Individual and Societal Roles and Identity - Western(?) Gaudiyas in the World

QUOTE

Adiyen wrote:

To Jagat and Braja,

Since my studies in political philosophy, and especially reading Richard Rorty ( http://www.frontlist.com/detail/0521367816 but the last sentence misses Rorty's point), I have come to believe that the distinction between Public and Private discovered by the Ancient Greeks is an essential addition to life, and especially Gaudiya devotee's lives.

Privately, we are Raganuga Sadhakas. Publically, we may be western Liberals or Conservatives, even Religious Conservatives. Just like most Hindus or Jews and others actually. We can have an identity in both worlds.

Otherwise, if we keep trying to reconcile our private and public identities, especially if we try to be Brahmins in the West, then we are perpetually at war with our environment.

15 years ago, I understood that Sridhar Maharaj wanted his followers to be good cooperative members of their own societies, and good Vaishnavas at home or in the Temple. Sridhar Maharaj apparently did not want his followers to create any disturbance in their societies. The Public/Private distinction has served me very well over that time.

And Jagat, stop trying to go 'metrosexual'!

Men and women have different roles to play in the world.

(Jean Bethke Elshtain: Public Man, Private Woman: Women in Social & Political Thought, offers an excellent analysis of the complexities of the Public/Private traditional divide specifically for women. But men have no such problem, so why worry?)

My concern over Fascism is when the rich and privileged exploit the poor and disadvantaged: social cruelty. Pursuing the distinction into a gender critique I find a bit pointless and nihilistic. Justice is always approximate, never perfect. As Rorty would say it is 'Contingent' especially with reference to history.

QUOTE(braja @ Dec 9 2003, 01:18 PM)

I have come to believe that the distinction between Public and Private discovered by the Ancient Greeks is an essential addition to life, and especially Gaudiya devotee's lives.

Privately, we are Raganuga Sadhakas. Publically, we may be western Liberals or Conservatives, even Religious Conservatives. Just like most Hindus or Jews and others actually. We can have an identity in both worlds.

Otherwise, if we keep trying to reconcile our private and public identities, especially if we try to be Brahmins in the West, then we are perpetually at war with our environment.

Interesting! I'd like to read more on Rorty. When I said earlier "leave unto Caesar" I was secretly attaching a usage that I picked up from Breakout from the Crystal Palace: The Anarcho-Psychological Critique: Stirner, Nietzsche, Dostoyevsky, which is a book that challenged my personal and institutional faith like no other. (There's a brief review here.) More on that later.

Here is something that was in the NY Times about the philosopher credited with being the background for Islamic fundamentalism. It's kinda long (maybe this thread needs to split?) but I think it proposes some insightful ideas about the separation of politics/Reason/science and religion:

========================================================
The Philosopher of Islamic Terror

March 23, 2003

By PAUL BERMAN

Qutb wrote that, all over the world, humans had reached a moment of unbearable crisis. The human race had lost touch with human nature. Man's inspiration, intelligence and morality were degenerating. Sexual relations were deteriorating ''to a level lower than the beasts.'' Man was miserable, anxious and skeptical, sinking into idiocy, insanity and crime. People were turning, in their unhappiness, to drugs, alcohol and existentialism. Qutb admired economic productivity and scientific knowledge. But he did not think that wealth and science were rescuing the human race. He figured that, on the contrary, the richest countries were the unhappiest of all. And what was the cause of this unhappiness -- this wretched split between man's truest nature and modern life?

A great many cultural critics in Europe and America asked this question in the middle years of the 20th century, and a great many of them, following Nietzsche and other philosophers, pointed to the origins of Western civilization in ancient Greece, where man was said to have made his fatal error. This error was philosophical. It consisted of placing an arrogant and deluded faith in the power of human reason -- an arrogant faith that, after many centuries, had created in modern times a tyranny of technology over life.

Qutb shared that analysis, somewhat. Only instead of locating the error in ancient Greece, he located it in ancient Jerusalem. In the Muslim fashion, Qutb looked on the teachings of Judaism as being divinely revealed by God to Moses and the other prophets. Judaism instructed man to worship one God and to forswear all others. Judaism instructed man on how to behave in every sphere of life -- how to live a worldly existence that was also a life at one with God. This could be done by obeying a system of divinely mandated laws, the code of Moses. In Qutb's view, however, Judaism withered into what he called ''a system of rigid and lifeless ritual.''

God sent another prophet, though. That prophet, in Qutb's Muslim way of thinking, was Jesus, who proposed a few useful reforms -- lifting some no-longer necessary restrictions in the Jewish dietary code, for example -- and also an admirable new spirituality. But something terrible occurred. The relation between Jesus' followers and the Jews took, in Qutb's view, ''a deplorable course.'' Jesus' followers squabbled with the old-line Jews, and amid the mutual recriminations, Jesus' message ended up being diluted and even perverted. Jesus' disciples and followers were persecuted, which meant that, in their sufferings, the disciples were never able to provide an adequate or systematic exposition of Jesus' message.

