the knowledge producing mode of goodness are very facilitating.
>
Devotees who tend to be liberal, or progressive, in their social views tend to think of all but the highest rules and regulations of shastra as utilitarian, or a means to some desired end. Devotees who tend to be more conservative and traditionalist in their views tend to think of the rules and regulations of shastra as normative, or the means to some desired end.
It is the normative view, not the utilitarian view, that best explains Srila Prabhupadaās time, place, and circumstance adjustments together with his persistent advocacy of the proper standards of behavior found in a civilized society.
>
An important point, no doubt. But one can also argue that the actual desired end IS unalloyed devotional service, and not simply a āproper standard of behavior found in civilized society.ā Reawakening that original relationship is the purposeful point of the human form, civilized or not.
But most certainly, having these cultural standards of civilization is something Prabhupada emphasized, and for good reason.
When we look historically at what flies and what doesn’t in terms of social and political organization, we cannot help but notice that when there is economic scarcity, there are often social dislocations, even revolutions.
If we expect the nations of the world to embrace the Vedic or Varnasrama ideal, we are going to have to not only promise that this natural, God-given system will lead to sufficient economic prosperity (and a just distribution of the fruits of such prosperity), not only make people believe in that promise, but also make good on that promise. It will take some skill.
Otherwise, if people on a large scale are not satisfied and happy, they are going to bolt to a different system. If there were a Vedic “establishment” in a given country, but large groups of people who felt unsatisfied, or had desires not being met, there would be social tensions. There might be a growing anti-establishment movement that favored different policies, different government, different constitution, different religion, philosophy, etc.
Part of Varnasrama dharma has to be practical in the sense that everyone must do their jobs correctly and see to it that the crops do not fail, there are sufficient food reserves to keep people from starving in times of low crop yields, the waters are controlled to prevent flooding, that people in general have roofs over their heads and access to the education and medical care and welfare that they may need.
It is true that people must love pious, just behavior for its own sake, not for the results it produces. (The fruits of pious conduct are pure and sattvik) We should not tell a lie, or cheat or steal, even if living by strict moral convictions causes us hardships.
[Nondevotees may complain that if they do not kill cows, unborn babies, etc., there will be bad economic consequences, but we cannot accept that. That’s the “soylent green” argument, that we could be more prosperous if we would just become cannibals.]
However, to make an ideal Varnasrama society really work, people will have to use all their intelligence to achieve the proper results of their labors. Vaisyas will have to organize their farms and enterprises well, sudra artisans will have to ply their crafts with skill.
People may be happy even with simpler things, because they will work for a proper purpose (Krishna). However, at least basic necessities of food and clothes and a clean, healthy, crime-free environment must be nicely met
“Since the present civilization is not very congenial to the living entities, Krishna consciousness is recommended. Through Krishna consciousness, society will develop the mode of goodness. When the mode of goodness is developed, people will see things as they are.
“In the mode of ignorance, people are just like animals and cannot see things clearly. In the mode of ignorance, for example, they do not see that by killing one animal they are taking the chance of being killed by the same animal in the next life. Because people have no education in actual knowledge, they become irresponsible. To stop this irresponsibility, education for developing the mode of goodness of the people in general must be there. When they are actually educated in the mode of goodness, they will become sober, in full knowledge of things as they are. Then people will be happy and prosperous.
“Even if the majority of people aren’t happy and prosperous, if a certain percentage of the population develops Krishna consciousness and becomes situated in the mode of goodness, then there is the possibility for peace and prosperity all over the world. Otherwise, if the world is devoted to the modes of passion and ignorance, there can be no peace or prosperity.
“In the mode of passion, people become greedy, and their hankering for sense enjoyment has no limit. One can see that even if one has enough money and adequate arrangements for sense gratification, there is neither happiness nor peace of mind. That is not possible, because one is situated in the mode of passion. If one wants happiness at all, his money will not help him; he has to elevate himself to the mode of goodness by practicing Krishna consciousness.”
