Thread 9: Proposal - Vaiyasaki dasa

October 22, 2000

Dear Krishna Kirti Prabhu, PAMHO. AGTSP!

I really don't like to get into hair-splitting arguments. It seems obvious

to me, in spite of your arguments, that a woman being a member of the GBC

does not make her *the* chief executive officer of ISKCON. But even besides

that, you have missed the real point of my inquiry. Shyamasundara Prabhu

stated very clearly in his recent text that the Srimad Bhagavatam describes

varnasrama dharma to a sufficient level of detail to be able to conclude

that women cannot be on the GBC. The wording of his statement gave the

distinct impression that he was referring to the verses of Srimad Bhagavatam

and not Srila Prabhupada's purports. I could never remember reading any such

verse, thus I simply asked him to supply the quote. If he cannot supply the

quote then I was humbly suggesting that perhaps the only sastra which gives

such rules are smritis such as Manu-samhita, and this is an important

distinction. Simple, no?

Your servant, Bhaktarupa Das

> Bhaktarupa Prabhhu wrote:

>

> > This is only referring to the post of chief executive, and even then it

> > is said that such was in accordance with the injunctions of

> > Manu-samhita. But Shyamasundara Prabhu had promised a description of

> > varnasrama dharma from Srimad Bhagavatam directly that established that

> > women could not serve on the GBC. I was wanting that quote.

>

> Krishna-kirti Prabhu replied:

>

> It seems this devotee is insisting on too narrow a definition for the term

> "chief executive." Srila Prabhupada used the term "chief executive" in a

> broad sense, to refer to a person or group of people who specifically were

> entrusted with governing people. Here is the evidence:

>

> ------------------

> Regardless of whether the chief executive is a king or president, or

> whether the government is monarchical or democratic, this process is so

> perfect that if it is followed, everyone will become happy. . . (SB 4.21.9

> purport)

>

> [Here we see that the term "chief executive" is not limited to a monarchy

> - it is a generic term that refers to someone who has managerial power and

> authority.]

>

> --------------

>

> A responsible king or chief executive has many responsible duties to

> attend to in ruling over the citizens. The most important duty of the

> monarch or the government is to perform various sacrifices as enjoined in

> the Vedic literatures. (SB 4.21.7 purport)

>

> [Here we see that Srila Prabhupada uses the term "king or chief

> executive." Certainly, if the government is not specifically a monarchy,

> there has to be some form of governance and a person who has the final

> authority and power. "Chief executive" would therefore refer to that

> person with the highest power and responsibility, regardless of his

> official designation. As we shall see in further quotes, "chief

> executive" is not limited exclusively to a single person for any one

> particular government.]

> ----------------

>

> According to this arrangement, modern presidents, governors and chief

> executive officers are all unworthy of their posts because they are not

> conversant with Vedic administrative knowledge and they do not take

> direction from great saintly persons and brahmanas. (SB 4.22.45 purport)

>

> [Except for word count, there is no difference between the term "chief

> executive" and "chief executive officer." And here we see the phrase

> "chief executive" used in a plural sense, as in "chief executive

> officers." So we can understand from Srila Prabhupada's usage of the term

> "chief executive", that it specifically refers to a person or group of

> persons who have the authority to govern. The term "chief executive," as

> Srila Prabhupada uses it, is not limited to a specific type of government

> or a specific number.]

>

> ----------------

>

> MORE ON CHIEF EXECUTIVES

>

> ----------------

>

> In modern times, there are legislative assemblies whose members are

> authorized to make laws for the welfare of the state, but according to

> this description of the kingdom of Maharaja Ambarisa, the country or the

> world should be ruled by a chief executive whose advisors are all devotee

> brahmanas. Such advisors or members of the legislative assembly should not

> be professional politicians, nor should they be selected by the ignorant

> public. Rather, they should be appointed by the king. (SB 9.4.21 purport)

>

> [Here we see Srila Prabhupada uses "chief executive" synonymously with

> "king", or specifically a single (one and only one) person who has the

> sole responsibility for governing the state. We should take note of the

> similarity made by Srila Prabhupada between "legislative assemblies" of

> modern times and the sole monarchy of Maharaja Ambarish's time. (There

> *is* a similarity, otherwise a comparison would not be possible.) The

> similarity lies specifically in the ability to "make laws for the welfare

> of the state" for both the collective members of a legislative assembly

> and for the sole monarch. The members of the GBC themselves have the

> authority to "make laws for the welfare of the state (or ISKCON)", which

> would make a member of the GBC a "chief executive officer". Note that in

> the case of an absolute monarchy, the members of the legislative

> assemblies functioned only in an advisory capacity, thus they could not be

> said to be an executor of the laws of the state (otherwise known as an

> "executive officer"). Since we have already seen that Srila Prabhupada

> has employed the term "chief executive" in the plural sense, the term

> "chief executive" is applicable to each member of the GBC -- each GBC

> member occupies the post of a "chief executive."]

>

> ---------------------

>

> Not that the chief executive or the government simply levies taxes from

> the citizens and let them go to hell. This is not good government. The

> government must be responsible for the uplift of the citizens to the

> spiritual life. That is real government. (Hare Krishna Festival Address -

> San Diego, July 1, 1972)

>

> [Here we see Srila Prabhupada use the term "chief executive"

> interchangeably with the word "government". It has already been shown

> that a government, or legislative assemblies of people with the authority

> to pass laws and govern, is used interchangeably with the term "chief

> executive" or "chief executive officers" by Srila Prabhupada.]

>

> ----------------------

>

> Conclusion: the term "chief executive," as Srila Prabhupada used it,

> refers to any single person or group of people who singularly or

> collectively have the power and authority to govern, and especially for

> those over whom there exists no higher authority. Each member of the GBC

> is therefore, without doubt, a "chief executive" in a sense that is

> consistent with Srila Prabhupada's usage of it.

>

> With regard to Srila Prabhupada's purport of SB 10.4.5, since we have seen

> that the "post of chief executive" can be single or plural in number, and

> that Srila Prabhupada used the term not to refer exclusively to a monarch

> but to a person or people who had the singular or collective temporal

> authority to govern others (irregardless of the type of government), the

> term "chief executive" as Srila Prabhupada uses it here, is directly

> applicable to the office of the GBC.

>

> > > ---------

> > >

> > > Someone said "Anantarupa Prabhu has already established in this

> conference

> > > that our management by committee system has no precedent in vedic

> > > history". That's what the ritviks say, and both of them are wrong. We

> do,

> > > in fact, find in scripture examples of governing legislatures, or

> > > bodies of devotees, who vote and certify that various members are

> > > behaving according to their status:

> >

> > I don't find either of these quotes particularly relevant. How do they

> prove

> > the existence of governing **legislatures** in the vedic history?

>

> legislature: a body of persons vested with power to make and repeal laws.

> (The New Collins Concise Dictionary, 1984)

>

> If we find that a body of people are doing just that, then we have a

> **legislature** :-)

>

> The below quotes demonstrate that this specific activity did go on-- a

> group of brahmanas decide a particular person should no longer be king.

> That is an executive decision taken collectively by a group of people.

> You can't get more "executive" a decision than a vote taken to "execute"

> someone :-)

>

> > > Formerly, the votes were taken by highly saintly persons, brahmanas.