Who but Sayyid Qutb, from his miserable prison in Nasser's Egypt, could have zeroed in so plausibly on the difficulties encountered by Jesus' disciples in getting out the word? Qutb figured that, as a result, the Christian Gospels were badly garbled, and should not be regarded as accurate or reliable. The Gospels declared Jesus to be divine, but in Qutb's Muslim account, Jesus was a mere human -- a prophet of God, not a messiah. The larger catastrophe, however, was this: Jesus' disciples, owing to what Qutb called ''this unpleasant separation of the two parties,'' went too far in rejecting the Jewish teachings.

Jesus' disciples and followers, the Christians, emphasized Jesus' divine message of spirituality and love. But they rejected Judaism's legal system, the code of Moses, which regulated every jot and tittle of daily life. Instead, the early Christians imported into Christianity the philosophy of the Greeks -- the belief in a spiritual existence completely separate from physical life, a zone of pure spirit.

In the fourth century of the Christian era, Emperor Constantine converted the Roman Empire to Christianity. But Constantine, in Qutb's interpretation, did this in a spirit of pagan hypocrisy, dominated by scenes of wantonness, half-naked girls, gems and precious metals. Christianity, having abandoned the Mosaic code, could put up no defense. And so, in their horror at Roman morals, the Christians did as best they could and countered the imperial debaucheries with a cult of monastic asceticism.

But this was no good at all. Monastic asceticism stands at odds with the physical quality of human nature. In this manner, in Qutb's view, Christianity lost touch with the physical world. The old code of Moses, with its laws for diet, dress, marriage, sex and everything else, had enfolded the divine and the worldly into a single concept, which was the worship of God. But Christianity divided these things into two, the sacred and the secular. Christianity said, ''Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's and unto God what is God's.'' Christianity put the physical world in one corner and the spiritual world in another corner: Constantine's debauches over here, monastic renunciation over there. In Qutb's view there was a ''hideous schizophrenia'' in this approach to life. And things got worse.

A series of Christian religious councils adopted what Qutb thought to be irrational principles on Christianity's behalf -- principles regarding the nature of Jesus, the Eucharist, transubstantiation and other questions, all of which were, in Qutb's view, ''absolutely incomprehensible, inconceivable and incredible.'' Church teachings froze the irrational principles into dogma. And then the ultimate crisis struck.

Qutb's story now shifts to Arabia. In the seventh century, God delivered a new revelation to his prophet Muhammad, who established the correct, nondistorted relation to human nature that had always eluded the Christians. Muhammad dictated a strict new legal code, which put religion once more at ease in the physical world, except in a better way than ever before. Muhammad's prophecies, in the Koran, instructed man to be God's ''vice regent'' on earth -- to take charge of the physical world, and not simply to see it as something alien to spirituality or as a way station on the road to a Christian afterlife. Muslim scientists in the Middle Ages took this instruction seriously and went about inquiring into the nature of physical reality. And, in the Islamic universities of Andalusia and the East, the Muslim scientists, deepening their inquiry, hit upon the inductive or scientific method-- which opened the door to all further scientific and technological progress. In this and many other ways, Islam seized the leadership of mankind. Unfortunately, the Muslims came under attack from Crusaders, Mongols and other enemies. And, because the Muslims proved not faithful enough to Muhammad's revelations, they were unable to fend off these attacks. They were unable to capitalize on their brilliant discovery of the scientific method.

The Muslim discoveries were exported instead into Christian Europe. And there, in Europe in the 16th century, Islam's scientific method began to generate results, and modern science emerged. But Christianity, with its insistence on putting the physical world and the spiritual world in different corners, could not cope with scientific progress. And so Christianity's inability to acknowledge or respect the physical quality of daily life spread into the realm of culture and shaped society's attitude toward science.

As Qutb saw it, Europeans, under Christianity's influence, began to picture God on one side and science on the other. Religion over here; intellectual inquiry over there. On one side, the natural human yearning for God and for a divinely ordered life; on the other side, the natural human desire for knowledge of the physical universe. The church against science; the scientists against the church. Everything that Islam knew to be one, the Christian Church divided into two. And, under these terrible pressures, the European mind split finally asunder. The break became total. Christianity, over here; atheism, over there. It was the fateful divorce between the sacred and the secular.

Europe's scientific and technical achievements allowed the Europeans to dominate the world. And the Europeans inflicted their ''hideous schizophrenia'' on peoples and cultures in every corner of the globe. That was the origin of modern misery -- the anxiety in contemporary society, the sense of drift, the purposelessness, the craving for false pleasures. The crisis of modern life was felt by every thinking person in the Christian West. But then again, Europe's leadership of mankind inflicted that crisis on every thinking person in the Muslim world as well. Here Qutb was on to something original. The Christians of the West underwent the crisis of modern life as a consequence, he thought, of their own theological tradition -- a result of nearly 2,000 years of ecclesiastical error. But in Qutb's account, the Muslims had to undergo that same experience because it had been imposed on them by Christians from abroad, which could only make the experience doubly painful -- an alienation that was also a humiliation.

