the varna-ashrama thing

[cbrahma 0]

Prabhupada didnt' seem to have much luck or time to implement whatever he did put in place of the varna-ashrama dharma. Brahmanas fell down, or just didn't seem to fit their appropriated varna (yes brahmana is not an ashrama). The managers, supposedly Ksatriyas were also brahmanas. Many did not succeed in either. The amount of effort and conscious attention devoted to either attaining an ashrama or varna seemed to only distract sadhakas from the goal of spiritual development. I certainly never 'got it' and still don't. The caste system in India is a perverted reflection of true varna-ashrama, what to mention the democratic Western culture whose ideal is the classless society.

Lord Caitanya didn't seem to think it that important.

 

When he met Shri Ramananda Roy on the bank of the Godavari the conversation began with the subject matter of Varnashram-Dharma followed by the Hindus. Srila Ramananda Roy said that by following the principles of Varnashram-Dharma or the system of four castes and four orders of human life it should be followed by every one in order to realise transcendence. In the opinion of the Lord the system of Varna Ashram Dharma is superficial only and it has very little to do with the highest realisation of spiritual values. Because the highest perfection of life is to get detached from the material attachment and proportionately realise the transcedental loving service of the Lord. The personality of Godhead recognises a living being who is progressing in that line. Devotional service is, therefore, the culmination of the culture of all knowledge. When Sri Kishna the Supreme Personality of Godhead appeared for the deliverance of all fallen souls, He advised for clear cut deliverance of all living entities as follows. The Supreme Absolute Personality of Godhead from whom all living entities have emanated, must be worshipped by all by their respective engagements, because every thing that we see is also the expansion of His energy only. That is the way of real perfection and is approved by all bonafide Acharyas past and present. The system of Varnashram is more or less based on the principles of moral and ethical rules. There is very little realisation of the transcendence as such the Lord Sri Chaitanya Mahaprabhu rejected it as superficial and asked Ramananda Roy to go further up.

 

 

Roy then suggested renunciation of the Varnashram-Dharma and acceptance of devotional service. The Lord did not approve of this suggestion also for the reason that all of a sudden one may not renounce his position and that will not bring in the desired result.

It was further suggested by Roy that attainment of spiritual realisation freed from the material conception of life is the topmost achievement by a living being. The Lord rejected this suggestion also because on the plea of such spiritual realisation many havoc may be done by the unscrupulous persons and therefore all of a sudden this is not possible.

 

The most important issue in this regard seems to be that whatever social class one happens to be in, one should not engage in false renunciation. Making a separate and focused endeavor to 'qualify' for an asrama or varna seems from what Lord Caitanya said a distraction from the goal of being "detached from the material attachment and proportionately realise the transcedental loving service of the Lord."

So when I see too much an emphasis placed on this material distinctions I become suspicious that there is a corresponding decrease in spiritual ambition.

[suchandra 1]

 

Prabhupada didnt' seem to have much luck or time to implement whatever he did put in place of the varna-ashrama dharma. Brahmanas fell down, or just didn't seem to fit their appropriated varna (yes brahmana is not an ashrama). The managers, supposedly Ksatriyas were also brahmanas. Many did not succeed in either. The amount of effort and conscious attention devoted to either attaining an ashrama or varna seemed to only distract sadhakas from the goal of spiritual development. I certainly never 'got it' and still don't. The caste system in India is a perverted reflection of true varna-ashrama, what to mention the democratic Western culture whose ideal is the classless society.

Lord Caitanya didn't seem to think it that important.

 

 

 

The most important issue in this regard seems to be that whatever social class one happens to be in, one should not engage in false renunciation. Making a separate and focused endeavor to 'qualify' for an asrama or varna seems from what Lord Caitanya said a distraction from the goal of being "detached from the material attachment and proportionately realise the transcedental loving service of the Lord."

So when I see too much an emphasis placed on this material distinctions I become suspicious that there is a corresponding decrease in spiritual ambition.

