By Dhanesvara das
Christopher Lasch, a well-known American social and cultural critic, argued in his last book that democracy was withering in the hands of professional and managerial elites who lack a sense of social and civic values. By 1994, Lasch had come to believe that the economic and cultural elite, who historically have insured the continuity of a culture, had lost faith in the traditional values, and had become detached from the concerns of the common man. Modern elites, he wrote, are not anymore connected with their geographical and social background and roots, and do not accept any constraints and limits in the pursuance of their egotistical interests, which are basically money oriented. Money is what counts. Only money. Only “my money.”
Moreover, the elites have lost interest in the plight or the needs of the
common man, and have become alienated from them, and “the professional
classes in particular, regard the masses with mingled scorn and
apprehension.” Lasch called it a Revolt of the Elites, also the
title of his book. Sensing this disconnect, the working class has responded
with a sense of apathy and become alienated from the intellectual class of
“symbolic analysts.” This is a breakdown of the social order. Lasch was
increasingly concerned about the future of the world and questioned whether
democracy can survive. His last question of his last book (before passing
on) demonstrates his concern for the future: can a society survive when a
significant portion of its elite have forsaken its founding principles?
We can answer that question from the Vedic perspective of history: No. When
the brahmanas began to fail in their duty, the entire varnashrama culture
began to fail. Next the ksatriyas failed, and now, the vaisyas are having
their turn at neglecting their duties to the detriment of the entire world.
As the world cascades down the slippery slope of tamo-guna the orientation
of the entire society is: every person for themselves.
I Got Mine
Those three short words sum up the attitude of many people in the world
today. It’s actually an abbreviated form of “I got mine, and that’s all I
care about. You didn’t get yours? That’s your problem, not mine.”
Although the phrase “I got mine” is perhaps the most recent expression of
the attitude it is not new. Students of the Bhagavad-gita can recognize
attachment, envy, selfishness, and a lack of empathy in these statements.
These qualities are characteristic of the modes of passion and ignorance.
This consciousness shows up in all sorts of ways. Some think that it is an
expression the “conservatives.” Indeed, I recall years ago hearing a
conservative radio-show host ranting against having to pay anything for the
less able, who must simply be lazy ner’ do wells, and freeloaders, who suck
the energy of those who are willing to work. Their idea is that everybody
has an equal chance in this world and they have gotten what they have by
their ability and hard work, and all others have likewise. If you don’t have
as much as me that is the result of your own lack of initiative and effort.
This is the consciousness of “every man for himself.” It is a consciousness
that has more or less pervaded all of Western culture, in part because there
is no longer a “social contract” within Western culture. The generally
understood idea of a social contract is that free men establish a political
community through a social contract in which each gain civil rights in
return for subjecting himself to civil law and political authority. This is
not the kind of social contract that I refer to. Instead, I mean the
inherent social contract based on the natural abilities of men that is
established in Vedic culture. By combining their interests and committing
their efforts to mutual advantage everybody’s interests are served. Each
contributing what they have to offer: the brahmana his vision and spiritual
guidance, the ksatriya his strength, protection, and facility, the vaisya
his organizational and wealth-creating abilities, and the sudra his labor.
Formerly it was the case that all varnas committed to doing their duty
according to the dharma shastra, working together for the common good. This
is the Vedic social contract, which extended even into the Middle Ages in
the form of the feudal culture. But with the increase of tamo-guna that
system was purposely destroyed.
A succinct explanation of how the social contract formerly worked and how it
was destroyed is given by social psychologist Eric Fromm in his book The
Sane Society:
The breakdown of the traditional principle of human
solidarity led to new forms of exploitation. In feudal society the lord was
supposed to have the divine right to demand services and things from those
subject to his domination, but at the same time he was bound by custom and
was obligated to be responsible for his subjects, to protect them, and to
provide them with at least the minimum-the traditional standard of living.
Feudal exploitation took place in a system of mutual human obligations, and
thus was governed by certain restrictions. Exploitation as it developed
[under the money economy] was essentially different. The worker, or rather
his labor, was a commodity to be bought by the owner of capital, not
essentially different from any other commodity on the market, and it was
used to its fullest capacity by the buyer. Since it had been bought for its
proper price on the labor market, there was no sense of reciprocity, or of
any obligation on the part of the owner of capital, beyond that of paying
the wages. If hundreds of thousands of workers were without work and on the
point of starvation, that was their bad luck, the result of their inferior
talents, or simply a social and natural law, which could not be changed.
Exploitation was not personal any more, but it had become anonymous, as it
were. It was the law of the market that condemned a man to work for
starvation wages, rather than the intention or greed of any one individual.
Nobody was responsible or guilty, nobody could change conditions either. One
was dealing with the iron laws of society, or so it seemed.
As we moved into the 20th and 21st centuries the concepts of the “free man,”
the “rugged individual,” and the idea that “everyone is equal,” has been
indelibly drilled into the consciousness of the people through repeated
propaganda. These three ideas have been used to separate people and to
destroy their mutual dependence. Indeed, following the principle of “divide
and conquer” the government also sought to destroy any mutual dependence.