That was Qutb's analysis. In writing about modern life, he put his finger on something that every thinking person can recognize, if only vaguely -- the feeling that human nature and modern life are somehow at odds. But Qutb evoked this feeling in a specifically Muslim fashion. It is easy to imagine that, in expounding on these themes back in the 1950's and 60's, Qutb had already identified the kind of personal agony that Mohamed Atta and the suicide warriors of Sept. 11 must have experienced in our own time. It was the agony of inhabiting a modern world of liberal ideas and achievements while feeling that true life exists somewhere else. It was the agony of walking down a modern sidewalk while dreaming of a different universe altogether, located in the Koranic past -- the agony of being pulled this way and that. The present, the past. The secular, the sacred. The freely chosen, the religiously mandated -- a life of confusion unto madness brought on, Qutb ventured, by Christian error.

========================================

And if you've read this far, you might also be interested in this site which contains some material for and against BJP doctrines concerning Hinduism, society, individuals, etc.

Also bringing this in from Jagat. Hope you don't mind--it needed saving from the Vaisnava Wrestling Federation thread

QUOTE

I am permitting myself the following, though I wonder if this whole discussion is not moving away from Raganuga radically. Since I am not posting anywhere else these days, however, I will give a little free rein to my other interests.

Having said that, let me put it into context. I am trying to understand a recurring problem, namely our relation to Iskcon and the Gaudiya Math. There is a certain malaise that is rather complex. Let me post this first and return to the problem later.

We have been discussing "fascism." The following letter appeared in today's Globe and Mail, leading me to the book review that follows it. The connection of fascism to "the manly man" is certainly very relevant to Raganuga. I have contended in my articles, though perhaps these things are understated, that India in the 19th century was rejecting the effeminization of the Indian male, and this effeminization would have no more startling manifestation than in the idea of raganuga bhakti. Certainly Saraswati Thakur identified with this movement and therefore oriented his movement away from this particular expression of bhakti. Service to God becomes something different when vira-rasa predominates over madhurya.

There are subtle questions involved about "inner" and "outer" domains, but that can be discussed later.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Shadows of fascism

By VICKI DELANY

Oakville, Ont. -- In his excellent review of The Code of Man by Waller R. Newell, Doug Saunders is missing an important point: Fascism will not return in a form we recognize (A Return To The Manly Man? books, Dec. 6). There will be no Brown Shirts and swastikas, only the same ideas. One of the pillars of fascism is the worship of the supposedly manly virtues; the desire to recapture the mythic past, when men were untainted by the influence of women; the disparagement of weak, pacific women. It is certainly no accident that this book is so similar to the fascist writing of the twenties and thirties.

If real, modern warfare resembled Aragorn standing alone against a band of Orcs to protect little Frodo, then perhaps it would be as ennobling as Mr. Newell believes. But war really means mutilated children, raped women, mourning parents, ruined lives. And damaged men who, rather than relishing their glory, struggle the rest of their lives with what they experienced.

Have we learned nothing over the past century? I haven't read anything so terrifying in a long time.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A return to the manly man?

By DOUG SAUNDERS

A review of The Code of Man: Love Courage Pride Family Country By Waller R. Newell (ReganBooks/HarperCollins, 269 pages. $39.95)

Though he has cleverly disguised it as a self-help guide for young males, the author, a philosophy professor at Ottawa's Carleton University, has ended up writing a political manifesto whose contents are truly surprising. It goes without saying that this is a conservative book, given its subtitle of Love - Courage - Pride - Family - Country. But Waller Newell seems to have stepped outside of his time, and discovered, perhaps inadvertently, a form of conservatism that has not reared its head in seven or eight decades.

Newell's story begins on Sept. 11, 2001. In the three decades leading up to that date, he writes, the culture had become decadent, slothful, effete and unpatriotic. This, he says, was because an entire generation had grown up who had not known the ennobling virtues of the battlefield. Pacifism had taken root.

The world had "grown to believe that Americans were corrupt, lazy, self-indulgent and hedonistic, lacking conviction in our way of life and unwilling to defend it." There was a "crisis of manliness in America."

Sept. 11, he writes, proved that "the history of all civilizations and countries shows that war can spark a period of soul-searching, stocktaking, and moral regeneration."

Newell wants to use this regeneration as the starting point for the creation of a New Man and a New Nation. "It's not enough to mourn the passing of the good old days. We have to start with our current longings and reflect on how our lack of an adequate moral and erotic vocabulary gives us a road map for the journey back to the manly heart -- which is, of course, also a journey forward to the happiness for which we all long."

The rest of the book, with a chapter devoted to each word in the subtitle, provides an erudite and often very witty exegesis of 5,000 years of Great Books and recent popular culture, all intended to provide "a positive account of the manly virtues as the surest basis for educating young men to respect others and channel their spirited impulses into the duties of family life, friendship, and a vigorous moral citizenship."

And for Newell, "a vigorous moral citizenship" means a devotion to military courage, to the patriotic defence of the nation and its heroic leaders. While he expresses it in the language of liberal democracy, this view of manliness and heroism transcends the merely democratic. "Sometimes," he reflects toward the end of the book, "the true patriot must have the courage of character to stand up for his country at its best, even if that stance runs counter to the fake patriotism of an unreflecting conformism to the fashion or prejudices of the day."