Mainly this varnashrama topic is rarely properly understood even by present ISKCON leaders. Prabhupada's real intention was to create a security measure since at that time around 1977 all his disciples were living within ISKCON, living a monastic lifestyle so to speak. When seeing quite a lot of disciples leaving ISKCON the idea of having not only the situation of monks living in a cloister but having access to a congregation outside the temple as well. All this became a topic what Prabhupada took into consideration. At the same time the congregation would support the temple in that sense that the temple would be supported with self grown vegetables etc and the preaching more related to practice. An interactive support of temple and congregation whereupon both would profit.

Unfortunately they turned the who thing down and interpreted it as misra bhakti, not understanding that a congregation always supports the deities in the temple, is never something like useless outwardness or totally counterproductive to pure bhakti.

Prabhupada said, yes, Lord Caitanya rejected it, but we are in a different position, for us it is of relevance.

Today, 2008, things seem to have changed in so far that ISKCON gurus say, more than 90% of their disciples don't live within a temple but outside. What can be interpreted that varnashram anyway happend, happened unintentional.

[cbrahma 0]

 

Mainly this varnashrama topic is rarely properly understood even by present ISKCON leaders. Prabhupada's real intention was to create a security measure since at that time around 1977 all his disciples were living within ISKCON, living a monastic lifestyle so to speak. When seeing quite a lot of disciples leaving ISKCON the idea of having not only the situation of monks living in a cloister but having access to a congregation outside the temple as well. All this became a topic what Prabhupada took into consideration. At the same time the congregation would support the temple in that sense that the temple would be supported with self grown vegetables etc and the preaching more related to practice. An interactive support of temple and congregation whereupon both would profit.

Unfortunately they turned the who thing down and interpreted it as misra bhakti, not understanding that a congregation always supports the deities in the temple, is never something like useless outwardness or counterproductive to pure bhakti.

What does 'living in the temple' have to do with varna-ashrama?

Does living 'outside' the temple become a disqualification to a particular varna or ashrama? He had householder brahmanas and brahmacari brhamanas. In New Dwarka some of either lived on temple property and some did not. What defined the "Inside" of the temple was a matter of ISKCON real estate.

This seems a really trite and superficial reason, because there already were asrama and varnas being defined.

[suchandra 1]

 

What does 'living in the temple' have to do with varna-ashrama?

Does living 'outside' the temple become a disqualification to a particular varna or ashrama? He had householder brahmanas and brahmacari brhamanas. In New Dwarka some of either lived on temple property and some did not. What defined the "Inside" of the temple was a matter of ISKCON real estate.

This seems a really trite and superficial reason, because there already were asrama and varnas being defined.

There's hardly anyone who could understand it rightly, although it is quite simple. The quality of the congregation depends upon the purity of the monastery. The temple brahmins cooperate with the congregation in that sense that the congregation supports the temple. If the temple brahmins are pure Vaishnavas, the congragation would serve pure devotees and worship the deities in the temple. If a temple brahmin would have problems to live in the temple he could easily change and work in the congregation.

[theist 1]

What makes formal varna-asrama impractical in todays world is the formal designations being laid upon people. In a world of sudras or lower we would suddenly see so many people jockeying to be designated as brahmanas and ksatriyas. What a joke that would be. It is an absolutely unworkable proposition.

 

What makes the essence of the varna-asrama system absolutely necessary and indespensible in todays world is how important it is to the successful execution of karma/bhakti-yoga.

 

How can someone be expected to live a life of karma-yoga unless they can have work that matches the predominant gunas that make up their acquired natures? Krishna makes it clear in the Bhagavad-gita that each person must follow their own natures while giving up attachment to the fruits of that work.

 

The solution to this apparent paradox is to drop the formal designations while identifying the particular pyscho/physical make-up of the student by his siksa guru who engages him in and advises him in how developing a life plan of devotional service according to his nature.

 

People with this vision are the brahmanas and this is the reason Srila Prabhupada was first trying to develop a brahminical class. A class fit to instruct the rest of the world in how to do their duties in God conciousness.

 

Don't think in terms of imposing varna-asrama on anyone and especially not on society as a whole. That will never work. Instead one's spiritual advisor(s) must help the student into a proper suitable occupation for the execution of the yoga process by understanding their students particular sva-dharma.