Nineteenth century social critic Peter Kropotkin explains how the formerly
strong bonds between the people were long ago broken in order to force them
to depend on an impersonal and authoritative state:
For three centuries the States [governments], both on
the Continent and in these islands, [British Isles] systematically weeded
out all institutions in which the mutual-aid tendency had formerly found its
expression. The village communities were bereft of their folkmotes, their
courts and independent administration; their lands were confiscated. The
guilds were deprived of their possessions and liberties, and placed under
the control, the fancy, and the bribery of the State’s official. The cities
were divested of their sovereignty, and the very springs of their inner
life-the folkmote, the elected justices and administration, the sovereign
parish and the sovereign guild-were annihilated; the State’s functionary
took possession of every link of what formerly was an organic whole.
Under that fatal policy and the wars it engendered, whole regions, once
populous and wealthy, were laid bare; rich cities became insignificant
boroughs; the very roads which connected them with other cities became
impracticable. Industry, art, and knowledge fell into decay. Political
education, science, and law were rendered subservient to the idea of State
centralization. It was taught in the Universities and from the pulpit
that the institutions in which men formerly used to embody their needs of
mutual support could not be tolerated in a properly organized State;
that the State alone could represent the bonds of union between its
subjects; and the State was the only proper initiator of further
development. By the end of the last century the kings on the Continent, the
Parliament in these isles, and the revolutionary Convention in France,
although they were at war with each other, agreed in asserting that no
separate unions between citizens must exist within the State; that hard
labour and death were the only suitable punishments to workers who dared to
enter into “coalitions.” “No state within the State!” The State alone, and
the State’s Church, must take care of matters of general interest, while
the subjects must represent loose aggregations of individuals, connected
by no particular bonds, bound to appeal to the Government each time that
they feel a common need. Up to the middle of the [19th] century this was
the theory and practice in Europe. (emphasis mine)
Not only are we now free and equal, and depending on ourselves alone, we are
divided. Having the state in between the people has isolated them. Even
worse, having been acculturated to this idea we think of independence as
good and the proper way to live, and distrust or even fear having to depend
on others, thinking it a source of shame. Having lost the culture of mutual
dependence, and having nobody to depend on but ourselves, many people have
lost a sense of responsibility, and have indeed become untrustworthy. When
we are not called on to be responsible we do not behave responsibly. Parents
and teachers know that what we become depends a great deal on what is
expected of us.
The evolution of this social decay has worked its way so deep into society
that many people are no longer concerned about others. “I got mine. That’s
all I care about.” The real tragedy lies in the fact that we are not equal,
and we need the help of each other. However, when this consciousness
continues for an extended period of time it has a severe impact on the
social structure, resulting in a two-tier society-the have’s and have-nots.
Currently less than 1% of the people own more than 40% of all wealth
(globally), while 50% of the people own 1%. It is clear that the elite,
rather than protecting and guiding the lower classes, now either exploit
them, or neglect them. Famed maverick economist E. F. Schumacher, author of
the classic text on caring economics, Small is Beautiful, observed
the results of this mentality in India during the several years that he
lived there. He noted that the educated classes felt no obligation to serve
their less endowed countrymen. Indeed, they used their education as a ticket
to escape the plight of the poor-“I got mine. That’s all I care about.”
Schumacher asked how the general welfare of the people could possibly
improve if those with ability and know-how did not apply it to the general
welfare. His answer: it cannot. Despite not being trained in India’s
spiritual wisdom, he chided the elite of India that it was their duty to
look after, and even lift up, the lives of the less capable. Although the
lessons were already present in their own scriptures, their duty had to be
shown to them by an outsider (to little avail even to this day, however).
Varnas and Duty
What Schumacher was saying without realizing it, was that the different
orders of society, the varnas, have an obligation to each other. When they
follow their duty properly the varnashrama social system functions to
everyone’s benefit. If they do not, as in modern society, we have what Srila
Prabhupada called “asuric varnashrama.”
The Srimad-Bhagavatam recounts how, with the increase of rajo-guna and
tamo-guna, the elite began to fail in their duty. As everyone focuses on
their narrow interests, parts of the social machine cease to function.
Eventually the breaking point is passed and the entire society fails. We
have witnessed the decline and failure of several Western cultures on these
grounds.
The social system of varna is established by Sri Krishna Himself. As He
states in the Bhagavad-gita (4.13, 15): “According to the three modes of
material nature and the work associated with them, the four divisions of
human society are created by Me. And although I am the creator of this
system, you should know that I am yet the non-doer, being unchangeable…All
the liberated souls in ancient times acted with this understanding and so
attained liberation. Therefore, as the ancients, you should perform your
duty in this divine consciousness.”