Newell has, perhaps by accident, written a political tract almost identical in form and content to a genre that was almost ubiquitous throughout the Western world in the 1920s and '30s. These works began by noting that an entire generation had grown up that had not tasted the sacrifices of warfare, and that as a result the society had become decadent, corrupt and effete. The solution offered was a similar reclaiming of manhood through military courage, renegade patriotism, devotion to fatherhood and fatherland.

The similarities, chapter to chapter, are often striking. Here is Newell on the greatness of war: "In the pacifistic view of the world, peace is the normal condition, and war is the perversion. . . . Not only is it impossible to eradicate the warlike side of human nature but if we are in our right minds, we shouldn't even want to, for a country needs those aggressive traits to defend itself from external and internal predators. . . . As a consequence, we have come perilously close during the last thirty years to losing the sense that war can be ennobling."

And here is Benito Mussolini on the same topic: "Fascism believes neither in the possibility nor the utility of perpetual peace. It thus repudiates the doctrine of Pacifism -- born of a renunciation of the struggle and an act of cowardice in the face of sacrifice. War alone brings up to its highest tension all human energy and puts the stamp of nobility upon the peoples who have the courage to meet it."

I am not suggesting that Newell is a brownshirt. On almost every page, he denounces the Nazis and lionizes those who defeated them. He certainly has no racial or religious animus, listing Nelson Mandela and Martin Luther King Jr. among his Great Men, and celebrating a rather extreme form of Zionism. He is extremely tolerant of gays, even suggesting (perhaps inspired by his idol Plato) that all men carry some homosexuality.

But still he has managed, after immersing himself in the classics, to arrive at almost the same ideological point that thousands of people did in those portentous years of the 20th century. All that is missing is a call to follow the Great Leader -- although he does provide us with a list of men who should be worshipped, among them Teddy Roosevelt, Charles de Gaulle, John F. Kennedy and John McCain. If this is fascism, it carries a friendly face.

It isn't fascism, of course. Newell's outlook is far too postmodern to allow for that sort of utopian project. I'm referring to postmodernism in its original, unclouded meaning: the mechanics and ideologies of the modern age, shorn of their impulse toward utopia, toward the perfection of humanity. Newell's end goal is not a utopian society, but merely personal happiness and American greatness. You could call it "postmodern fascism," but that would be a contradiction in terms.

But it does share one thing with the old fascism: an enemy. For Waller Newell's world view is shot through with a disdain for women. He notes in passing that his book's values should apply to women, too, but then spends much of his time scorning that other sex and its contempt for male glory.

Of the heroic soldiers in Afghanistan, he writes, "there was no longer any silliness about finding 'gender-neutral' ways of describing them. They weren't 'persons.' They were men. They were not superior to women. But they did things that women simply could not do -- not only because women lack the physical strength but because their temperaments generally do not prepare them for combat to the same degree as does a man's."

He must have forgotten that the first bombing run in Afghanistan was conducted by a female pilot, and that thousands of other women fought heroically. That does not bear mentioning, since it would be another crack in Newell's formidable armour.

Doug Saunders is a columnist and writer on international affairs for The Globe and Mail.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

On reading this, I have the following spectrum of questions:

(1) Can the inner and outer world be separated? Can I be in my sadhaka deha a misogynist, while identifying as a female in my inner world? Are these not mutually contradictory? Are the two worlds not meant to inform each other? Or at least the internal the external? Or can we be "true men" on the outside, while being "manjaris" on the inside, with one having no real bearing on the other? And which of these two is more dangerous?

(2) If the answer is yes, that Raganuga is fundamentally opposed to "fascism" as above described, then is it not natural that we would feel exceedingly uncomfortable with the "heroic" spirit of the Iskcon/Gaudiya Math "war" on Maya?

I have to admit to a certain mixture of feelings about this, as I was in Iskcon for nine very formative years of my life. My beginnings in Raganuga were permeated by a martial spirit of competitiveness with the Iskcon/GM, which at present causes me deep, deep discomfort. Nevertheless, this spirit is very formative (samskara)--much of our spirit of solidarity arises from "fighting side by side in the sankirtan wars."

I'll have to leave it there for now.

--------------------

And also:

QUOTE

The problem of blurring of boundaries arise with Sahajiyaism. Krishna can be dhira-lalita and dhiroddhatta, dhirodata and dhira-prasanta all at once. The effeminization of the male is naturally associated with the desire to associate with women--to put oneself in proximity of female qualities and sensibilities. But this holistic approach is totally opposed to body/spirit dualism, where woman is associated with matter/desire/evil.

The perfect man, in Western thinking, is one who can be a Schwartzenegger in the outer sphere and a sensitive lover (if not a porno-star stud) and family man in the inner. Can both natures be cultivated?

Personally, I must admit to being totally confused and a failure on all identity fronts. Just being "me" seems an inadequate solution.

Unfortunately I can only supply biographical anecdotes in response, but maybe that is fitting?

I recall attending a wedding anniversary many years ago. A devotee couple had been married for twenty years, I believe, and a program was held to celebrate--certainly worthy of celebration considering the rarity of lasting marriages. A senior of that community got up and spoke and mentioned how marriage was great training for the spiritual world. Internally, my "brahmacari" heart recoiled at the thought. Surely he is confusing the mundane with the spiritual--how can the mess and motivated machinations of this world teach us of spirit?