 

We must be careful that in throwing out the formal trapping of the VA system we don't throw out the baby (essence) with the bath water.

 

Rememeber these 4 basic types of work are written into peoples natures and are far more then some academic subject or whimisical social experiment.

 

 

TRANSLATION Bg 4.13

According to the three modes of material nature and the work associated with them, the four divisions of human society are created by Me. And although I am the creator of this system, you should know that I am yet the nondoer, being unchangeable.

[suchandra 1]

 

What makes formal varna-asrama impractical in todays world is the formal designations being laid upon people. In a world of sudras or lower we would suddenly see so many people jocking to be designated as brahmanas and ksatriyas. What a joke that would be. It is an absolutely unworkable proposition.

 

What makes the essence of the varna-asrama system absolutely necessary and indespensible in todays world is how important it is to the successful execution of karma/bhakti-yoga.

 

How can someone be expected to live a life of karma-yoga unless they can have work that matches the predominant gunas that make up their acquired natures? Krishna makes it clear in the Bhagavad-gita that each person must follow their own natures while giving up attachment to the fruits of that work.

 

The solution to this apparent paradox is to drop the formal designations while identifying the particular pyscho/physical make-up of the student by his siksa guru who engages him in and advises him in how developing a life plan of devotional service according to his nature.

 

People with this vision are the brahmanas and this is the reason Srila Prabhupada was first trying to develop a brahminical class.

 

Don't think in terms of imposing varna-asrama on anyone and especially not on society as a whole. That will never work. Instead one's spiritual advisor(s) must help the student into a proper suitable occupation for the execution of the yoga process.

 

We must be careful that in throwing out the formal trapping of the VA system we don't throw out the baby (essence) with the bath water.

 

Rememeber these 4 basic types of work are written into peoples natures and are far more then some academic subject or whimisical social experiment.

Could be that it is the strange name, "varnashram", what detered people from taking it into consideration. The church works with it since two thousand years. Around every chuch with a priest, there is a congregation. The topic of rejecting the congregation somehow never became a topic for the church. Vaishnavas seem to see congregations as material society without value for supporting the temple.

[cbrahma 0]

Prabhupada never used the word 'congregation' when speaking of varna-ashrama. That is a post-samadhi GBC concoction taken straight out of Christian churchianity. When I was in ISKCON nobody spoke of the uninitiated people who frequented the temples as 'congregation'. In New Dwarka a 'club' was formed called FOLK, friends of lord Krsna. There was also a 'guest' house. But that was before ISKCON got Hinduized. Since then, it has become a condescension to give some second class membership to the many Hindus who come to perform marriages and other cultural rites and give donations.

The translation of brahmana to priest doesn't capture the meaning because 'intellectual' is also an essential part of it. It not a spiritual ashrama so 'monk' doesn't really convey it either. Brahamacari is more like monk because the brahmacari is technically supposed to live in the 'house of the spiritual master' and serve him. Let's not forget that a lot of brahmanas are married householders, which is hardly a monkish state. The temple is not a chruch where the initiated are 'clergy'. What is the temple president? A bishop? A pastor? I don't think so. He really performs a mixed role of ksatrya and brahmana.

That institutional church concept has not any thing to do with varna-ashrama.

[cbrahma 0]

 

There's hardly anyone who could understand it rightly, although it is quite simple. The quality of the congregation depends upon the purity of the monastery. The temple brahmins cooperate with the congregation in that sense that the congregation supports the temple. If the temple brahmins are pure Vaishnavas, the congragation would serve pure devotees and worship the deities in the temple. If a temple brahmin would have problems to live in the temple he could easily change and work in the congregation.

Varna-asrama are the divisions of society not reducable to clergy/congregation. The religious dvisions, the asramas are not necessarily connected to temple living except perhaps brahmacari.

[cbrahma 0]

 

What makes formal varna-asrama impractical in todays world is the formal designations being laid upon people. In a world of sudras or lower we would suddenly see so many people jockeying to be designated as brahmanas and ksatriyas. What a joke that would be. It is an absolutely unworkable proposition.