Note that Sri Krishna admonishes us to follow in the footsteps of the
liberated souls and perform our duty in the varna system. In ISKCON we take
it as a given that we are taking up the Vedic culture, and we have added a
part of the culture of Krishna Consciousness to our lives. But the fact of
the matter is that in many ways we mirror the dominant, materialistic
culture, including its asuric varnashrama. After all, most of us spend most
of our time immersed in it, and we are subtly, but very powerfully, affected
by it. Just as Lasch observes that the elite have focused on their own
narrow interests we can observe the same in our Society. It’s the way the
world works, and unconscious of it we follow its ways. And that part, that
speaks to us so subtly as the expression of the values that underlie our
existence, has yet to change.
The fact is that we live mostly unconsciously without thinking of how
society works. This is because we are raised up in a culture from the time
of being infants and that culture is instilled in us. We no longer see it,
and it acts invisibly to us. As we attempt to become Krishna Conscious it is
imperative that we begin to live consciously and see the connection between
our actions and the consciousness that they reinforce. Actions affect
consciousness. This is why in spiritual training we learn how to offer
obeisances by bowing down, touching our heads to the floor, how to respect
seniors by standing up or bowing down, to offer obeisances before taking
prasadam, and so on.
Still there are an entire host of issues that we conveniently overlook
because, to date, we have not developed within our society acceptable
alternatives that are in keeping with our philosophy. Among these are: the
concept of private ownership, the concept that everyone is equal, money as a
means of maintenance, the lack of a social contract, and the concept of
marital divorce. In all of these areas we follow the ways of the dominant
culture despite the fact that they are diametrically opposed to the
philosophy of Krishna Consciousness. Why? Because they are a part of the
culture that we live in, and in order to survive in that culture we must
live according to their values. If we did not it would be very difficult to
remain in the social network of the dominant culture. All of which
underscores the need for us to establish a cultural alternative that
includes the social orders of varna, and an economic foundation that allows
us to fully live our spiritual culture with its attendant values.
Revolt of the Elites in ISKCON?
By referring to the elites of ISKCON I am referring to men of ability,
specifically those of a ksatriya and vaisya nature. Now we may ask, what is
their duty in the present day? Well, it is no different than in previous
times. The higher orders of society have a duty to create the circumstances
in which the culture functions. Because, by themselves, the majority of the
population, those of a sudra nature, cannot do that. Not even with the help
of the brahmanas. Those of a sudra nature have a difficult time to look
beyond the immediate future, or their immediate self-interest. The brahmanas
lack the passion to make it happen. Men with different abilities are
required. Men who have ability to see the long-range in terms of time, who
understand the effort required to create a specific result, and who can
direct the labor of others toward that purposeful end.
And as Lasch is attempting to point out, when they do not, the society
cannot function. At the beginning of Kali yuga it was the brahmanas that
failed to execute their duties properly, and rule passed to the ksatriyas.
Then as the ksatriyas failed, control passed to the vaisyas. Now we are
witnessing the failure of the vaisyas in terms of global economic disaster,
extreme disparity, billions of helpless and hopeless people, etc., and rule
will pass to the sudras. Srila Prabhupada explains it thus:
At present, human society is specifically
cultivating the mode of ignorance (tamo-guna), although there may also be
some symptoms of passion (rajo-guna). Full of kama and lobha,
lust and greed, the entire population of the world consists mostly of sudras
and a few vaisyas, and gradually it is coming about that there are sudras
only. Communism is a movement of sudras, and capitalism is meant for
vaisyas. In the fighting between these two factions, the sudras and vaisyas,
gradually, due to the abominable condition of society, the communists will
emerge triumphant, and as soon as this takes place, whatever is left of
society will be ruined. The only possible remedy that can counteract the
tendency toward communism is the Krishna consciousness movement, which can
give even communists the real idea of communist society. Cc Adi 8.20
purport
Although communism has ostensibly faded into the annals of history the
general idea still holds-everything will collapse under the influence of
tamo-guna, regardless of what you call it. We are witnessing the
manifestation of the same tamo-guna under capitalism in the form of
predatory economics, disaster capitalism, vulture capitalism, casino
capitalism, etc., various pejoratives that have certainly been earned.
Unless this Krishna Consciousness Movement demonstrates how the upper
classes of society, the elite, can, under the influence of sattva-guna and
suddha-sattva, transcendental goodness, guide and protect the lower classes,
whatever is left of society will be ruined. The selfishness of looking after
only one’s immediate interests are the symptoms of tamo-guna, and this must
bring the result of tamo-guna-collapse and destruction.
Now the question arises: will they? Will the upper classes of our Krishna
Consciousness Movement rise to the occasion and demonstrate how to guide
society to a higher purposeful end? Unfortunately, that is in doubt. The
problem is that within our society we have not adopted the social
relationships of the varnas. Instead, our devotees live according to the
ways of the dominant culture. This is to say that the men of ability, those
who can lead and guide society seem to content themselves with living the
modern lifestyle and doing their duty to the Society by making financial
contributions. While this financial help is certainly necessary, I dare say
that it is not enough.
Let me make this point more clear by stating that in my observation of our
efforts to establish the varnashrama culture, it is mostly devotees of a
sudra nature that participate (that is not to be taken as a criticism. These
are good and honorable men, and far superior than the vast majority,
especially considering that they are devotees of Lord Krishna). The men of
greater ability, those of a vaisya or ksatriya nature, however, are
noticeable by their absence. I am aware that there are exceptions to this
rule and that the situation is different in different parts of the world.