>> Fast forward to the birth of my son and my view was totally changed. My crippled heart developed a glow of wonder and the world seemed suddenly Upanishadic, there was spirit everywhere--learning, love, humor, all in a fluid, synthesized state. My transformation was suspicious but too constant and complete for me to cynically dismiss. Many times I have feared "God"--would it all crash down around me, would God take my son's breath away and with it my limited sense of spirituality?

Damn. Maybe I'm actually soliciting public psycho-spritual analysis here rather than getting to the point...although getting there is likely to be disappointing anyway.

I had tasted this sense of communion with the world before, but not with such constancy. The stimuli were always of the same kind--going "out" into the world and finding it not a harsh place, not something that would rip my faith from me. Perhaps individually and institutionally I had become prone to erecting walls for defense rather than shelter and support, and forays into school, work, etc., disavowed me of the thought that two separate identities were needed. I can't speak of raganuga, which is beyond me and which necessarily has aspects of confidentiality, but I think that at an initial level for lesser practitioners there should not be a separation of indentity between public and private spheres, lest a schizoid persona or artificiality enters. Surely the energy spent on presenting a face different than your real face lessens your stand in both worlds?

If adopting a unified viewpoint of the private and public, inner and outer, the real problem however comes with how far one can go in a public sphere and still retain the identity and integrity that one has (hopefully) developed in the private sphere. (Given that private activities are part of sadhana and thus will always be a factor even if the distinction between private and public is eliminated.)

I'm getting too abstract for my own good here. Gotta go eat breakfast and lunch and then come back and hack this to pieces. Or not.

Just a word of warning on Rorty: he is about as atheistic as any philosopher can be!

For me this is useful in a thought-exercise, Occam's ('razor') principle: eliminate all non-essentials and what are you left with?

If this is painful, then don't read Rorty (yet!). He is good for when you reach the pit of existential despair: If everything you believed in appears to be false, what then? Humanity, beauty, culture, tenderness, human ingenuity...there is still enough there to be absolutely positive about life and religion too! (Jagat will be bemoaning my 'pantheistic' tendencies if he reads this...No, I am not being prescriptive: I believe in Mystery.)

One reason I am so 'pro-Hindu', Braja, is that it puts a lot of issues in perspective for me. Things like reproductive and gender issues become private matters, not for public discussion. I first encountered this more 'Hindu' approach amongst Gaudiya Math devotees, and realised that the Iskcon culture I had been used to was not the only Vaishnava way, more a product of specific formative influences and western or reformist cultures.

In response to Jagat's dillemma, I offer the plot of Clint Eastwood's recent movie 'Blood Work' as a metaphor of the modern Raganugiya (don't read this yet if you want to watch the movie for entertainment):

1. A grizzly old FBI man, in pursuit of his greatest nemesis (his Moriarty) collapses with a severe heart attack. Dirty ('make my day') Harry.

2. He wakes up later in hospital after receiving a heart transplant. Then goes to his yacht to recover in quiet retirement, he hopes.

3. An African American woman seeks him out, demanding he trace the vicious murderer of her young sister. 'Why me?'

4. 'Because you have her heart!'

What a wonderful poetic image!

Of course, 'Dirty Harry' succeeds in tracking down the killer, while experiencing a new inner tenderness, yet outwardly his masculine qualities are absolutely necessary to fulfill his worldly role, as the dead woman's sister makes clear. (He falls deeply in love with this woman whose sister's heart he carries, but of course! And the killer uses the woman as bait to try to trip him up- to protect her he must be strong and absolutely ruthless like the killer, otherwise he will fail in his duty to protect those who depend on him!)

There is some crossover between his outer 'masculine' and inner 'feminine', but when there's a job to be done, which only he can do, then like Arjuna (!), he gets on with it!

So...

"Raganuga -- A man's got to do what a man's got to do!"

Now that's something!

Dirty Harry Krishna.

QUOTE(adiyen @ Dec 9 2003, 03:43 PM)

One reason I am so 'pro-Hindu', Braja, is that it puts a lot of issues in perspective for me. Things like reproductive and gender issues become private matters, not for public discussion.

I used the term "reproductive rights" in another post regarding a Western creed for Gaudiya Vaisnavism that would be more in line with modern humanistic thought. (I picked up the term from my English teacher who is a rape crisis counselor and women's rights activist.) The idea as I understand it is that for true equality to take place a woman should not be hampered by society demanding that her body be defined by anyone apart from herself. She should therefore be free to control her body as she sees fit, including terminating pregnancy. Although the idea is probably repugnant to most Vaisnavas it (possibly) becomes more cloudy when you start to think of rape, the woman being at risk from the pregnancy, etc.

I really raised the issue just to illustrate that there is a huge gray area when you try to make a more universal creed.

Gender as a private issue in Hinduism? How so? Sati, Sita, sexism...leading right into the modern scourge of "eve teasing".

'Eve teasing' occurrs in Islamic and other Mediterranean cultures. It is not specific to Hindus. Most North Indians share Mediterranean traits. In the east and south of India there are other elements like Dravidian and Tibeto-Burmese.