 

What makes the essence of the varna-asrama system absolutely necessary and indespensible in todays world is how important it is to the successful execution of karma/bhakti-yoga.

 

How can someone be expected to live a life of karma-yoga unless they can have work that matches the predominant gunas that make up their acquired natures? Krishna makes it clear in the Bhagavad-gita that each person must follow their own natures while giving up attachment to the fruits of that work.

 

The solution to this apparent paradox is to drop the formal designations while identifying the particular pyscho/physical make-up of the student by his siksa guru who engages him in and advises him in how developing a life plan of devotional service according to his nature.

 

People with this vision are the brahmanas and this is the reason Srila Prabhupada was first trying to develop a brahminical class. A class fit to instruct the rest of the world in how to do their duties in God conciousness.

 

Don't think in terms of imposing varna-asrama on anyone and especially not on society as a whole. That will never work. Instead one's spiritual advisor(s) must help the student into a proper suitable occupation for the execution of the yoga process by understanding their students particular sva-dharma.

 

We must be careful that in throwing out the formal trapping of the VA system we don't throw out the baby (essence) with the bath water.

 

Rememeber these 4 basic types of work are written into peoples natures and are far more then some academic subject or whimisical social experiment.

Very nice analysis. You obviously understand varna-ashrama.

[cbrahma 0]

 

BY: ROCANA DASA

 

May 21, CANADA (SUN) — A weekly response to Dandavats editorials. Today's Obeisances is in response to the paper entitled "ISKCON and Varnasrama-dharma: A Mission Unfulfilled by Ravindra Svarupa dasa.

 

In this article, the Doctor is addressing the controversy in ISKCON regarding the establishment of varnasrama in a modern context. This has become a somewhat disturbing debate within ISKCON, and within the GBC body itself.

 

Both the author of this article and the subject he's addressing hold a particular interest for me. As we have noted in previous articles, the author (or the unknown supporter who submitted his paper to Dandavats) points out in the preface that Ravindra Svarupa dasa is none other than Dr. William H. Deadwyler III. Whether it be a written article or an audio lecture, most of the content coming from Ravindra Svarupa dasa makes clear to his audience that he has a Ph.D. behind his name.

 

Those who consume the lectures and writings of Ravindra Svarupa will be aware that he fancies himself to be the personification of the brahminical intellectual. As his preface states, he is most interested the brahminical (intellectual) class within society as a brain for the social body.

 

In addition to his academic credentials from a mundane university, Ravindra Svarupa also fancies himself to be the ISKCON equivalent of George Washington, in the sense that he feels he headed up the Reform Movement in 1987, which supposedly set ISKCON back on the 'correct course'. As for myself and many others who were actively involved in this reform movement, we consider Ravindra Svarupa to be the Benedict Arnold. Essentially there was no reform, in large part because Ravindra himself went over to the enemy in exchange for them allowing him to initiate disciples and become a member of the GBC. In other words, his status and power in ISKCON took a giant leap when he sold out the reformers, and he's been capitalizing on this boon ever since. For the record, I left ISKCON as a direct result of the actions that Ravindra Svarupa took along with his associates, such as Bir Krishna Goswami, who was also complicit in copping out to the Zonal Acaryas. But that's a subject for another article.

 

In his article, Ravindra Svarupa first establishes a certain theory, which he sums up in this sentence: "It seems that even Prabhupada’s ideas changed. " In other words, he makes the point that Srila Prabhupada was simply experimenting when he came to America and first introduced the concept of establishing a society based on creating Vaisnava brahmans who would live and teach on the highest standards of Vaisnava principles. He suggests that Srila Prabhupada engaged in "the method of trial and error", and offers an un-referenced quote from Srila Prabhupada, who supposedly said: ‘You learn from experience… and experience means you make mistakes.’ (We note that Srila Prabhupada said "you", and not "I".)

 

Based on this theme, the author tries to make an argument for the fact that ultimately, Srila Prabhupada's 'experiment' with varnasrama was a mistake. He supposedly entered into this concept as a result of the fact that many of his disciples couldn't maintain his original vision of establishing a pure Vaisnava community based on brahminical culture, and therefore needed to resort to or introduce the idea of varnasrama so as to not exclude many devotees, what to speak of the leaders who couldn't maintain sannyasa or even the basic regulative principles.