Still, the observation generally holds.
When are the men of ability going to take up their duty and begin to
participate in establishing the varnashrama and daiva-varnashrama culture?
Will they give up their lucrative careers and businesses, and comfortable
lifestyles to live simply and help build an alternative spiritual culture
based on self-sufficiency? Without them the varnashrama culture cannot be
established, and this Krishna Consciousness Movement cannot offer any
possible remedy to the debilitating influences of the age. Is it that the
men of our society have also developed the idea “I got mine?” Is it that
they are also in revolt, to leave those of less ability to function as best
as they can without their guidance and assistance? Is it that they have not
been trained to understand their duty to the other orders of society and how
to apply it? Or is it because their leaders have not understood the
imperative of the daiva-varnashrama culture? Whatever the reason, it is time
that we all understand the urgent need for the varna culture and begin to
seriously move in that direction. If not, the only remedy that Srila
Prabhupada spoke of to save this world will not exist, and society will
indeed be finished.
Dhanesvara das has written a very interesting and thought provoking essay. He ultimately has pointed the information back onto ISKCON’s people, to recognize that the wave of service by devotees might avoid the downward trend of society in terms of its self-centric nature. The perspective is very very good. Now, what are the solutions. This, in my opinion, should be the direction of the replies to this essay. I suspect one will open many wounds when we discuss the problem of engaging qualified individuals in the service of ISKCON who were dis-affected in the past. Yet, that’s what discussion is all about, and perhaps we can grow from this, and make so constructive improvement. I know that I too have my own ‘take’ on this issue, which I might write later on. Hare Krishna. Pusta Krishna das
Some things were left out of the text above. Here is the first one, the complete second paragraph:
Moreover, the elites have lost interest in the plight or the needs of the common man, and have become alienated from them, and “the professional classes in particular, regard the masses with mingled scorn and apprehension.” Lasch called it a “Revolt of the Elites”, also the title of his book. Sensing this disconnect, the working class has responded with a sense of apathy and become alienated from the intellectual class of “symbolic analysts.” This is a breakdown of the social order. Lasch was increasingly concerned about the future of the world and questioned whether democracy can survive. His last question of his last book (before passing on) demonstrates his concern for the future: can a society survive when a significant portion of its elite have forsaken its founding principles?
The next paragraph with missing text is after the sub-head “I got mine”. Here is the complete paragraph:
Those three short words sum up the attitude of many people in the world today. It’s actually an abbreviated form of “I got mine, and that’s all I care about. You didn’t get yours? That’s your problem, not mine.” Although the phrase “I got mine” is perhaps the most recent expression of the attitude it is not new. Students of the Bhagavad-gita can recognize attachment, envy, selfishness, and a lack of empathy in these statements. These qualities are characteristic of the modes of passion and ignorance. This consciousness shows up in all sorts of ways. Some think that it is an expression the “conservatives.” Indeed, I recall years ago hearing a conservative radio-show host ranting against having to pay anything for the less able, who must simply be lazy ner’ do wells, and freeloaders, who suck the energy of those who are willing to work. Their idea is that everybody has an equal chance in this world and they have gotten what they have by their ability and hard work, and all others have likewise. If you don’t have as much as me that is the result of your own lack of initiative and effort.
Another large block of text is missing, beginning with the paragraph about Eric Fromm. Here is that section:
A succinct explanation of how the social contract formerly worked and how it was destroyed is given by social psychologist Eric Fromm in his book The Sane Society:
As we moved into the 20th and 21st centuries the concepts of the “free man,” the “rugged individual,” and the idea that “everyone is equal,” has been indelibly drilled into the consciousness of the people through repeated propaganda. These three ideas have been used to separate people and to destroy their mutual dependence. Indeed, following the principle of “divide and conquer” the government also sought to destroy any mutual dependence. (continues in the next comment)
Nineteenth century social critic Peter Kropotkin explains how the formerly strong bonds between the people were long ago broken in order to force them to depend on an impersonal and authoritative state:
For three centuries the States [governments], both on the Continent and in these islands, [British Isles] systematically weeded out all institutions in which the mutual-aid tendency had formerly found its expression. The village communities were bereft of their folkmotes , their courts and independent administration; their lands were confiscated. The guilds were deprived of their possessions and liberties, and placed under the control, the fancy, and the bribery of the State’s official. The cities were divested of their sovereignty, and the very springs of their inner life—the folkmote, the elected justices and administration, the sovereign parish and the sovereign guild—were annihilated; the State’s functionary took possession of every link of what formerly was an organic whole. Under that fatal policy and the wars it engendered, whole regions, once populous and wealthy, were laid bare; rich cities became insignificant boroughs; the very roads which connected them with other cities became impracticable. Industry, art, and knowledge fell into decay. Political education, science, and law were rendered subservient to the idea of State centralization. It was taught in the Universities and from the pulpit that the institutions in which men formerly used to embody their needs of mutual support could not be tolerated in a properly organized State; that the State alone could represent the bonds of union between its subjects; and the State was the only proper initiator of further development. By the end of the last century the kings on the Continent, the Parliament in these isles, and the revolutionary Convention in France, although they were at war with each other, agreed in asserting that no separate unions between citizens must exist within the State; that hard labour and death were the only suitable punishments to workers who dared to enter into “coalitions.” “No state within the State!” The State alone, and the State’s Church, must take care of matters of general interest, while the subjects must represent loose aggregations of individuals, connected by no particular bonds, bound to appeal to the Government each time that they feel a common need. Up to the middle of the century this was the theory and practice in Europe. (my emphasis)
continuing…
Not only are we now free and equal, and depending on ourselves alone, we are divided. Having the state in between the people has isolated them. Even worse, having been acculturated to this idea we think of independence as good and the proper way to live, and distrust or even fear having to depend on others, thinking it a source of shame. Having lost the culture of mutual dependence, and having nobody to depend on but ourselves, many people have lost a sense of responsibility, and have indeed become untrustworthy. When we are not called on to be responsible we do not behave responsibly. Parents and teachers know that what we become depends a great deal on what is expected of us.