Another ancient mediterranean trait is a strong belief in family honour, and hence a specific form of sexism, including honour killing and suicide. Indian 'Sati' is a highly contested issue, especially amongst Indian feminists! http://www.uni-hildesheim.de/beneke/cultur...can/5Jarman.pdf

True, these are all gray areas, and making universal creeds is very problematic. Also in all the above areas I am on the women's side, but I'm just not sure I know what that is. The women are still discussing it, while some prematurely claim to speak for, or in the interests of, all women.

In traditional Hinduism, all family matters are private, because they are determined by Jati-Dharma and Sva-Dharma. There simply are no universal rules, 'Sanatan Dharma' is wishful thinking without substance. At best it refers to the complex caste 'system'.

Sita is a model woman for Ram-bhaktas, but not necessarily for Shaktas, at least not till the British or perhaps the earlier Muslims (and the yet earlier South Indian Christians?) demanded some moral consistency from the Hindus.

Women's reproductive freedom repugnant to Vaishnavas? Actually I doubt most even presume to pass any judgements. That's my point. Traditional Hindus do indeed see it as a private matter.

An anecdote: I know women of a proud North Indian Kshatriya lineage who preserved their tradition generations after they travelled to Trinidad as indentured labourers, and it is the women in particular who are the strongest preservers of tradition. One aspect of this tradition is a unique type of dress: their Jati has never worn sari! (see Rajasthani traditional women's dress).

One woman, feeling she had been 'dishonoured' by her husband's adultery, bought a large load of firewood and piled it in the backyard. Without telling anyone, one day when her husband was at work, she ascended this pyre and burnt herself alive, in an extraordinary feat of willpower and courage. (Other women committed suicide by poisoning). She lived in a free western country. There was no social pressure on her, she could do what she liked. But, like the ancient Rajput women, she saw an honourable herioc death as much more desireable than an honourless life. Do we westerners even understand the depth of feelings involved?

These issues are profoundly complex.

QUOTE(adiyen @ Dec 9 2003, 07:46 PM)

Women's reproductive freedom repugnant to Vaishnavas? Actually I doubt most even presume to pass any judgements. That's my point. Traditional Hindus do indeed see it as a private matter.

Wow. OK, so now I can go back full circle and see your point expressed a couple of weeks back contesting the idea of a Gaudiya theology.

QUOTE(adiyen @ Dec 9 2003, 07:46 PM)

Indian 'Sati' is a highly contested issue, especially amongst Indian feminists! http://www.uni-hildesheim.de/beneke/cultur...can/5Jarman.pdf

Thanks for posting that link. Sometimes I wish I didn't "know" so much. Maybe disappear into one of those Chinese paintings of mountains, pines and bamboo--a simple old monk with a warm laugh.

Just a thought.
Why don't you guys ask someone who has realised their siddha deha and thus commutes in two worlds? Ask them how one identity affects the other? Do you know any siddhas you could ask this question to?

QUOTE

Braja: I recall attending a wedding anniversary many years ago. A devotee couple had been married for twenty years, I believe, and a program was held to celebrate--certainly worthy of celebration considering the rarity of lasting marriages. A senior of that community got up and spoke and mentioned how marriage was great training for the spiritual world. Internally, my "brahmacari" heart recoiled at the thought. Surely he is confusing the mundane with the spiritual--how can the mess and motivated machinations of this world teach us of spirit?

My wife and I have been married for over 30 years. I can perhaps offer a little insight into this devotee's comment. One thing we learn from a healthy marriage (which, for most of us takes much constant work) is how to love, how to give unconditionally. Yes, the loving and giving are not perfect and are not complete, but we can grow emotionally through the experience. And to the extent we try to center the marriage on helping each other cultivate bhakti, we can grow spiritually. It may be that this speaker's comment was a little hyperbolic, but I can see some sense in what he said.

QUOTE(bhaktashab @ Dec 10 2003, 05:05 AM)

Just a thought.
Why don't you guys ask someone who has realised their siddha deha and thus commutes in two worlds? Ask them how one identity affects the other? Do you know any siddhas you could ask this question to?

Who will come forward, "Oh, I have realized my siddha deha"? No-one will.

Edited version.

I think that the shastras are constantly talking about this, but there is not and cannot be a single solution.

I am thinking pragmatically here. The private and public spheres obviously cannot be separated too extremely. The Mafia don, who callously murders in one sphere while being a loving father and family man in the other, is the example of this split. And yet, a certain romance has developed out of the genre of Mafia literature and film that almost justifies this kind of separation. Like Tony Soprano, who sees himself as carrying on the tradition of a Roman warrior, and doing everything so that his children will have the best opportunities--even "living the American dream." A certain complicity with the Catholic church, etc.

This split is what we generally call hypocrisy.

The other extreme is the one we could call "hyper-scandalization." We saw something of this back in the early 70's when Balavanta ran for mayor of Atlanta. The campaign was based on "personal integrity." When issues become so complex that the general public feels incompetent to decide, decisions are based on a perception of personal integrity--Is the man a faithful husband? Does he believe in God? He must be O.K. then. On the other hand, if the man is a womanizer or a professed atheist, he becomes unelectable (Clinton being the exception to the rule in part 1, but even he did not dare say religion is a load of crap!)