> Just

> > > like Prthu Maharaja's father Vena Maharaja. He was disapproved by the

> > > brahmanas and the saintly persons, and immediately he was dethroned

> > > and killed. (Lecture, SB 2.3.19, Los Angeles, June 15, 1972)

> > >

> > > Vote should be taken... Just like Krsna. Krsna wanted that Maharaja

> > > Yudhisthira should be on the throne. That is vote. (Lecture, SB

> > > 2.3.19, Los Angeles, June 15, 1972)

> >

>

> Your servant, Krishna-kirti das (HDG)

October 22, 2000

Dear Bhakta Rupa Prabhu, please accept my humble obeisances. All glories to

Srila Prabhupada.

> I really don't like to get into hair-splitting arguments. It seems obvious

> to me, in spite of your arguments, that a woman being a member of the GBC

> does not make her *the* chief executive officer of ISKCON.

It does make her a "chief executive officer".

It's easy to label a detailed discussion or argument as "hair-splitting",

but if the points are relevant, why try to suggest that they are irrelevant?

Your original objection to the SB 10.4.5. purport as being relevant evidence

was regarding the scope of the term "chief executive." SB 10.4.5 becomes

quite relevant if the term "chief executive" also refers to a plurality. I

was simply clarifying that Srila Prabhupada's usage of the term refers to

both an individual or a group who also collectively functions as a

legislature. Do you disagree that Srila Prabhupada used it in this broad

sense?

If you disagree that the term "chief executive" in this purport also refers

to more than one individual, then perhaps you should explain why you think

it only refers to one and only one person. Remember, Srila Prabhupada's

audience is mainly Westerners, where the type of government, almost without

exception, is democratic.

> I could never remember reading any such

> verse, thus I simply asked him to supply the quote. If he cannot supply

the

> quote then I was humbly suggesting that perhaps the only sastra which

gives

> such rules are smritis such as Manu-samhita, and this is an important

> distinction. Simple, no?

>

That's OK. If the sanskrit verse itself doesn't exist (especially a

sanskrit verse that explicitly says "no woman should be a GBC" :-), then you

may be correct. But it seems to be a moot point because we don't understand

either Bhagavatam or Manu-Samhita independently of an authority like Srila

Prabhupada. We don't necessarily follow everything in Manu-samhita, but

those things which are in Manu-Samhita and which Srila Prabhupada tells us

to follow, we follow. The main point, therefore, is to understand what our

acaryas have prescribed, and that is why Srila Prabhupada's commentaries,

for us, to always refer to Srila Prabhuapda's commentaries when trying to

understand sastra.

Your servant, Krishna-kirti das (HDG)

October 22, 2000

> Since you have correctly stated that the leadership of our

> society has not instituted full varnasrama dharma training in ALL ISKCON

> centers I was wondering if there are any shades of grey allowed?

Remember, it has been 26 years, 7 months and 8 days since Srila Prabhupada

first gave his very clear instructions to start "full varnasrama dharma

training in ALL ISKCON centers". This has never been implemented by the

so-called leaders of ISKCON. Not even close.

> In other

> words, if you were to allow someone to indulge in some positive thinking,

> would any of the following statements pass unchallenged?

>

> Some varnasrama dharma training is going on in some ISKCON centers.

Excellent! Where? Are they dividing the devotees according to the four

divisions according to guna and karma? Who are the teachers? Are the

sannyasis teaching the different varnas as Prabhupada ordered? Have they

(the sannyasis) taken up the learning of the particular skills of the

different varnas in order to teach their disciples according to their

psychophysical natures? Are they following Prabhupada's advice: varnas

first, asrama later? Or is it all a hodge-podge asrama first and if we get

around to varna training who cares?

> Some varnasrama dharma training is going on in most ISKCON centers.

Same response as above.

> Some vague hints of varnasrama dharma training is going on in all ISKCON

> centers.

Remember, it has been 26 years, 7 months and 8 days!!! One could garner some

positive thoughts if it had only been a year or two, but 26 years??? 26

years with some of the most hideous crimes against innocent living beings

like women, children and cows. It's hard to pull too much positive with

those reminders and horrific visions. Give credit where it is due, but give

more stress to the retribution of crimes and abuse especially when they are

perpetrated by so-called leaders who have remained in office for decades.

> Varnasrama dharma training is going on in some ISKCON centers.

> Informal varnasrama dharma training is going on in some ISKCON centers,

> but it needs to be formalized as such.

> Informal varnasrama dharma training is going on most everywhere in ISKCON

> but it needs to be formalized as such.

> There is some formal varnasrama training going on in ISKCON.

> X is a good model of varnasrama training according to Srila Prabhupada's

> incontrovertible instructions.

Great word jugglery, Prabhu. A waste of your intelligent mind. Especially on

a low life like me.

I have been successful in my sometimes harsh and pointed comments if it does

none other than to raise such questions and thereby underscore the

importance of varnasrama-dharma within ISKCON. The nature of your above

questions belie the attitude of ISKCON in general and the mentality of the

so-called leaders; varnasrama-dharma is a vague, unformalized,

sometime/part-time thing in MOST of ISKCON and has been this way for more

than 26 years. The so-called leaders are the cause of this due to their

direct control of legislative and institutional (mis)management policies.

Varnasrama-dharma has been given little more than lip service throughout the

history of post-Prabhupada ISKCON. Look at the results.

I can look at a big sheet of white paper which has 2 or 3 little black dots

on it and say, "oh, what a nice big sheet of white clean paper" without

giving much concern over the little black dots. But, for one thing, my job

as a ksatriya manager is to deal with the little black dots so they do not

become big black dots which spoil the whole white picture. Secondly, the

black dots of ISKCON right now are so huge that far more emphasis needs to

be placed on correcting them before giving much creedence to vague part-time

attempts at misdirected implementation of varnasrama-dharma in the temples.

> Also, in all our ISKCON centers new devotees receive training in the

> chanting of japa, bowing down before the deity, offering prayers to the

> deity, worshiping the deity, worshiping tulasi, worshiping the spiritual

> master, surrendering to the spiritual master, wearing tilak, wearing

> kanthi mala, and most of the other 64 parts of bhakti listed in the Nectar

> of Devotion. Is this training:

>

> irrelevant to varnasrama dharma training?

> independent of varnasrama dharma training?

> included in varnasrama dharma training?

> a minor part of varnasrama dharma training?

> only for specific varnas and/or ashramas?

> to be given after varnasrama dharma training?

> unnecessary?

Srila Prabhupada: First of all varna and when the varna is perfectly in

order, then there is asrama. Asrama is especially meant for spiritual

advancement. Varna is general division. It must be there in human society.

If varna is not there then this is a society of animals. And when the varna

is working perfectly, then we give them the asrama. ...asrama, that is

later on.

All people of the different divisions can be bhaktas, following bhakti

principles. But the programs MUST be designed by properly situated gurus who

know how to teach their different natured disciples. This is why Vaiyasaki's

proposal is flawed and will fail like ISKCON has failed for 26 years to

implement varnasrama-dharma. He proposes asrama first, varna later. No

matter how he tries to spin it, this is NOT what Prabhupada did or wanted.

You cannot possibly engage a person in an asrama without first knowing their

varna. A sudra can never be a brahmacari nor can a ksatriya take sannyasa.