(B.G. 14.17, Purport by His Divine Grace A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada)
Dear Prabhu’s,
I am new to this area and don’t fully understand what is happening ,so I am
interested in what comments are being made on this very nice subject. I can
understand what the author, Krishnacandra prabhu, in the Compromise article
is saying very well but I cannot understand what you are saying with terms
such as ‘Normative. Pragmatic Compromise.’
But I think that you will find that the author of this letter is not talking
about what impact Srila Prabhupada’s ISKCON is having on contemporary
society. Krishnacandra prabhu is talking about what impact the new age
corporate devotee is having on the movement.
I didn’t go to college so I am not clued up in modern technical talk. What
Srila Prabhupada was able to do is make a very high philosophy
understandable to ignorant fools such as me. Krishnacandra prabhu has also
done a very good job making what I would assume is a very high understanding
of the issues into a simple language that anyone could understand. I would
imagine that this was no easy task and I thank him for it.
I want to read comments that are relevant to the subject matter of the
letter by Krishncandra Prabhu’s so please, I beg you, if you can write in
more simpler and less verbose terms, it would go a long way to helping
ignorant fools such as me understand better.
ys Vijay das
>
I can understand what the author, Krishnacandra prabhu, in the Compromise article
is saying very well but I cannot understand what you are saying with terms
such as āNormative. Pragmatic Compromise.ā
>
I think in the context here, in everyday devotional language, “pragmatic compromise” would refer to applying the philosophy according to time, place and circumstances. Or applying the siddhantic principles of Vaisnavism according tho the current needs, or requirements, of the patient.
I believe, actually, it was Krishancandra Prabhu who introduced the concept of “normative,” which often refers to the norm, or standard – but I may not have that entirely correct.
But I would also agree, “corporate new age” stuff isn’t what we need. But sometimes high level, professionally skilled propensities for dealing with practical challenges can be useful. But if the talent is going to be engaged in Krsna consciousness, well, the proof of the pudding is in the eating. So we generally say that requires careful consideration in light of guru, sadhu and sastra.
Even Maharaja Yudhistira, who was Dharmaraja himself, constantly sought out the counsel, or advice, of the serious, steady Vaisnavas, or sadhus. Best thing, though, is to find a devotional environment where we can draw strength and enthusiasm from. Its not like we are going to think our way Back to Godhead, even though sometimes the new age types do claim, “thinking is the best way to travel”!
Haribol Vijay Prabhu,
You are not *the* Vijay (HDG), the famous book distributor, are you?
Anyway, thank you for bringing the focus back to Krishnacandra’s original article. I have to admit, it was a long article that seemed to cover a lot of ground, and I did not understand it as primarily a comment on the impact the “new age corporate devotee” is having on the movement.
I also am not sure I understand what a new age corporate devotee is. Is any devotee who works for a corporation (as an outside job) in that category?
Or does that phrase refer to a devotee who tries to import corporate management techniques into organizing ISKCON projects? (For example, I know there has been a lot of focus on “strategic planning” in ISKCON management. Is that what you are talking about?)
To my way of thinking, “new age” and “corporate” are labels that usually or at least traditionally do not go together. Corporate culture tends to be pragmatic and concerned with maximizing profits for shareholders, often at the expense of concern for anything else. (At least, that is the Ralph Nader or “anti-globalism” protester view of corporatism.)
“New age” calls to mind a grab bag or hodgepodge of more or less mystical or “spiritual” ideas, often at odds with scientific rational thought, usuall aimed at improving one’s inner peace and harmony. You know, astrology, auras, Edgar Cayce, ESP, Tai Chi, Tarot cards, and the dawning of the Age of Aquarius.
Some corporate-types might associate Hare Krishna with “New Age”.
Many “New Age” types respond well to Krishna consciousness, but some New Agers say Hare Krishna reminds them too much of organized religions. Maybe it is because we get pushy and self-righteous, which we can change. Or maybe its because we emphasize surrender to a personal God who has clear moral standards. (We cannot please everyone, after all.) But if we present the subject matter nicely many people will find something that attracts them to Krishna.