The purpose of the inner transformation has to be to transform the outer world. This is not as easy as it sounds, mainly because the inner transformation is so hard to realize. The purpose of inner transformation on the personal level has to be integration of the two worlds. The proof of this is "the Vaishnava qualities." We expect a Vaishnava to be humble, kind to all creatures, etc., etc.

I have no time to do this thoroughly now, but I touched on some of these themes in this article: The Tao of Krishna Consciousness

I do want to say something else though: Varnashram is a code word for the "external world." The idea of Varnashram in Western Vaishnava circles has been so much abused by the failure to understand what it could be taken to mean in truly practical terms as a universal principle, rather than as one that is purely culturally defined. Reduced to the lowest common denominator, Varnashram can be equated to the ideas of "vocation" and "work ethic."

In the time of Chaitanya and the Goswamis, the Hindus could absolve themselves of social management to a greater or lesser extent. The same was true under British rule. Remember Bhaktivinoda Thakur's famous apology for British rule--"They are freeing us to do bhajan while they manage society for us."

Sorry. These thoughts will have to die an early death. Perhaps to be resurrected again later.

QUOTE(Madhava @ Dec 10 2003, 01:02 PM)

QUOTE(bhaktashab @ Dec 10 2003, 05:05 AM)

Just a thought.
Why don't you guys ask someone who has realised their siddha deha and thus commutes in two worlds? Ask them how one identity affects the other? Do you know any siddhas you could ask this question to?

Who will come forward, "Oh, I have realized my siddha deha"? No-one will.

Yes good point.

And even if anyone did know of some it would probably not be appropriate to publish their names on the internet.

QUOTE(Jagat @ Dec 10 2003, 08:36 AM)

I do want to say something else though: Varnashram is a code word for the "external world." The idea of Varnashram in Western Vaishnava circles has been so much abused by the failure to understand what it could be taken to mean in truly practical terms as a universal principle, rather than as one that is purely culturally defined. Reduced to the lowest common denominator, Varnashram can be equated to the ideas of "vocation" and "work ethic."

Yes!

Until a recent foray into the Buddhist concept of dharma constituents (atomic level) and forcing myself to watch a series on string theory, I hadn't solidified my thoughts on VA. The universality of it is a crucial factor and it can be viewed from several levels, e.g. seeing common traits across cultures, such as studies comparing specific cultures with those of India--I've seen Celtic, Slavic, Maori and maybe a few others, or more general, such as seeing that marriage is a common institution the world over, that there are philospohers and priests, business people, workers, etc., in all cultures.

So long as it is something alien, imposed, "religious," etc., Vedic varnasrama loses power and becomes an arena for abuse. It is something natural and meant for the simultaneous comfort and upliftment of humankind. It is not centered on hierarchy, repression, or abuse. Unfortunately it has become associated with that. I once attended a series of classes on Manu-samhita given by BV Purna Maharaja. His explanations were quite radical but at the same time made sense to me. For instance he was asked about the varna of a woman, which was a topic of discussion at the time on ISKCON COM. He became quite animated in his response, asking the inquirer, "Do you know how much love a father has for his daughter whereby she has taken on his nature?" His whole premise was that the culture was one of love and protection. Wishful thinking?

ACBSP was once asked by a disciple, "What is my varna?" to which he replied, "What do you like to do?" I think it really is that simple, understanding of course that there is still a ... teaching environment in the work or role that you identify with. What I mean by this is that we exist in a realm of entropy and need both a push and a pull, we need reminders, goals, standards, to do lists. Discarding the interpolations, obsolescencies (?) and the like, the scriptural references on these matters are meant to provide that stimulation.

Of course in the superificiality of the age, it is easier to learn some mudras and mantras than to develop equanimity, tolerance, etc., the real "work" of a brahmana.

Maybe some will think I'm using rose colored glasses here, but I can't reject something so central to the culture seen in the Bhagavatam. Perhaps if the creed were redeveloped from the ground up it might make more sense: "If you've got money, use it righteously," "If you need to have sex, get married."

By not adopting the uplifting aspects of a culture that is built around the concept of spiritual advancement, the danger is that while you may certainly be able to take care of your own spiritual needs, what of those of your children or your wider community? You could truly become effiminate in that your participation and your work in this world has very little effect (apart from your own sadhana and whatever influence that may have on others). The arhat versus the boddhisattva.

Anyway, I'm getting swept up in my own reverie here. In his Tao article, Jagat writes:

QUOTE

This is why followers of Ramakrishna and Vivekananda in the West were "armchair philosophers." They had no need to adopt any Hindu cultural values because their philosophy told them that any kind of cultural attachment -- forms and names -- was relative and therefore inconsequential. To a certain extent, the same applies to Buddhism, though similar emotional factors and cultural features also play a big role in the rise of Buddhism in the West.

Can Gaudiya Vaisnavism do the same thing? Or will we see bumper stickers that say "What would Mahaprabhu do?" I don't think GV can be so sedate and still prosper. The bling bling culture is too strong.

So, if varnashrama is merely a matter of universal, natural division of occupational work, then I can't see why people speak about "establishing" it anywhere. In the West, we already have the priests and philosophers, we have the politicians and the military, we have the businessmen and we have the working class.