These are clear rules of the varnasrama-dharma institution designed by Krsna

Himself. In ISKCON asrama first has always been the paradigm. Wrong as it

is, ISKCON has tried to force round heads through square holes for decades

only to see the vast majority fail and leave altogether. ISKCON throws

everyone into the same mixing bowl of primarily brahmana training and if

they don't come out reasonably successful, or don't learn how to fake it

well, then they become fringies or are relogated to low positions and

criticisms.

"Dhruva did not accept the instruction given by the great saint Narada

because he thought himself unfit for such instruction, which prohibited all

material desires. It is not a fact, however, that those who have material

desires are prohibited from worshiping the Supreme Personality of Godhead."

Except in ISKCON.

"This is the essential instruction from the life of Dhruva Maharaja. He

frankly admitted that his heart was full of material desires."

We need more of this kind of honesty in ISKCON.

"But Dhruva Maharaja frankly admitted that he was not beyond the affliction

of material distress and happiness. He was confident that the instruction

given by Narada was valuable, yet he could not accept it. The question

raised here is whether or not a person afflicted by material desires is fit

to worship the Supreme Personality of Godhead. The answer is that everyone

is fit to worship Him."

One must admit that this is not really the general mindset and practice by

ISKCON. At least it wasn't for many, many years when me and thousands of my

godbrothers and sisters were pushed out of ISKCON by those who couldn't make

such admissions as this great Vaisnava, Dhruva.

"Sri Dhruva lived in Satya-yuga which had all facility for brahminical

culture and when Sri Narada, the greatest spiritual master in the universe,

preached brahminical culture to him he rejected it. "My dear lord, I am very

impudent for not accepting your instructions, but this is not my fault. It

is due to my being born in a ksatriya family." S.B. 4.8.36

"Dhruva Maharaja indirectly informed the great sage Narada that there are

four kinds of human spirit - the brahminical spirit, the ksatriya spirit,

the vaisya spirit and the sudra spirit. The spirit of one caste is not

applicable to the members of another. The philosophical spirit enunciated by

Narada Muni might have been suitable for a brahmana spirit, but it was not

suitable for a ksatriya. Dhruva frankly admitted that he was lacking in

brahminical humility and was therefore unable to accept the philosophy of

Narada Muni. The statements of Dhruva Maharaja indicate that unless a child

is trained according to his tendency, there is no possibility of his

developing his particular spirit. IT WAS THE DUTY OF THE SPIRITUAL MASTER OR

TEACHER TO OBSERVE THE PSYCHOLOGICAL MOVEMENT OF A PARTICULAR BOY AND THUS

TRAIN HIM IN A PARTICULAR OCCUPATIONAL DUTY. Dhruva Maharaja, having already

been trained in the ksatriya spirit, would not accept the brahminical

philosophy." Purport SB 4.8.36

This kind of thing has never been done in ISKCON yet it is clear in

Bhagavatam and Prabhupada recommended this. If someone in ISKCON rejected a

guru for not training him according to his varna he would certainly be

kicked out of ISKCON.

We MUST folow Srila Prabhupada's order to establish varnasrama colleges (in

whatever form they may be, i.e., small rooms, offices, etc.) in every ISKCON

center wherein ALL of these excellent questions and comments can be

discussed openly and freely EVERYDAY by EVERY devotee of the Lord.

I will not pretend to know all or even a small portion of the answers. If we

implement this one simple order of Prabhupada's we will see very rapid

advancement in the understanding of how to implement varnasrama dharma in

ISKCON and humanity at large.

ISKCON's so-called leaders MUST make varnasrama a priority subject matter.

They don't because they say "spiritual life is more important and we are

transcendental to varnasrama". This has been hogwash from jump street. They

aren't above rape and child abuse and bogus management policies which permit

and prolong it but they are above varnasrama-dharma?

You cannot design spiritual advancement programs (asrama) before you even

know what varna an individual is in. Don't try to say that Arjuna SHOULD

have gone to the forest to be a brahmana when we know what Krsna's advice

was.

Your servant,

Janesvara dasa

October 23, 2000

Dear Pragosa Prabhu,

PAMHO, AGTSP.

I'm going to skip the sweet words. I stand by my previous statements and

I request that you do not introduce over-reaching assumptions into my words

such as:

-- I am "...borrowing from a manual"

-- "... some child abuse is going to have to be accepted!"

-- "... you are already prepared to EXCUSE YOURSELF if this does happen."

-- "It is tantamount to placing the matter of PROTECTION squarely upon

the tiny shoulders of the child themself!"

-- "... if someone with your mentality is in charge of our children then

indeed that community or school is never going to be safe."

-- "Protectors like you - are not protectors at all."

Frankly, I take offense at your insinuations. The point I am making is

simply, don't fall prey to the "It can't happen here" mentality. Nothing

more, nothing less.

You stated:

"Therefore, we should never think that some children are protected because

they have a strong family group or live in safe community" is illogical and

defeatist."

This can only be considered illogical if you assume that a parent or

other protector is all-powerful and omniscient. Actually, my statement is

quite logical because it is based on the fact that we are tiny parts and

parcels of Krishna with limited potency and limited knowledge. We are known

as the "fallible soldiers" and we have been instructed that it is foolish to

depend on the protection of persons such as ourselves. Who is the greater

fool -- the would-be protector who says "have no fear, 'cause I am here," or

the dependant who has been duped into thinking someone other than the

Supreme Personality of Godhead can offer full protection? The only jiva that

can claim to offer full protection to another jiva is a shakyavesh avatar

who Krishna has empowered with an unlimited quantity of His potency in one

or more areas.

You said:

"You have essentially stated that such a thing as a "safe community" is a

figment of our imagination and we should never conclude that our communities

will ever really be devoid of Child Abusers. I will submit then that if

someone with your mentality is in charge of our children then indeed that

community or school is never going to be safe."

Yes, this is exactly my meaning. There is no perfectly safe place in

material world. If one wishes to ignore this most basic truth, one does so

at his own peril and at the peril of his children. Rather than pretending,

out of some kind of false pride, that there is a safe place, the responsible

and humble devotee recognizes his limitations and the nature of the material

environment; he takes the necessary steps to do his duty and attract

Krishna's causeless mercy. If your point is that your community is safer

then others, fine -- hopefully that is true. But it is only a difference of

degree. Perhaps your community is 97% safe and someone else's is 45%. But

that is no guarantee whatsoever. A child in the 45% community, who has be

educated about the risks of abuse, may be safer than than a child in the 97%

community who has false sense of security because he has never been told

that some adult or older child, devotee or not, might push him to do

something that is wrong. A community may indeed be "devoid of Child

Abusers," but it is never free from the potential danger -- that is unless

you can say that every parent is personally watching their children 24 hours

a day, every single day until they become adults -- and that you know

perfectly the heart of every person living there.

You say:

"My postion is very simple and has proven itself over time. Where the

parents are vigilant and the children are "VALUED IN THE EXTREME" - let me

say that again - IN THE EXTREME! - child abuse simply will not occur."

Actually, it has been demonstrated time and again, both inside and

outside of ISKCON, that educating the children (and parents, teachers and

leaders) is the most effective single action that can be taken to prevent

abuse, and to make sure it comes to light quickly in the event it does

happen. That does not mean that this is the only measure to be taken to

protect our children -- but it most certainly should be a major part of any

family's or community's plan for child protection. What responsible, humble

parents thinks it's inappropriate to tell their children?:

1) There are good touches and bad touches.

2) If anyone touches you in way that makes you feel uncomfortable, or

asks you to do something that sounds wrong, don't be afraid to say "No!" and

go away from that person.