The spiritual reality as I understand it, however, is that Srila Prabhupada is an uttama-adhikari and a Sampradaya Acarya, working directly under Lord Krsna. As such, none of his preaching efforts were "experimental" at all. What Ravindra Svarupa is essentially trying to establish is that Srila Prabhupada's two "experiments", namely the establishment of brahminical culture and varnasrama, were unsuccessful. His argument is that the varnasrama part was a failure, and the brahminical part was incomplete. Of course, this conclusion gives the author and his GBC associates the empowerment to continue experimenting and speculating on what Srila Prabhupada actually means. And this is ultimately his point: Ravindra Svarupa dasa represents a school of thought in ISKCON that believes Srila Prabhupada wanted brahminical culture as he understands it to be: the establishment of schools with a very academically oriented emphasis, tests, buy-in from the mundane academics, etc. - something very similar to the way Christians have established themselves in modern society. You go to a mundane university and get a degree, and then you apply to be a member of some church on the basis of that supposedly 'brahminical' degree.

 

 

 

In many regards, one could say that Ravindra Svarupa actually falls into the category of 'hereditary brahmana", in the sense that the only real brahminical qualification he can point to is the fact that he has a Ph.D. As far as I know, he doesn't live a strictly brahminical life. In fact, he's been actively involved in the GBC for many years, and we know that's not a brahminical activity. While he's quite active in administrative duties, in certain circles Ravindra Svarupa is known as a very poor manager. Take for instance the fact that he's been sitting in his office in the Philadelphia temple for decades, while little has changed there, other than the fact that it's 'evolved' into a Hinduized version of the original concept Srila Prabhupada promoted. (See my previous Obeisances in response to Ravindra Svarupa's Nama Hatta in USA article.)

In his current paper, Ravindra Svarupa chooses to include a comment Srila Prabhupada made to a reporter, where he's saying that he came to America to "give you a brain". In other words, a society run by vaisyas is headless. He tells us that all the educational people are really in the employ of vaisyas, but of course, the author himself is also in the employ of vaisyas. I'm sure his congregation and the supporters who ensure that he lives a comfortable life are essentially vaisyas, and somehow or other, he imagines himself to be the brain.

 

 

 

It's my opinion as one of the Temple Presidents during that period that there was a natural division of labors in the temple. In other words, the Temple President and a circle of senior people would naturally determine very quickly how members of the community would be engaged. Some of them were engaged in brahminical activities, some in vaisya, kshatriya, and sudra-like activities. No one was called by these names… they were simply engaged due to their natural propensities in activities they felt happy doing. All were contributing to the whole and felt like members of the community, which they were, with very little gradation in status. It was only after the introduction of Zonal Acarya-ism that this system was contaminated and ruined.

 

The so-called "reform movement" of 1987, which Ravindra Svarupa continually points to as one of his great successes, did very little to change anything other than to put the emphasis on recruiting congregational members. These individuals were primarily Indians. They began to contribute the lion's share of the money and were generally vaisya-like. And like any vaisyas, they wanted control over where their money was spent, so they began to sit on all the Boards. The Boards increasingly began to run the temples like a business, and today we see the results of that unfortunate trend.

I think one of the underlying factors in Ravindra Svarupa taking the position he has in this regard is the fact that it takes far less charisma and leadership, of which he has very little, to run a temple based on his preferred model - far less than it took to run a temple based on the model that existed when Srila Prabhupada was present. The Temple Presidents during that era had to be able to encourage and motivate all different types of people. They had to out working on the front lines, not holed up in their offices, managing in a one-dimensional, lazy manner.

 

[Amlesh 1]

It has existed in the past, and it will continue to exist. Nothing to do with any temple or any society.

 

All the companies of today's world are still following this principle. But blindly, not really knowing about its origin and benefits.

 

In the ancient times in the western civilisations, divisions were there in terms of (Noble, administrative, peasants) classes.