Sorry for the above confusion. The article in its entirety can be found on my blog: http://spiritual-econ.blogspot.com
Whew! That was alot to take in. I want to begin comments of this very interesting essay in this way. We can easily understand the false position of independence both spiritually and materially. Materially, those who are trying to scratch their way up the ladder, do so at the expense of those that they exploit. That is true also within spiritual organizations. Those who want to be leaders or desire adoration (pratishtha) need others to lead or adore them. The main topic of your essay, as I understand it, is that selfishness has replaced interdependency as the mentality. We clearly need to realize our dependence. The demonic mentality is one characterized by absorption in one’s control over the environment. Even the demigods, when not covered by forgetfulness, understand that their power comes from Krishna.
I like the ideals in simple examples that we have learned from Srila Prabhupad. One in particular emphasizes the ideal of Krishna consciousness: water the root of the tree and then the entire tree is benefitted. We have been introduced to this concept by Srila Prabhupad, and how we apply those instructions in our lives will determine, to a great extent, the success of our spiritual practices. It is our duty to transmit this conception to others. If, in the name of Krishna consciousness, we become selfish false enjoyers or controllers, then we must suffer. I do believe that Krishna will rectify the motives of the bhaktas or once-upon-a-time bhaktas. Krishna is an Ocean of Mercy. He will not turn His divine attention away from one who has once come to Him. The timeline of this mercy is beyond our comprehension, but I am fully convinced in Krishna’s mercy.
So, now we will try to turn the essay on ourselves. How much self-awareness do we have to rectify our behavior, to cultivate humility instead of pride, to cultivate the mentality for giving instead of consuming? These are all important questions. Sometimes, it is difficult to change a pattern of deceit, even self-deceit. Srila Prabhupad emphasized: “You cannot be your own spiritual master!” This is critical.
I hope to hear other comments on this essay. It is very interesting, thought provoking, and may stimulate growth amongst many of us. Sincerely, Pusta Krishna das
Thank you Pusta Krishna Prabhu for your comments. I would like to say that my motive for writing this essay was to highlight the fact that as devotees we have not yet fully understood, what to speak of taken up, the full culture of Krishna Consciousness. The culture is based on duty and dharma, both of which find their full expression within the varnashrama culture in a village setting. However, we continue to live according the tenants of the dominant materialistic culture, in which dharma and duty cannot be properly expressed. I am concerned about our involvement with modern society in which our devotees’ spiritual lives are compromised.
To give an example why, let me offer a quote from Srila Bhaktivinoda’s Jaiva Dharma:
Sri Nityananda dasa Babaji, “Many kanishta-bhaktas do not progress,
what is the reason for this?”
Sri Haridasa Babaji, “If the kanishta-bhakta’s, dveni-sanga—association with the inimical agnostics, atheists and impersonalists, etc.,—is frequent, very soon he loses the kanishta status and becomes
entangled in the pursuit of karma and jnana, etc. In some cases the kanishta neither progresses nor regresses, just remaining at the kanishta level.”
Sri Nityananda dasa Babaji, “In which cases?”
Sri Haridasa Babaji, “In cases where both sadhu-sanga and dveñi-sanga exercise equal influence upon the kanishta, his devotion maintains the status quo.”
Sri Nityananda dasa Babaji, “What ensures certain progress?”
Sri Haridasa Babaji, “When devotee association is frequent and powerful and non-devotee association minimal, the kanishta progresses swiftly.”
Srila Prabhupada wanted us to create an alternative culture that could provide shelter for the devotees from materialistic association so that we could rapidly progress in Krishna Consciousness. But we see the devotees avoiding creating this cultural alternative by preferring to live in the cities, with the result that our progress is very slow. Uttama Sloka (IDS) posted an essay on his FB page a few days ago titled “Why are the devotees so unhappy?” I see all of this as connected.