If “corporate” is a synonym for a well-organized, efficient enterprise, it is worth aspiring to for devotees. If it is a synonym for greed, materialism, rajoguna, ignoring spiritual values to focus on money, of course that is not what we are shooting for.
I, for one, have no problem with devotees who can successfully organize and manage a Krishna conscious enterprise, borrowing techniques that work well in the world of for-profit businesses. We have to succeed for Prabhupada.
Dear Prabhus
I have been reading your comments and felt I needed to comment.
Having a professional background in Psychology I have worked in the fields of;
Juvenile Justice – Juvenile Prison Manager / Court: Representation / Remand Center: Supervisor / Family Counseling / Child Abuse Intervention and Counseling
(Under the “Community Development Model”) Substance abuse – Residential: Assistant Director / Outpatient Counseling: Director
(Under the “Cognitive Behavioral Model”)
I have also been professionally trained as a Homoeopathic Doctor.
The reason why I felt the need to explain this is due to the fact that I have some understanding of the way the secular world operates and we as devotees operate.
I have no problem with devotees who work professionally or otherwise in the secular world. I did for many years. But the last 11 years I have given up professional life and have devoted my time and skills to doing seva. Most of that time in Sri Vrindavan Dham.
The reason why I wrote the essay on Compromise is due to watching ISKCON develop over the years and I hoped to put some perspective into this. I have no problems with discussing the subjects that you have mentioned in your comments.
However, I am presently more interested in how we are changing the way in which ISKCON itself operates. For example over the last ten years we have seen an increasing amount of senior devotees going to university to obtain secular qualifications and/or training. When Srila Prabhupada wanted that we make professionals into devotees. Not the other way around.
Sure an individual must do the needful but it is vitally important that the senior devotees such as Sanyasis, Gurus, Senior Administrators and Advisors maintain strictly the principals that Srila Prabhupada clearly outlined.
The other issue is that I believe that we have to be extremely careful that we do not try and recreate what is happening in the secular world with regards to incorporating policies and programmes that are designed for the modern secular world.
My main professional experience is in the philosophy of Community Development. Are you familiar with it? This philosophy attempts to develop strategies in working with the community in ways that empower the individual as opposed to disempowering them. This, in a way is a radical way of seeing intervention and case work.
In simple terms it is this: We the professional do not see that we have the answers and the patient / client / NGO etc has to listen to us. We, the professional see our role as a form of cooperation. We try and meet the needs of the person without taking control. We work with them to provide support and encouragement. We had to change our attitude as well. The person ‘had’ a problem, and not that the person ‘is’ a problem. Another change was to talk ‘with’ a person as opposed to talking ‘to’ or ‘at’ the person. The person also has a family and friends who loved and cared for them. We let go of the total control of the person and networked with their family and friends.
Okay this is rather simplistic but it will have to do for now.
What happened in Australia in the early eighties was that this model changed the face of the country. Millions of dollars were spent on simply changing the atmosphere and decor of Government departments and the retraining of professionals, managers and office workers in order to change their attitudes etc. For example – the Police Department – The criminal was innocent until proven guilty, Serve and protect…
Welfare departments changed to Community Development departments. They became more personal. So did Social Security etc. In the state that I was working I was also responsible for training managers in the new philosophy.
In ISKCON today we are seeing the establishment of mega departments. These department are “fully loaded” with training packages that are ‘cutting edge’ corporate training practices and are philosophically supported by Academics. Departments like this tend to impersonalize and structure the care and welfare of devotees no matter what they may profess.
The reason why I wrote the essay was to open up discussion on this to see if this is the way in which Srila Prabhupada intended that we develop his movement. What to speak of what is the best secular system to use? Secular theories are constantly changing and statistically speaking secular educational philosophies and models are the most volatile.
ISKCON currently uses the government curriculum and syllabus in our schools. Yet there are many different systems to use, for example Rudolf Steiner. This later model is not based on ‘intensely pressurized memory recall’ but on bringing out the inner nature of the child and encouraging the child to love the learning process at the appropriate time in their lives. They also try and make sure that there is one primary teacher who follows the child through till they finish. This is very close to the way in which the Vedic system operates.