3) If something like that ever does happen, tell your parent, teacher or

another adult you trust immediately. And keep telling until someone believes

you.

If you don't see physical signs of abuse or a sudden, a dramatic change

in your child's personality, you are probably not going to know they are

being abused if they don't tell you. At least that's true for those of us

who aren't omniscient.

You stated:

"But I will say this very emphatically. If the proper MAN is positioned

to protect Srila Prabhupada's students - Child Abuse WILL NEVER SHOW IT'S

RASCALLY FACE AGAIN in Srila Prabhupada's Mission - accept to be on the

receiving end of a tremendously vicious response."

Frankly, unless one is Krishna, one cannot guarantee anything; and I for

one am not going to depend on arrogance to protect my children or anyone

else's. I would like to remind readers that the mentality of the devotees

who ignored the threat of child abuse for decades was based on the belief

that because we and our children are devotees, we are somehow better than

everyone else and exempt from the laws of material nature -- "It can't

happen here because ........" (Fill in the blank with whatever platitude

reassures you that your children are safe.)

Well, I hope I haven't offended you or your family, because I don't want

to be threatened with a beating for my words, as happened with one of our

godbrothers last year. Don't feel obligated to reply. I can do without this

brand of "candor and enthusiasm" and lion-like kshatriyism.

Your servant,

Sri Rama das

[srirama.acbsp (AT) pamho (DOT) net]

[http://www.krishnagalleria.com]

Patrick Hedemark [praghosa (AT) datastar (DOT) net]

Friday, October 20, 2000 7:21 AM

sriramadas (AT) home (DOT) com; Bhaktarupa (das) ACBSP (Bhubaneswara - IN);

Anantarupa (das) HKS (Mayapur - IN); guru-krsna das;

gbc.unmoderated (AT) pamho (DOT) net

Re: Thread 9: Proposal - Vaiyasaki dasa

Hare Krsna Sri Rama prabhu,

Please accept my humble obeisances. All Glories to His Divine Grace Srila

Prabhupada.

First let me say very sincerely that it is a pleasure to hear from you.

You are an old friend and very dear to Srila Prabhupada. I remember you and

your good wife Mother Alarka. Please offer her my humbles also.

Prabhu I will try to answer you as briefly as possible. I will let you

know right up front that I most strongly disagree with your statements. But

I pray that you will not take my "disagreeing" with you as a personal attack

upon you in any way. Understand only that my experience in life and with

children has led me to a far different conclusion than you expressed in your

statements to me. I would be remiss in my responsibility if I was to allow

your statements to go without a response. So please understand that I mean

you no disrespect whatsoever.

Also I am no "armchair quaterback". I have 4 sons and twin daughters and

am extremely experienced in matters pertaining to children. If Krsna desires

I am willing to put myself COMPLETELY at the disposal of Srila Prabhupada's

gurukula program to assist in it's management and the protection of his

children -100% - so do not think that I am not prepared to back up my

position on these matters.

In your comments to me you appear to be "borrowing from a manuel" that you

have read somewhere. In theory some of your statements might fit in the

environment of the non-devotees - after all they are as Srila Prabhupada has

commented in BG 1st and 7th chapters - 99.9% varnasankara and naradhama

societies. So the little snippet you inserted might apply in some remote way

to a culture that is comprised of extremely "undervalued" individuals. Such

individuals are often times without protection of various kinds.

Now I do not know your specific background as a parent - but your

statement in the final portion of your comments sums up the essence of your

erroneous position: "Therefore, we should never think that some children are

protected because they have a strong family group or live in safe community"

is illogical and defeatist. If a child lives in a so-called "safe-community"

and yet he is still capable of being preyed upon either by a sexual offender

or someone who might harm he or she physically - THEN THE COMMUNITY IS NOT

SAFE! You have essentially stated that such a thing as a "safe community" is

a figment of our imagination and we should never conclude that our

communities will ever really be devoid of Child Abusers. I will submit then

that if someone with your mentality is in charge of our children then indeed

that community or school is never going to be safe.

Please go back and read over my original comments. You will find that the

essential difference beween our two positions is that you feel we must TRY

to make our children safe - knowing full well that the ABUSERS are too

clever and too deviously intended to actually be discovered in time - so in

the ultimate issue - we must accept the fact that some child abuse is going

to have to be accepted!

My postion is very simple and has proven itself over time. Where the

parents are vigilant and the children are "VALUED IN THE EXTREME" - let me

say that again - IN THE EXTREME! - child abuse simply will not occur.

If you are responsible to provide protection - then it is very simple -

you either accept the responsibility - or you do not. I mean you no

disrespect prabhu - but if I am not mistaken you were involved with the

Gurukula in some capacity. I am not certain what that was so I will not

assess your comments in relation to that service since I do not know to what

extent you were "responsible" directly for the children's protection.

But I will say this very emphatically. If the proper MAN is positioned to

protect Srila Prabhupada's students - Child Abuse WILL NEVER SHOW IT'S

RASCALLY FACE AGAIN in Srila Prabhupada's Mission - accept to be on the

receiving end of a tremendously vicious response.

Now every parent I know will never accept a leader with your assessment of

the situation. In New Talavan for example we have a very excellent history

of NO CHILD ABUSE IN THE GURUKULA. Why? Because the MEN in this community

are vigilant and can be some of the meanest and most vicious individuals you

could ever cross swords with. Period. We have had some experience with

predatory characters who have shown up - but they were dealt with very

swiftly and they were history. But these individuals NEVER went after

children. Only a few women and a couple of unprotected single girls. but

even that did not go anywhere.

So these matters are not really difficult to deal with. A good man will

assemble a good team of men and women who have the best interest of the

children and Srila Prabhupada as their focus. This is all that is necessary.

I am prepared, if called upon, to back up every single statement here with

practical seva.

Please take no offense. Your comments indicate that you could be helpful

in an advisory capacity - but you should never be invested with final

authority in this matter. The final authority in this matter must be

prepared to see to it that CHILD ABUSE remains firmly outside the realm of

our children and Srila Prabhupada's Ashramas and must be prepared to answer

to all parents and His Divine Grace in the event that it does. Your

comments indicate that you are already prepared to EXCUSE YOURSELF if this

does happen. As a parent, if I wished to place my children under your

protection, and you told me "Don't worry Praghosa. I will try to protect

them. I can't guarrentee it. But I am going to try!", trust me, my wife and

I would look at eachother, and then you, and say "Thank you prabhu, but we

will have to continue homeschooling them. We have a "strong family group and

a strong community" and we KNOW they will not be abused here. We VALUE our

precious children IN THE EXTREME and consequently we are going to provide

them an environment wherein we KNOW they will not be abused as opposed to

HOPING they will not be abused!"

Your final statement "Therefore, the only truly effective means of

protecting children is by educating them from an early age about the nature

of child abuse, how to keep themselves safe, and what to do if they become a

victim." to be more of the same nonsense. It is tantamount to placing the

matter of PROTECTION squarely upon the tiny shoulders of the child themself!

This is protection? Teach them all about child abuse? Teaching them how to

"KEEP THEMSELVES safe"? And then after the little tyke was UNABLE TO PROTECT

HIMSELF - teach him what to do "AFTER HE OR SHE BECOMES A VICTIM!"