We must understand the differences between the two cultures and insulate ourselves from materialistic people and activities. To do that the men of ability must understand their duty and act on it, because without them it won’t happen. If they will act according to the dharma and duty, then everyone can have shelter and we can all make rapid progress in becoming fully Krishna Conscious.
Part One.
Could there be other reasons why varnasrama principles are slow to be implemented? Like the “vaisnava” factor for instance.
For many years the debate has raged on about varnasrama-dharma. Is varnasrama-dharma feasible? How to implement it? How do we identify our own caste? Is it workable? Do we need it? And so on and so on. As of yet, though varying opinions abound, we have not reached a consensus.
We know Srila Prabhupada wanted the system up and working. We also know that present conditions within Iskcon may not accommodate a sudden dividing of the social orders. Why so? Because the ‘Vaisnava’ factor overrules much of the expectations derived from varnasrama-dharma.
Let us take the great soul Sriman Jayananda prabhu for example. As a Vaisnava he was performing multi-tasks befitting actions performed in all the varnas. As the happy transcendental dustbin man [Sudra activity] he managed the temple’s waste. As a taxi driver he earned much needed income for the temple [Vaisya activity]. When guests arrived, he would be the charming host and hospitality representative able to preach about Krsna [Brahmana activity]. In matters of temple maintenance he managed the temples’ affairs [Ksatriya tendency]. All these actions combined enacted from a Vaisnava standpoint endeared him to Srila Prabhupada and the devotees. In this situation, who needs separate bin men, drivers, hosts, preachers and the rest? The Vaisnava can criss-cross the varnas for the pleasure of Sri Sri Guru and Krsna.
BG 4.13 purport says: “And as Krsna is transcendental to this system of the four divisions of human society, a person in Krsna consciousness is also transcendental to all divisions of human society, whether we consider the divisions of community, nation or species.”
We often hear that varnasrama-dharma is for everybody. Is it? It is naturally present in all societies and practiced by all people knowingly or unknowingly, as BG 4.13 says. But theirs is done in outcaste mode without respect for devotional service. It is only meant for human beings. How many human beings are there? Very few indeed.
Ys, Kesava Krsna Dasa.
Part Two.
In the purport to SB 1.15.39 Srila Prabhupada states; “the system of four orders of life and four castes in terms of quality and work, known as varnasrama-dharma, is the beginning of human life….” Elsewhere he says: “The varnasrama-dharma is prescribed for civilized human beings just to train him to successfully terminate human life.” (SB 1.9.26) Clearly, varnasrama-dharma is meant for those who accept a spiritual master and are a living a life worthy of progressive Aryans. Those who do not come to this standard are outcastes.
If we calculate how many people worldwide fit the relevant human description, in terms of belonging to a bona-fide sampradaya and displaying civilized conduct, we are looking at a tiny sample. In fact we can only look to the initiated devotees or seriously aspiring congregation members to plan any varnasrama scheme. With so few we can hardly be expected to make a workable model for versatile vaisnavas. Introducing varnasrama-dharma would be a useless exercise if not done properly: “The occupational activities a man performs according to his own position are only so much useless labor if they do not provoke attraction for the message of the Personality of Godhead.” (SB 1.2.8)
Quite often devotees who take to the grhastha asrama wonder what their actual varnasrama status is. After a spell in the brahmacari asrama, or in some cases the sannyasa asrama, one takes to married life outside the temple and begins earning money. How the money is earned is not always in line with the natural inclination of the devotee. If a devotee sells goods at a flea market, but his inner mood is to write or paint, does this make him a Vaisya? Certainly not. His means of livelihood are circumstantial and do not reflect his real tendency by which his real Varna position can be gauged. His is more an act of duty, not necessarily an inclination.
Ys, Kesava Krsna Dasa.
Part Three.
In the Chaitanya Siksamrta, Srila Bhaktivinoda says that generally, after a person has been educated and before he commences work life, his – svabhava – or tendency can be determined and is subsequently identified with a particular caste. He further says that if one cannot work out his position he should consult a spiritual master, wise counsel or the community. In any case, the situation is somewhat different for a devotee. Srila Prabhupada writes: “Ultimately the aim of varnasrama-dharma is to turn a crude man into a pure devotee of the Lord, or a Vaisnava.” (SB 1.2.2 purport)
He is indicating, as Srila Bhaktivinoda does, that varnasrama-dharma is an assistant to bhakti, not the means itself. Lord Chaitanya says to Srila Ramananda Raya – eho bahy, age kahaara – “This is external. You had better tell Me of some other means.” CC Madhya 8.59. Srila Prabhupada further says in the same purport: “Anyone therefore, who becomes a Vaisnava accepted by the first class Vaisnava, or uttama-adhikari Vaisnava, is already considered a brahmana, regardless of his birth or past deeds.”