Just come to India and see how the children in the Indian schools are tortured with vast amounts of memory recall subjects and excessive homework schedules which they have to begin as early as three years of age in order to be able to successfully undertake the rigorous Indian educative process.
I remember when I went to school – one and half hour examinations only came in years 9 – 12. Now little kids as young as eight are doing exams in blocks of ten with each exam lasting one and a half hours. Just come and see for yourself.
India is rapidly westernizing with the educative and employment process lost in Credentialism and Professionalism. With practically no employment for most of its people, young Indians are staying for extended periods of time in higher education with the vein hope that the more credentials they have the better chance they will get a job.
Here like in Australia they have 12 years of schooling with the last year being for entrance to higher education. Now as in the Australian experience even a person who works behind the counter of a fast food joint must have year 12!
I say what about we do what Srila Prabhupada wanted?
An example that may clarify my points better, although it may be a little obscure (sorry) is Srila Bhaktivinod Thakur’s Jaiva Dharma. One can look at this masterful work in many ways. I have made a point of studying this book with great care and attention and I can see it in two ways. One way is that it is an incredible philosophical treatise and the other is that is it a wonderful and sweet example of Vaisnava culture and etiquette. This later way is the main way I like to see it. How sweet are the interactions between the Vaisnava’s! How beautiful is Godruma!
We have a choice how to develop our movement and how we see Srila Prabhupada and his instructions.
I personally do not believe that institutional ISKCON should develop along the lines it is presently developing. We need to change the way we are thinking. The Agrarian Culture is a beautiful culture and we will never achieve it if we become too institutional in the prosecution of Krsna Consciousness. Sure the balance must be there but I believe that the scale has already tipped too far in the bureaucratic way to be healthy for our good.
Reading your comments I see that you are both very scholarly and thoughtful, we need devotees such as you to look into this very carefully and thoughtfully.
Please forgive me for being long winded but thank you for commenting on my essay and allowing me to speak some more.
Yours in the service of Srila Prabhupada Krsnacandra dasa – Not Krishnacandra dasa :)
>>
However, I am presently more interested in how we are changing the way in which ISKCON itself operates. For example over the last ten years we have seen an increasing amount of senior devotees going to university to obtain secular qualifications and/or training. When Srila Prabhupada wanted that we make professionals into devotees. Not the other way around.
Sure an individual must do the needful but it is vitally important that the senior devotees such as Sanyasis, Gurus, Senior Administrators and Advisors maintain strictly the principals that Srila Prabhupada clearly outlined.
>>
Yeah, this is a very big topic (arenāt they all) that raises numerous fundamental points, so a few more sound bites (on my part, mostly) arenāt going to conclusively settle much, most certainly.
But having clarified my qualifications, didnāt those statements attributed to Srila Prabhupada come up in the context of the earlier days of the movement when our devotees had yet to gain practical experience as Vaisnavas, even with regards to engaging their own good selves? I do recall the conversation between Srila Prabhupada and some new devoteeās Mother and her Jesuit priest where the argument presented was, wouldnāt it be better to encourage the kid go get his medical degree before joining the cult, so to speak?
So arguably it would have be much smarter back in the 60s/70s to go get a doctor to chant a few rounds than the other way around – after, back in the day, after a week the good doc likely would know whatās up about Krsna as much as a good portion of those glorious early Western prabhus upholding the principles of pure devotional service for all to see. From this angle, Prabhupada was the most pragmatic.
But now its the other way around – kind of. We now find ourselves with devotees with decades of experience coupled with a (somewhat) far more mature and sophisticated Iskcon devotional culture, no matter what the current complaints may or may not be.
Anyway, I do agree with your main point (as far as I can figure it all out right now) that whatever we are doing, best we engage it for Krsnaās pleasure, and not for getting ourselves lost exploring some artificial pretext. Do both, I’d say, though not the “lost” part.