TwitterFacebookGoogle plusTumblerBloggerWordpressRSS FeedLinkedinPinterestFlickr

SUBMIT

COMPROMISE – Modern Secularism Vs Vaisnava Dharma

SATURDAY, 01 MARCH 2008 / PUBLISHED IN ARTICLES / 5,969 VIEWS
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

Different sloks for different folks Open letter to the GBC and devotees worldwide
16 Responses to “COMPROMISE – Modern Secularism Vs Vaisnava Dharma”
sdmuni says :
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

Akruranatha says :
“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.

krishna-kirti says :
Stitha-dhi wrote:

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.

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
standards—first 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 SP’s
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.

Akruranatha says :
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

Akruranatha says :
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.)
krishna-kirti says :
Akruranathji, Hare Krishna.

This particular statement of yours is in comment #5 interesting:

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.

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.

sita-pati says :
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 one’s own position is declared to be actual piety, whereas deviation

from one’s 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.

sdmuni says :
>
“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?
>

Oh, I’d 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 I’m 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 “grand american experiment,” 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, I’d 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.

sdmuni says :
>
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.
>

An important point, no doubt. But one can also argue that the actual desired end IS
unalloyed devotional service, and not simply a “proper standard of behavior found
in civilized society.” 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.

Akruranatha says :
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

Akruranatha says :
“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)

vijay says :
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

sdmuni says :
>
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.’
>

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”!
Akruranatha says :
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.

Krsnacandra dasa says :

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 :)

sdmuni says :
>>
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 (aren’t they all) that raises numerous fundamental
points, so a few more sound bites (on my part, mostly) aren’t going to conclusively
settle much, most certainly.

But having clarified my qualifications, didn’t 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 devotee’s Mother and her Jesuit priest where the argument
presented was, wouldn’t 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 what’s 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 Krsna’s pleasure, and not
for getting ourselves lost exploring some artificial pretext. Do both, I’d say,
though not the “lost” part.

Posts from FB pages

View as a Magazine

TOP