In Iskcon, everyone who accepts second initiation is a brahmana. Those in good standing may have an aptitude to do what is necessary to keep the temple engine running smoothly, by way of DIY fix-it jobs and more. If he were governed by a varnasrama arrangement he may not be allowed to cross the threshold as a Vaisnava would, and so end up being restrained in his desire to do anything for the pleasure of the Lord. Sri Narada Muni instructs Maharaja Yudhisthira: “If one shows the symptoms of being a brahmana, ksatriya, vaisya or sudra, .even if he has appeared in a different class, he should be accepted according to those symptoms of classification.” (SB 7.11.35)
Many brahmana devotees are naturally good at earning money. The ksatriyas tendency can only be geared towards administration, management and a little protection. To be truly martial, a defence force would be required which in the eyes of a secular society, be a threatening para-military force. How many devotees are sudras? Could we have the audacity to label a Vaisnava in good standing a sudra? We see glimpses of varnasrama tendencies in various devotees, but Iskcon’s set up is too versatile for varnasrama-dharma at present. A devotee lawyer may volunteer to set up the question and answer booth during Ratha-yatra. A brahmana may volunteer to cut vegetables for the Sunday feast.
KKD
Part Four.
Iskcon is certainly established in the asramas. The well-defined positions are as clear as the dress codes, though the vanaprastha asrama may need more attention. So far, Iskcon has persevered on this basis. In time, when more and more human beings join our ranks, who have more social connections and expertise to enable the establishment of devotee retirement homes, life assurance for dependents, business networking opportunities to employ devotees, and general devotee welfare and protection; and when Iskcon can offer some clout and influence in society and so on, then varnasrama-dharma will be needed to bolster the way forward into a healthy future.
Ys, Kesava Krsna dasa.
A major consideration, apart from the ideal of peaceful coexistence of bhaktas in a spiritual society, is that we need to have encouragement to maintain association with other bhaktas. This is not always happening. So here, I want to give some constructive criticism and insight into what good management is within Krishna consciousness. This goes back to the early days of Krishna consciousness in the West. But, it pertains to all ashram and community life as well.
Management (i.e. managers) must see to it that aspiring bhaktas are given engagement in Krishna consciousness. This is the most important duty of a manager. People need to remain connected with Krishna through their thinking, feeling, and willing. Without encouragement and guidance, there will be ‘no one to guide’, no one to manage. The result is, in my opinion, that self-consciousness replaces Krishna consciousness. Acquisition of a position may take precedence over managing by engaging others in Krishna’s service.
The position you have taken in comment #7 is that varnasrama-dharma is a simple solution, but in the Kali-yuga, everything is difficult! It takes faith to engage others in Krishna’s service. One must be convinced that service to the Vaishnavas is one’s main duty to their acharya. das-anudasa…If we miss that, then all else might be lost as well. We find many people can become quite provincial (narrow-visioned) when they ‘get into their service’, neglecting the active and kind-hearted engagement of others in service.
This must be considered by sober and experienced devotees who are involved in management. And, it is from top to bottom. Whether one is a manager in an ashram, or a manager/responsible adult in a family, or whatever, to engage others in the service of Krishna assures one success in pleasing Sri Gurudeva. And, if one becomes ‘a big man’ in Krishna consciousness, and neglects others’ service potential in the process, then what will be the success….Pusta Krishna das
In answer to Dhanesvara Prabhu’s article on the so called “revolt of the Elites in ISKCON”, which I would rather call, “the contribution of all varnas in ISKCON”, which obviously should imply their most qualified members, I would not comment on the opinion of this one or that one (I refer here to souls who have not been in touch with Vedic knowledge yet), as we could go on forever quoting and commenting on this one or that one, especially if we do it extensively…
Most important is to capture the essence of “whatever, whoever has to say” and analyze it, in the light of our Krishna conscious philosophy and the teachings of our previous acaryas…
Coming back to the most relevant topic concerning our ISKCON society, I think some important points were raised in relation to establishing varnasrama within our society, i.e. involving other varnas, rather than just brahmanas and sudras, as well as facilitating the association of devotees amongst the other two varnas, namely ksatriyas and vaisyas.
At the outset, one may state that in this kali yuga, kalau sudra sambhava, everyone is a sudra.
Thereby, to develop some pride and think of oneself, other than fallen is certainly an illusion and a by-product of ahankara, false ego…
Nevertheless, Srila Prabhupada mentioned that one of the purposes of this movement was to create a class of brahmanas. Therefore, he gave second initiation to many a follower, not to acknowledge that they were brahmanas, but rather to encourage them to become brahmanas.
Similarly, he did give sannyasa to a certain number of his disciples and, as in the example of the brahmanas, not everyone was capable of maintaining their vows and establish themselves on that platform, in truth, i.e. in tattva…
As a result, we have had an ISKCON society managed by both brahmanas and sannyasis (be they temporarily or more steadily established in that position) engaging a number of born sudras in their service, soon to be promoted on the rank of brahmanas in their turn, etc.