Protectors like you - are not protectors at all. I mean you no personal

disrespect prabhu, but with protection like this the cycle of abuse will

never end. Sure we will all be able to identify it. But that's all. With

this consciousness - what could you possible teach a child - or adult for

that matter - about "WHAT TO DO after there is a victim? What to do involves

changing the situation so it never happens again! How about arranging the

situation so it never happens in the first place! This can only happen if

the responsible leader is possessed of the mentality I am describing.

I gurarrantee that most parents will respond far more enthusiastically to

my position than yours.

I hope all is well. If you think there is merit in our exchange then I

welcome anything you might wish to share. I will always respond with candor

and enthusiasm.

Your servant Praghosa Das

Sri Rama das <sriramadas (AT) home (DOT) com>

Patrick Hedemark <praghosa (AT) datastar (DOT) net>; Bhaktarupa (das) ACBSP

(Bhubaneswara - IN) <Bhaktarupa.ACBSP (AT) pamho (DOT) net>; Anantarupa (das) HKS

(Mayapur - IN) <Anantarupa.HKS (AT) pamho (DOT) net>; guru-krsna das

<afn39393 (AT) afn (DOT) org>; gbc.unmoderated (AT) pamho (DOT) net <gbc.unmoderated (AT) pamho (DOT) net>

Thursday, October 19, 2000 4:29 PM

RE: Thread 9: Proposal - Vaiyasaki dasa

>Dear Pragosa Prabhu,

>PAMHO, AGTSP.

>

> You said, "Child Abuse is not possible in an environment where the

parents

>are looking after their child and men are in position and ready to

deliver a

>very swift and severe reaction to any nonsense rascal who would even

THINK about

>harming a child! Bas!"

>

> Actually, this is not at all true -- at least it is not true in

connection

>with sexual abuse. And if we desire to protect our children from abuse,

it is

>important to understand why it is not true.

>

> Sexual abuse occurs often to children of responsible, watchful parents

and in

>cultures where punishment is swift and severe (at least by modern

standards).

>Usually this type of abuser is not discouraged by the threat of

punishment. They

>are sexually aroused by children, much as a normal man is sexually

attracted to

>a women. Therefore, this drive is very strong and is not constrained by

rational

>or reasoning thought. Such persons will often work patiently for years to

get

>themselves into a situation with easy access to children. For example,

many men

>have been known to marry a single woman with young children solely for

the

>purpose of abusing the kids when they get a little older.

>

> Maintaining access to children requires that the abuser convince the

child to

>keep quiet about the abuse. Usually this is done through psychological

>intimidation that keeps the child in fear, or in the fantasy of a

"special"

>secret relationship. Every child is a potential victim and such abusers

are

>seldom discovered quickly, if at all. Child abusers are, more often than

not,

>clever and patient.

>

> Therefore, we should never think that some children are protected

because

>they have a strong family group or live in safe community. If you have an

abuser

>in your midst, chances are you will never know unless your son or

daughter tells

>you. Therefore, the only truly effective means of protecting children is

by

>educating them from an early age about the nature of child abuse, how to

keep

>themselves safe, and what to do if they become a victim.

>

>Your servant,

>Sri Rama das

>

>[srirama.acbsp (AT) pamho (DOT) net]

>[http://www.krishnagalleria.com]

>

October 23, 2000

Krishna Kirti Prabhu commented:

> > I really don't like to get into hair-splitting arguments. It seems

> > obvious to me, in spite of your arguments, that a woman being a member

> > of the GBC does not make her *the* chief executive officer of ISKCON.

>

> It does make her a "chief executive officer".

>

> It's easy to label a detailed discussion or argument as "hair-splitting",

> but if the points are relevant, why try to suggest that they are

> irrelevant? Your original objection to the SB 10.4.5. purport as being

> relevant evidence was regarding the scope of the term "chief executive."

> SB 10.4.5 becomes quite relevant if the term "chief executive" also refers

> to a plurality. I was simply clarifying that Srila Prabhupada's usage of

> the term refers to both an individual or a group who also collectively

> functions as a legislature. Do you disagree that Srila Prabhupada used it

> in this broad sense?

>

> If you disagree that the term "chief executive" in this purport also

> refers to more than one individual, then perhaps you should explain why

> you think it only refers to one and only one person.

I really don't know why you want to continue this line of argument.

Shyamasundara Prabhu made a statement which didn't seem right to me, but I

wasn't sure. Thus I simply wanted to state that I could not recall reading

any Srimad Bhagavatam verse which could be used to argue that women should

not be on the GBC. I was fully prepared to have him come back with the

verses he had in mind so that I could study them and understand his point

better, and perhaps respond. I was not at all prepared to enter into

detailed arguments about the specific meanings we should be attributing to

words used by Srila Prabhupada in his purports. Can you understand this

simple point, Prabhu?

> > I could never remember reading any such

> > verse, thus I simply asked him to supply the quote. If he cannot supply

> the

> > quote then I was humbly suggesting that perhaps the only sastra which

> gives

> > such rules are smritis such as Manu-samhita, and this is an important

> > distinction. Simple, no?

> >

>

> That's OK. If the sanskrit verse itself doesn't exist (especially a

> sanskrit verse that explicitly says "no woman should be a GBC" :-), then

> you may be correct. But it seems to be a moot point because we don't

> understand either Bhagavatam or Manu-Samhita independently of an authority

> like Srila Prabhupada.

But if something is not mentioned in sastra, even if spoken by guru, then it

cannot be taken as an absolute principle binding on everyone for all time,

place, and circumstance. Whoever directly received an instruction from guru

should follow it personally, but when trying to establish eternal principles

we need to back up our contentions with sadhu and sastra as well. When Srila

Prabhupada was speaking on eternal principles he always quoted sastra. When

he was speaking on general knowledge he often would not. Thus in vaisnava

society it is standard practice when establishing eternal principles to

quote sastra and not only the words of the previous acaryas. I suggest we

also try to follow that system in ISKCON. It is very healthy.

> We don't necessarily follow everything in

> Manu-samhita, but those things which are in Manu-Samhita and which Srila

> Prabhupada tells us to follow, we follow.

Just curious, Prabhu, but could you please give one quote where Srila

Prabhupada said that we should follow Manu Samhita, even a small portion of

it? I am not looking for quotes where he talks about the importance of the

book, or its relevance in smarta society, or in the external society, or

when he quotes it in support of a point made in a bhakti sastra, but rather

where he talks about its direct applicability for vaisnava society or

specifically that we should follow it in ISKCON. I am not saying that such

quotes do not exist, as I have not studied very thoroughly. But I have a

genuine interest in seeing any such quote.

> "The main point, therefore, is to understand what our acaryas have

> prescribed, and that is why we need to always refer to Srila Prabhuapda's

> commentaries when trying to understand sastra."

Yes, WHEN TRYING TO UNDERSTAND SASTRA! But in this case I am simply trying

to understand which sastra we are trying to understand. If there is no quote

from sastra supplied, then what are we discussing?

Your servant, Bhaktarupa Das

October 24, 2000

Dear Bhakta Rupa Prabhu, please accept my humble obeisances. All glories to

Srila Prabhupada.

> I was not at all prepared to enter into detailed arguments

> about the specific meanings we should be attributing to

> words used by Srila Prabhupada in his purports.