 

Even today... If I take a company I might find the Director [intellectual], security [Kshatriya], Sales and Marketing [Vaishyas], and manual worker [sudras]. But before things were done as a matter of duty, but today it's different, it is done for satisfying our own desires [the more we earn the more we enjoy, no matter with what means] and also with ego, thinking oneself to be the doer.

 

Varna-Ashrama is not as simple as it seems, many wants to achieve Bhakti, but many are still ignorant about the principle on which Bhakti has its framework.

 

One of the criteria of achieving Bhakti, is first to fully understand Varna Ashrama.

[cbrahma 0]

 

It has existed in the past, and it will continue to exist. Nothing to do with any temple or any society.

 

All the companies of today's world are still following this principle. But blindly, not really knowing about its origin and benefits.

 

In the ancient times in the western civilisations, divisions were there in terms of (Noble, administrative, peasants) classes.

 

Even today... If I take a company I might find the Director [intellectual], security [Kshatriya], Sales and Marketing [Vaishyas], and manual worker [sudras]. But before things were done as a matter of duty, but today it's different, it is done for satisfying our own desires [the more we earn the more we enjoy, no matter with what means] and also with ego, thinking oneself to be the doer.

 

Varna-Ashrama is not as simple as it seems, many wants to achieve Bhakti, but many are still ignorant about the principle on which Bhakti has its framework.

 

One of the criteria of achieving Bhakti, is first to fully understand Varna Ashrama.

I don't think that is quite true when one reads Lord Caitanya's opinion that it is superficial and that bhakti is not contingent upon it.

 

In the opinion of the Lord the system of Varna Ashram Dharma is superficial only and it has very little to do with the highest realisation of spiritual values

[Amlesh 1]

 

I don't think that is quite true when one reads Lord Caitanya's opinion that it is superficial and that bhakti is not contingent upon it.

 

True, but anything done in this material world do conveys something material in the perspective of a layman. Bhakti is the final aim of any entity.

 

Caitanya's opinion is the final opinion. The rules of Varnasram was created by the Lord only, to be followed. This rule, if we see in depth, conveys spiritual message only.

 

But in one perspective I should admit, when completely surrendered, there is no rule to be followed, but just waiting the command of Hari.

 

Very complex issue.

[Amlesh 1]

...there is a similar story in Srimad Bhagwatam, where Narad Muni was cursed by Daksha.

 

Very interesting and quite similar in perspective with this thread.

[cbrahma 0]

 

True, but anything done in this material world do conveys something material in the perspective of a layman. Bhakti is the final aim of any entity.

 

Caitanya's opinion is the final opinion. The rules of Varnasram was created by the Lord only, to be followed. This rule, if we see in depth, conveys spiritual message only.

 

But in one perspective I should admit, when completely surrendered, there is no rule to be followed, but just waiting the command of Hari.

 

Very complex issue.

I'm not sure what you are saying. The Lord doesn't qualify his statements with 'fully surrendered'. He states quite simply and unambiguously that varna-asrama is superficial and totally unrelated to spiritual progress in bhakti.

How can material dharma bring us to a point of transcendence?

[Amlesh 1]

 

I'm not sure what you are saying. The Lord doesn't qualify his statements with 'fully surrendered'. He states quite simply and unambiguously that varna-asrama is superficial and totally unrelated to spiritual progress in bhakti.

How can material dharma bring us to a point of transcendence?

 

But I've understood right now, and that too with your help. Whatever the lord has said is perfect, but he said it for the chosen One, that rare soul. the Varnasrma is superficial after reaching a certain level [the ultimate level], but for those who have not still perfected Varna-asrama still stands. Gita explains the Law of Akarma, which is very difficult to comprehend, for those who have understood it, any rules applicable to Duty becomes superficial, but for those who have not yet understood the secret of Duty, Varna Ashrama, is the next best option.

[cbrahma 0]

 

But I've understood right now, and that too with your help. Whatever the lord has said is perfect, but he said it for the chosen One, that rare soul. the Varnasrma is superficial after reaching a certain level [the ultimate level], but for those who have not still perfected Varna-asrama still stands. Gita explains the Law of Akarma, which is very difficult to comprehend, for those who have understood it, any rules applicable to Duty becomes superficial, but for those who have not yet understood the secret of Duty, Varna Ashrama, is the next best option.