However, by considering that a soul born in this kali yuga was necessarily to be given a brahminical thread before going back to other types activities (if not behaviors) but those of brahmanas, we have neglected the potential and possible service and contribution of two other main varnas, i.e. ksatriyas and vaisyas. Moreover, when some speak of vaisyas, they seem to be thinking of farmers only, and forget those who have some ability to trade…
Thereby, we have also neglected the capacity of ksatriyas to take part in managing our society, and rather we have allowed brahmanas (those actually encouraged to develop brahminical qualities), to take all the decisions and manage, as if they were qualified to do so…
We also have neglected the capacity of vaisyas to fund projects and all the more organize themselves via some Krishna conscious businesses, which would not only supply the necessary means for them to support their families, but would also provide them with some Krishna conscious association, if they were to run their businesses amongst devotees. This would be all the more elevating and, being stronger because of being united, they would be in a more favorable position to target at some superior Krishna conscious goals, beyond their mere survival…
Of course, on one hand, one may argue in the line of Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu that the goal is to transcend Varnashrama and be able to claim, in His divine footsteps, that we are neither a member of any varna or ashrama, but simply a servant of the servant of the servant of the lotus feet of the Master of the gopis… Gopi bhartu padakamalayor dasa dasanudasa…
But we should not forget that, on the other hand, kiba vipra kiba nyasi sudra kene naya, yei Krisna-tattva-vetta sei guru haya… which acknowledges the fact that, besides one’s being a pure Vaishnava, a tattva darshi, one who sees Krishna and is fully qualified to be guru, one may still remain within society and not cause any disturbance by following the rules and codes of conduct related to one’s varna and ashrama…
These codes of conduct were even followed by the Supreme Personality of Godhead in His different incarnations and lilas, as well as by His eternal associates and pure devotees…
In this way, Ramacandra acted as a perfect king, Krishna acted as a cowherd boy in Vrindavana or as a king in Dvarka, Mahaprabhu acted as a grihasta and then as a sannyasi, etc.
Rupa and Sanatana acted as kstriyas, before meeting Mahaprabhu and renouncing any other activity but pure seva, Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakura acted as a judge, i.e. a ksatriya as well, while still engaging in fully spiritual seva part of the day (and night), before retiring, Srila Prabhupada acted as a vaisya for the sake of both maintaining his family and collecting funds to print vaishnava literature and books, Srila Gour Govinda Maharaja was a school teacher and master, etc.
So, who could we possibly be, to claim right away that we are aloof from Varnashrama and do not wish to conform to any rule or regulation, neither wish to fulfill any role in society…?
As a matter of fact, even if one is transcendental, one will generally voluntarily accept an external garb and role, so as not to disturb neither society, nor the mind of others, since the goal is to preach and spread Krishna consciousness amongst innocent people…
Therefore, two main practical questions are to be raised, within our ISKCON society, in a spirit of improving its functioning:
1) Are we open to the fact that devotees with other predominating guna karma, qualities and activities, that is to say, belonging predominantly to other varnas than the brahminical varna, i.e. the other three varnas, provided they become conversant with the science of Krishna consciousness, have their space within our Movement and organization and bring their contribution…?
If we do so, in my humble opinion, we would achieve far greater results than by having exclusively devotees holding the positions of brahmanas and mostly of sannyasis, manage our ISKCON Movement, as GBC members…
This observation is of course born from experience, on one hand, of the lack of qualification of some members holding such positions, and on the other hand, of the necessary qualifications to become a governor or administrator, which are also long and hard to acquire, despite some initial propensities…
2) Will ISKCON also facilitate both the training and the organization of devotees manifesting at some stage (generally the early stage) other predominating propensities than just those of brahmanas and renunciates…?
We know that pure brahmanas and real renunciates are rare, especially in this age of Kali. Therefore, shouldn’t there be a sort of a ladder set up, for everyone to be able to elevate oneself to the position of a genuine brahmana and sannyasi during the course of one’s life, rather than just rubber stamping devotees as brahmanas after a couple years in ISKCON, before they either often simply turn towards other types of activities and concerns than those of priests or bluntly bloop, for lack of spiritual taste…?
In the meantime, rather than expecting everyone who joins ISKCON to be and act as a brahmana, i.e. a priest (in that respect, let us remember that it takes at least seven years in the Catholic Church for one to be ordained as priest), why not welcome other competences and qualities, more so representative of other varnas, which could and would also benefit ISKCON…?
In this line, let’s not forget that in the Vedic culture, and in the varnashrama system, which some of us seem so eager to promote and implement, it is not the brahmanas who rule and administrate, but the ksatriyas. The brahmanas are there to counsel and provide some spiritual guidance… The sannyasis are there to remind the grihastas that this life is temporary and assist them in cultivating some vairagya, so that they become detached before death takes everything away from them, and so on…
Therefore, we have to become broad-minded and tolerant, as per the definition of a Vaishnava given by Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakur…
We have to become open to others and welcome their service, whatever be their varna or ashrama… That was the expertise of Srila Prabhupada and is the reason why most of us are here today, despite our lack of qualification…
The sincere devotee is expert in fanning the spark of God consciousness in everyone’s heart, for he is not envious and is a well wisher to every living entity, his only goal being to assist them in their going back home, back to Godhead…
Your servant in the service of Srila Prabhupada
Puskaraksa das