You did object to "chief executive" being used in the plural :-)

There was some confusion (not your fault) as to the intended scope of the

phrase "chief executive". I've only presented evidence that cleared this

misconception. If Srila Prabhupada's purports are relevant to the

discussion, then we should be prepared to understand specific meanings

because otherwise, we might come to a wrong conclusion. (Why else did Srila

Prabhupada write his purports?) If Srila Prabhupada's commentaries are not

relevant, then that's the real problem.

I'm glad that we now agree it can be used both in the singular and the

plural.

Your servant, Krishna-kirti das (HDG)

October 24, 2000

> OK. So I can assume that you have nothing positive to say about ISKCON's

> progress. That answers my question.

You know what they say about assuming...

I'll reserve my personal feelings and opinions about the positive aspects of

ISKCON for another forum if you don't mind. Now is not the time at all. I am

capable believe me. I was relentless in my positive attitude and support of

ISKCON for years even while battling with the so-called leaders over the

issue of varnasrama-dharma. But this forum, I believe, is not meant to try

to desperately save some face against the huge, gross neglect and abuse of

cows, women and children of ISKCON by eeking out some "positive" progress in

ISKCON. Let others point those things out. We have a responsiblity to face

the tough issues of changing the (mis)direction of the so-called leaders and

the devisive and destructive (mis)management paradigms and policies of

ISKCON's powers that be.

ISKCON was supposed to be a movement that provided positive direction and

training in varnasrama-dharma for all members. This has never made ANY

progress. The main policy makers of ISKCON for the last 20 years in which we

have witnessed the worst abuse and criminal acts, are not even close to a

consensus on implementing varnasrama-dharma even now after their guru

ordered it over 26 years ago. Its almost unbelievable. Incredulous. Arrogant

and destructive for sure.

ISKCON was supposed to be the examplary model of protection of children,

women and cows. ISKCON has a horrible record of abuse of all of these living

beings and showed increases in the abuse year after year until faced with

the world's scrutiny and a criminal lawsuit by its own members. Hardly

progress in this area of great concern. Avoiding this issue to take time to

point out "positives" will only come off to any sensitive person as a

complete lack of contrition. If "positive progress" brought ISKCON to the

condition it is in now, where is it going from here?

A major paradigm shift must take place after thorough acts of contrition and

retribution before trying to minimize the horrors and suffering of children

and cows by picking out "positives", no matter how many or how big they

might be. Put yourself in the place of a father or mother of one of these

abused innocent citizens of ISKCON and try to find the "positives" of a

regime which still maintains policies contrary to the founders own direct

advice and orders.

October 24, 2000

> > We don't necessarily follow everything in

> > Manu-samhita, but those things which are in Manu-Samhita and which Srila

> > Prabhupada tells us to follow, we follow.

>

> Just curious, Prabhu, but could you please give one quote where Srila

> Prabhupada said that we should follow Manu Samhita, even a small portion

of

> it? I am not looking for quotes where he talks about the importance of the

> book, or its relevance in smarta society, or in the external society, or

> when he quotes it in support of a point made in a bhakti sastra, but

rather

> where he talks about its direct applicability for vaisnava society or

> specifically that we should follow it in ISKCON. I am not saying that such

> quotes do not exist, as I have not studied very thoroughly. But I have a

> genuine interest in seeing any such quote.

>

I've included such a quote in a recent post titled: "Artificial Distinction

& Manu Samhita's Relevance to ISKCON" You have mentioned in other places

that it is for the karmis - granted, but at the same time, how much more

advanced are we than the karmis? Even if we are so advanced, who, except

for devotees, will teach the karmis? Yad-yad acarati shresthas. If we

can't follow Manu-samhita (in particular, those principles Srila Prabhupada

has highlighted), how will they ever follow?

Considering the difficulty both the leadership and the rank-and-file have

been having over the years in maintaining some basic, minimal moral

standards, it seems that more than ever Manu-samhita is needed. The

references in the other post makes it quite evident.

I think we can agree that as a society we aren't so highly advanced that we

can abandon basic principles even karmis consider praiseworthy, can't we?

Your servant, Krishna-kirti das (HDG)

October 24, 2000

> > I was not at all prepared to enter into detailed arguments

> > about the specific meanings we should be attributing to

> > words used by Srila Prabhupada in his purports.

>

> You did object to "chief executive" being used in the plural :-)

>

> There was some confusion (not your fault) as to the intended scope of the

> phrase "chief executive". I've only presented evidence that cleared this

> misconception. If Srila Prabhupada's purports are relevant to the

> discussion, then we should be prepared to understand specific meanings

> because otherwise, we might come to a wrong conclusion. (Why else did

> Srila Prabhupada write his purports?) If Srila Prabhupada's commentaries

> are not relevant, then that's the real problem.

If Shyamasundara Prabhu was referring to the verses of Srimad Bhagavatam and

I asked him for a reference to the specific verses he was referring to then

how are Srila Prabhupada's purports relevant? Can't you understand this

simple point?

> I'm glad that we now agree it can be used both in the singular and the

> plural.

Just for the record, I never agreed to anything of the sort.

Your servant, Bhaktarupa Das

October 24, 2000

Krishna Kirti Prabhu wrote:

> > > We don't necessarily follow everything in

> > > Manu-samhita, but those things which are in Manu-Samhita and which

> > > Srila Prabhupada tells us to follow, we follow.

> >

> > Just curious, Prabhu, but could you please give one quote where Srila

> > Prabhupada said that we should follow Manu Samhita, even a small portion

> of

> > it? I am not looking for quotes where he talks about the importance of

> > the book, or its relevance in smarta society, or in the external

> > society, or when he quotes it in support of a point made in a bhakti

> > sastra, but

> rather

> > where he talks about its direct applicability for vaisnava society or

> > specifically that we should follow it in ISKCON. I am not saying that

> > such quotes do not exist, as I have not studied very thoroughly. But I

> > have a genuine interest in seeing any such quote.

> >

>

> I've included such a quote in a recent post titled: "Artificial

> Distinction & Manu Samhita's Relevance to ISKCON"

In that quote from a lecture, Srila Prabhupada is stating that the

protection of women, which is enjoined in Manu Samhita, will bring peace in

society, and then a few sentences later he describes the benefit of such

peaceful arrangements if enacted in ISKCON. So this is good information.

> You have mentioned in

> other places that it is for the karmis - granted, but at the same time,

> how much more advanced are we than the karmis?

Anyone who is chanting Hare Krishna is far superior to someone who is not

chanting. And anyone who is taking full shelter of the holy name is far

superior still. ISKCON members may appear to be socially disoriented and

managerially inept. But devotees are a different category, and in that

category different rules apply. It is not really a question of "advancement"

but of following the rules which are relevant to one's situation. (This is

what varnasrama is all about, isn't it?)

> Even if we are so

> advanced, who, except for devotees, will teach the karmis? Yad-yad

> acarati shresthas. If we can't follow Manu-samhita (in particular, those

> principles Srila Prabhupada has highlighted), how will they ever follow?

This is the basic chink in your thought processes, Prabhu, if you don't mind

me saying. The real purpose of Srila Prabhupada's preaching is not to bring

the karmis to the point of following Manu-samhita, but instead to bring them

to the lotus feet of Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu. His preaching about

Manu-samhita is simply a device toward that end. It is very wrong to

conclude that ISKCON should follow Manu-samhita to set an example for the

karmis. No. ISKCON should follow the Bhagavatam as an example to the

aspiring devotees. Then, as ISKCON becomes a powerful preaching organization

we can preach to those who are not ready to become devotees that they should

at least follow Manu-samhita. This is clearly the example and instruction of

Srila Prabhupada. If he had wanted us to follow the alternate strategy you

have outlined here then he certainly would have come out and said it. (Which

is why I asked last time for a specific reference where Srila Prabhupada

said such a thing.)