But Lord Caitanyas mission is for everyone - there is no elite selection.

[Amlesh 1]

But many dies without hearing his advice. But I'm happy about the Bhagvata Doctrine, chances for perfection are always given.

 

Naturally, Lord chaitanya is for everyone, but not everyone can understand his teachings, that's why options are always given. Even in the Gita, Krishna gave a lot of options to Arjuna, saying if you cannot follow this, do that. But Arjuna was a fine student.

[cbrahma 0]

 

But many dies without hearing his advice. But I'm happy about the Bhagvata Doctrine, chances for perfection are always given.

 

Naturally, Lord chaitanya is for everyone, but not everyone can understand his teachings, that's why options are always given. Even in the Gita, Krishna gave a lot of options to Arjuna, saying if you cannot follow this, do that. But Arjuna was a fine student.

But that is what the bhakta should do -preach so that everybody can become familiar. Yes?

[Amlesh 1]

 

But that is what the bhakta should do -preach so that everybody can become familiar. Yes?

 

Yep, that's the true mission of everyone. And there should not be any excuse of not doing it.

 

But one should preach to the extent the listenener can understand, more than than can deteriorate things. Misunderstanding and misterpretation crops up and any action taken by such person, becomes more harmful.

[cbrahma 0]

 

Yep, that's the true mission of everyone. And there should not be any excuse of not doing it.

 

But one should preach to the extent the listenener can understand, more than than can deteriorate things. Misunderstanding and misterpretation crops up and any action taken by such person, becomes more harmful.

My understanding is that one preaches and lets Caitya guru in the heart do the rest.

[Amlesh 1]

And certainly preaching is more of a job for the Brahmana, many do not have that quality.

 

Arjuna, was Kshtriya, that's why he was more concerned with his fighting skill, even after knowing the supreme truth.

 

It's here the context of Varnashrama Dhama enters, but in the end he threw all his weapons in a river, knowing that it's of no use.

 

This is the material world, we need to perfect ourselves little by little, according to our nature. But in the end one realises, why it is not called heaven, that's why the concept of Selfless action is important.

 

Any person fullfilling his duty conveniently, preaches directly or indirectly, but should be done in a Bhakti mood. The best modern example might be Mohandas Gandhiji, he was a politician but preached by practicing his duty.

[Amlesh 1]

 

My understanding is that one preaches and lets Caitya guru in the heart do the rest.

 

Your understand is many times higher than mine. That's y maybe I see it some other way.

[suchandra 1]

 

Varna-asrama are the divisions of society not reducable to clergy/congregation. The religious dvisions, the asramas are not necessarily connected to temple living except perhaps brahmacari.

Well this is a discussion board but you're presenting dogma type viewpoints, rather content for your private blog.

Prabhupada understood it only in that context that everything is in relation to his temples. If people couldnt make it to live a monastic lifestyle within a temple they should have a second chance to live outside and not get disconnected. Why you reject to call this outside, congregation? You lost me here.

In the West there are not many devotees left in ISKCON and hardly any schools left. That sort of solved ALL the problems, they got rid of almost everyone, but still teaching what is the truth.

[cbrahma 0]

 

Well this is a discussion board but you're presenting dogma type viewpoints, rather content for your private blog.

Prabhupada understood it only in that context that everything is in relation to his temples. If people couldnt make it to live a monastic lifestyle within a temple they should have a second chance to live outside and not get disconnected. Why you reject to call this outside, congregation? You lost me here.

In the West there are not many devotees left in ISKCON and hardly any schools left. That sort of solved ALL the problems, they got rid of almost everyone, but still teaching what is the truth.

I'm talking philosophy and you're talking PC politics.

It is what it is. There is nothing dogmatic about citing the facts and correct definitions. It is the GBC which is dogmatic. ISKCON doesn't have to mimic churchianity to be effective. They can delude themselves that Hindu congregation are somehow devotees but that is not the case. ISKCON's rate of making devotees is so meagre compared to the pre-congregational days.