I'll reiterate: Srila Prabhupada preached that the karmis should follow

Manu-samhita, and he instructed the ISKCON devotees to follow the Bhagavatam

(without neglecting relevant portions of Manu-samhita). ISKCON devotees may

preach that the karmis should follow Manu-samhita, but we should preach to

the devotees to follow Srimad Bhagavatam (while not neglecting relevant

portions of the Manu-samhita).

> Considering the difficulty both the leadership and the rank-and-file have

> been having over the years in maintaining some basic, minimal moral

> standards, it seems that more than ever Manu-samhita is needed. The

> references in the other post makes it quite evident.

To some extent, certainly.

> I think we can agree that as a society we aren't so highly advanced that

> we can abandon basic principles even karmis consider praiseworthy, can't

> we?

There are some principles in Manu-samhita that the karmis consider

praiseworthy which we should definitely not follow. Specifically, the

descriptions there of prayascitta (expiation of sin) have no relevance for

devotees. I could add to the list, but this is the most obvious one. If that

can be accepted then other points of inapplicability can be discussed.

Your servant, Bhaktarupa Das

October 25, 2000

> > You have mentioned in

> > other places that it is for the karmis - granted, but at the same time,

> > how much more advanced are we than the karmis?

>

> Anyone who is chanting Hare Krishna is far superior to someone who is not

> chanting. And anyone who is taking full shelter of the holy name is far

> superior still.

Sahajiyas chant like crazy.

Who will take "full shelter" of the holy name? Not many. Prabhupada warrned

of both of these pretentions:

Hari-sauri: So therefore the chanting was introduced to replace all of the

systems of varnasrama and like that.

Prabhupada: Yes, it can replace, but who is going to replace it? The...

People are not so advanced. If you imitate Haridasa Thakura to chant, it is

not possible.

Satsvarupa: We tell them go on with your job but chant also.

Prabhupada: Yes. Thakaha apanara kaje, Bhaktivinoda Thakura. Apanara kaja

ki. Caitanya Mahaprabhu recommended, sthane sthitah. And if they do not

remain in the sthana, then the sahajiya's chanting will come. Just like the

sahajiyas also have got the beads and..., but they have got three dozen

women. This kind of chanting will go on. Just like our (name withheld). He

was not fit for sannyasa but he was given sannyasa. And five women he was

attached, and he disclosed. Therefore varnasrama-dharma is required. Simply

show-bottle will not do. So the varnasrama-dharma should be introduced all

over the world...

Hari-sauri: But in our community, if the..., being as we're training up as

Vaisnavas...

Prabhupada: Yes.

Hari-sauri: ...then how will we be able to make divisions in our society?

Prabhupada: Vaisnava is not so easy. The varnasrama-dharma should be

established to become a Vaisnava. It is not so easy to become Vaisnava.

Hari-sauri: No, it's not a cheap thing.

Prabhupada: Yes. Therefore this should be made. Vaisnava, to become

Vaisnava, is not so easy. If Vaisnava, to become Vaisnava is so easy, why so

many fall down? It is not easy. The sannyasa is for the highest

qualified brahmana. And simply by dressing like a Vaisnava, that is... fall

down.

> ISKCON members may appear to be socially disoriented and

> managerially inept. But devotees are a different category, and in that

> category different rules apply. It is not really a question of

> "advancement" but of following the rules which are relevant to one's

> situation. (This is what varnasrama is all about, isn't it?)

This kind of mentality or talk can be very dangerous especially amongst a

so-called religious institution that has a horrible record regarding human

rights, criminal activity, child abuse and cow abuse. All of these continue

to this day and to think otherwise is the reason varnasrama-dharma has not

been implemented in ISKCON for 26 years.

Different rules don't apply to criminals. ISKCON doesn't just APPEAR to be

socially disoriented and managerially inept. This is the grossest

understatement of the millenium. Better to take a very, very obvious and

public position of contrition until all abusive policies and people are

removed from within the organization. Without a consensus amongst the

so-called leaders to implement varnasrama-dharma training and education in

EVERY center, temple or community for EVERY devotee EVERYDAY, the abuses

will continue because this is a hellish mentality:

(CWSP) Johannesburg Oct. 16, 1975:

Harikesa: How in the beginning... Let's say you have a king...

Prabhupada: Beginning Krsna.

Harikesa: No, no. Let's say you have a king, and he is deciding this person

is worthy of...

Prabhupada: No, no. Beginning Krsna. Why don't you read Bhagavad- Gita? You

don't know?

Harikesa: No, no. Yes.

Prabhupada: What is the social arrangement? What is that?

Harikesa: That Krsna created the four orders.

Prabhupada: Yes. So you make that four orders, and then society will be in

order. But you are not taking Krsna's advice. You are manufacturing your

hellish ideas.

October 25, 2000

Bhaktarupa Das wrote:

> > Anyone who is chanting Hare Krishna is far superior to someone who is

> > not chanting. And anyone who is taking full shelter of the holy name is

> > far superior still.

And Janesvara Prabhu commented:

> Sahajiyas chant like crazy.

Yes. This is a very good point. And you have given some excellent quotes

from Srila Prabhupada about this point. I beg your patience to allow me to

explain:

Sahajiyas and (vedic) karmis are in different categories and different rules

apply to each. We all know that karmis think that dharma, artha and kama are

the goals of life. To achieve enjoyment they perform religious rituals, and

they also understand that there is some sin incurred in the process of

enjoying the fruits of their rituals. To get relief from these sins they

perform atonement, prayascitta, a kind of yama, or moral duty, and in this

way one by one the sins are absolved. This endeavor by the karmis to atone

for sins one by one is so much unnecessary labor, as we know that even

chanting one name of Krishna absolves one of unlimited sins. But they are

unaware of the glories of the holy name, thus they are in the category of

karmi. The rules of Manu-samhita fully apply to them, and if they fail to

follow these rules then they become deeply implicated in sinful life and are

punished by Yamaraja. After completing their course of punishment they again

get a human birth. If, however, they do follow the rules then they are

promoted to heavenly life of a long duration, and later fall down to earth.

As long as they remain as karmis, though, through uncountable births in

heavenly or hellish situations, they never achieve full liberation, either

in brahman or in the vaikuntha planets.

Now sahajiyas know the glories of the holy name. Of course, there are

different grades of sahajiyas also, but in general they know that by

chanting all sins are destroyed, and on that basis at least some sahajiyas

engage in sinful life, thinking there will be no reaction through the action

of the holy name. This is the seventh offense in chanting. The Padma Purana

explains:

namno balad yasya hi papa buddhir

na vidyate tasya yamair hi suddhih

Srila Prabhupada translates:

"To think that since the Hare Krishna mantra can counteract all sinful

reactions one may therefore go on with all his sinful activities and then at

the same time chant the Hare Krishna mantra to neutralize them is the

greatest offense at the lotus feet of Hari nama. One who thinks in this way

cannot be purified by any means, such as by austerities or by the various

punishments of Yamaraja."

Notice the word "yamair", a form of the word "yama". This can mean either

following the process of prayascitta mentioned in the smritis or being

punished by Yamaraja. As I explained above, the karmis are relieved from

their sins by either of these two kinds of "yama". But this Padma Purana

verse translation very clearly spells out that someone committing this

offense cannot be purified by either kind of yama. So is the Manu-samhita

wrong? It says very clearly that sins will go away through yama. The Padma

Purana says the opposite. The explanation is simply that the sahajiya who is

committing sins on the strength of chanting is not in the same category as a

vedic karmi. One set of rules (as per Manu-samhita) applies to the karmis

who are not chanting. Another set of rules (as per Padma Purana and other

bhakti sastras) applies to the sahajiyas who are.

So who is more advanced, the karmi or the sahajiya? We could say that the

karmi is more advanced because they can more easily get relief from sin

through yama. The sahajiyas will have to suffer at the hands of Yamaraja

without eventually getting relief. Or, looking at the matter from another

direction, we could say that the sahajiya is more advanced, because, also

according to Padma Purana in the namaparadha yuktanam verse, if the

sahajiyas continue to chant offensively eventually the offenses will go away

and they will at the end get the true result of all their chanting,

liberation, which is beyond even the highest possible destination of the

karmis.

But who is more advanced is not really the issue. The point is that those

who are not chanting and those who are, even if they are not taking full

shelter of the holy name, are in different categories. Different rules apply

to each group.

> > ISKCON members may appear to be socially disoriented and

> > managerially inept. But devotees are a different category, and in that

> > category different rules apply. It is not really a question of

> > "advancement" but of following the rules which are relevant to one's

> > situation. (This is what varnasrama is all about, isn't it?)

>

> This kind of mentality or talk can be very dangerous especially amongst a

> so-called religious institution that has a horrible record regarding human

> rights, criminal activity, child abuse and cow abuse.

If we carefully explain that those who are chanting Hare Krishna have to

suffer MORE for their sinful reactions than the karmis (na vidyate tasya

yamaih hi suddhih), then I don't think it is dangerous at all. The problem

is not ONLY that the rules of Manu-samhita have been ignored, but on top of

that the message of the Bhagavatam has been twisted to stress the benefits

of chanting without also stressing the concomitant extreme risks should

there be EVEN THE SLIGHTEST TINGE OF SIN in the activities of the dedicated

chanter.

Therefore varnasrama should be instituted together with the process of

chanting in order to reduce the risk of sinning on the strength of chanting.

This is the principal reason. We must keep this in mind. Varnasrama for the

devotees who are chanting has a different function than for the karmis, and

we must learn to discriminate between them.

Janesvara Prabhu, is this OK?

Krishna-kirti Prabhu?

Others?

Your servant, Bhaktarupa Das

October 25, 2000

> Therefore varnasrama should be instituted together with the process of

> chanting in order to reduce the risk of sinning on the strength of

> chanting. This is the principal reason. We must keep this in mind.

> Varnasrama for the devotees who are chanting has a different function than

> for the karmis, and we must learn to discriminate between them.

>

> Janesvara Prabhu, is this OK?

This sounds good to me. I also appreciate your brahminical approach to such

issues instead of the bull-in-a-chinashop approach of mine. As a ksatriya I

want action. Now. As a brahmana I feel it is your's and other brahmanas

responsibilities to facilitate this need for action in an expedient manner

while maintaining an intelligent approach. Many so-called brahmanas enjoy

hearing themselves talk too much. They develop a level of charisma and, in

their own illusion, use it as a measure of advancement. We all have a job

to do. No varna is without its burdens and so-called "contaminations".

Brahmanas have to facilitate the other varnas even if it involves so-called

sinful activity.

...a qualified brahmana is expert in the occupational duties of a

brahmana.. His duties are mentioned as six brahminical engagements.

Pathana means that a brahmana must be conversant with the Vedic scriptures.

He must also be able to teach others to study Vedic literatures. This is

pathana. He must also be expert in worshiping different deities and in

performing the Vedic rituals (yajana). On account of this yajana, the

brahmana, being the head of society, performs all the Vedic rituals for

ksatriyas, vaisyas and sudras. This is called yajana, assisting others in

performing ceremonies. The remaining two items are dana and pratigraha.

The brahmana accepts all kinds of contributions (pratigraha) from his

followers (mainly the ksatriyas, vaisyas and sudras). But he does not keep

all the money. He keeps only as much as required and gives the balance to

others in charity(dana). In order for such a qualified brahmana to worship

the Deity, he must be a Vaisnava." C.C. Mad. 4.87.

In varnasrama-dharma sometimes the sudras desire to eat meat. The brahmanas

must arrange for the proper ceremonies.

Srila Prabhupada: The four principles are essential. But only the sudras or

the ksatriyas . . . Just like ksatriya, they must learn how to kill. So,

practically they should go to the forest and kill some animal, and if he

likes he can eat also. But not from the slaughterhouse. Those who are

ksatriyas, they are allowed sometimes to eat meat. It is understood that

Bhima was also sometimes eating meat. Not all the Pandavas, only Bhima, not

the others. So for ksatriyas, if they want to eat meat, they can be allowed

on particular occasions. But they must go to the forest and kill the

animal. Not that for meat eating regular slaughterhouses should be

maintained. This is all nonsense, degradation. If you want to eat meat,

you go to the forest. And the sudras, they also sometimes eat meat, or the

candalas.

Hrdayananda Goswami: But never the cow.

Srila Prabhupada: No! Not the cow. The sudras, they can take a goat and

sacrifice it before the Deity of the goddess Kali and then they can eat. No

one should be given unrestricted freedom to eat meat or wine. If one is

adamant to drink wine there is Durga puja, Candi puja. That means

restriction. Under certain conditions.

"In conditioned life, all work is contaminated by the material modes of

nature. Even if one is a brahmana, he has to perform sacrifices in which

animal killing is necessary. ...Even though a man is a sudra serving a bad

master, he has to carry out the order of the master, even though it should

not be done. ... these things are necessary; one cannot avoid them."Bg 18.48

"The great sages began to think that although a brahmana is peaceful and

impartial because he is equal to everyone, it is still not his duty to

neglect poor humans. By such neglect, a brahmanas spiritual power

diminishes, just as water kept in a cracked pot leaks out." S.B. 4.14.41.

"Brahmanas generally used to become astrologers, Ayur-Vedic physicians,

teachers and priests. Although highly learned and respectable, such

brahmanas went from door to door to distribute their knowledge... such

brahmanas would visit householders like humble beggars, and people would

derive great benefit from the mercy of such brahmanas. The greatest benefit

was that a householder could save a great deal of money from being spent on

doctor bills because the brahmanas, aside from explaining the past, present

and future, could ordinarily cure all kinds of diseases simply by giving

instructions and some medicine.

The brahmanas, who went door to door as if beggars had perfect command

of such vast knowledge. Thus the highest knowledge was easily available

even to the poorest man in society... In a perfect human society, perfect

knowledge in any science - medical, astrological, ecclesiastical, and so on

- is available even to the poorest man, with no anxiety over payment."

C.C. Adi 17.103-4

Thank you for your brahminical tolerance of my crudeness, but please make

sure that things move forward expeditiously for the welfare of citizens who

are primarily not of the brahmana nature. Neutral facilitation of varna

performance is required. Too many ISKCON so-called brahmanas have been

riding high horses and their noses are up even higher. Help us, but don't

try to make us brahmanas.