Does preaching varnashrama then mean that we go to the workers and tell them that they are actually called sudras in Sanskrit, and we go to the businessmen and tell them that they are actually called vaishyas in Sanskrit, and so forth? Now that would be preaching!

*Sigh* That's what's missing. Send out some tough guys on hairyman sankirtana.

(Hey, you deleted your post, Ramdasji? Ah well. I saw it for a few seconds.)

QUOTE(Madhava @ Dec 10 2003, 02:52 PM)

So, if varnashrama is merely a matter of universal, natural division of occupational work, then I can't see why people speak about "establishing" it anywhere. In the West, we already have the priests and philosophers, we have the politicians and the military, we have the businessmen and we have the working class.

Because no one does it better than the Bhagavatam. ™

While the divisions and concepts are common, the purpose and subtletly is generally ill-defined or non-existent in other cultures, e.g. the vaisya is glorified, particularly in the US, but there is little or no limit placed on greed. The natural environment, workers, politicians, etc., can all be ignored or bought. In the Vedic concept, not only is natural work promoted but so are limits. It is an age and disposition appropriate learning environment. The West suffers from your oft quoted half-hen philosophy.

QUOTE

Does preaching varnashrama then mean that we go to the workers and tell them that they are actually called sudras in Sanskrit, and we go to the businessmen and tell them that they are actually called vaishyas in Sanskrit, and so forth? Now that would be preaching!

Sure, Sanskrit names can do wonders for people.

ACBSP seemed to preach varnasrama to the converted. His farms were meant to be the places were it was established. Ya know, farm -> guinea pigs.

Apart from that, VA principles can be applied or disseminated individually or collectively where appropriate to people wanting betterment and identity. I don't think posters on the factory wall, nor fortune cookie messages, nor cold calling will help. The principle is one of alignment, so having disaligned proselytizers isn't the right means.

QUOTE(braja @ Dec 10 2003, 09:24 PM)

Because no one does it better than the Bhagavatam. ™

While the divisions and concepts are common, the purpose and subtletly is generally ill-defined or non-existent in other cultures, e.g. the vaisya is glorified, particularly in the US, but there is little or no limit placed on greed. The natural environment, workers, politicians, etc., can all be ignored or bought. In the Vedic concept, not only is natural work promoted but so are limits. It is an age and disposition appropriate learning environment. The West suffers from your oft quoted half-hen philosophy.

If we take the model of the Bhagavatam for varnasrama, you're in for a hell of a show. Particularly if you're planning to implement the asramas in the Bhagavata-style.

Since we probably agree that it is an absurd idea to try to create a replica of the Bhagavata-version of varnasrama, we must consider an appropriate application for the modern age.

What do you suggest?

The whole point of varnasrama is to engage in your occupational duties in awareness of God and of a higher purpose underlying our daily work. Therefore, let us enlighten the world:

dharmasya hy Apavargyasya nArtho ’rthAyopakalpate |
nArthasya dharmaikAntasya kAmo lAbhAya hi smRtaH || Bhag 1.2.9 ||

"Occupational duties are for liberation, not for the purpose of acquiring wealth; it is known that the wealth of one engaged in dharma ought not to be used for fulfilling one's whims."

kAmasya nendriya-prItir lAbho jIveta yAvatA |
jIvasya tattva-jijJAsA nArtho yaz ceha karmabhiH || Bhag 1.2.10 ||

"The purpose of one's deeds ought not to be the fulfilment of sensual desires; one should acquire as much as is needed for one's sustenance, and inquire into the truth of the nature of the jiva."

Tell that to people, and you have your varnasrama there. Sixty-four syllables, that's about as much effort as I'm going to put into establishing varnasrama.

Even discussing varnashram is just a waste of time and energy. It may help some to study the underlying doctrine, such as we find in the Gita and Bhagavata, but any talk of it being in any way implementable is patently absurd. As far as the supposed advanced level of civilization in so-called 'previous ages', that is not a foregone conclusion and archaeological evidence gives us a very different picture. Would any reasonable person believe that people were twelve feet tall and had lifespans of a thousand years in the age known as dvApara-yuga? I think not. So, how do you expect them to believe that such were the conditions in ancient times and that there was this utopian society organized on the principles of four divisions? The statistic I saw the other day is that there are still 42 million people living in slavery in the world today. It was much worse in ancient times, as we can see from the history of Hebrews being enslaved in Egypt and so many other cases. No, people - varnashram is NOT the answer. Democracy may have its flaws, but it works far better than anything else that has been tried before. Pretty good for an experiment devised by politicians and statesmen, I would have to say.

QUOTE(Madhava @ Dec 10 2003, 04:58 PM)

Occupational duties are for liberation not for the purpose of acquiring wealth

Ah, so I'm meant to be poor or a monk? I hope it doesn't mean poor because then my wife complains and our lives becomes hellish. I can't even sit down to chant when that happens. And actually, I kinda like having money.

And what do you mean by occupational duties? Emptying the trash can before I lock up on Friday night?I thought the new guy should have had that duty as I had to do it when I first joined the company.

QUOTE

it is known that the wealth of one engaged in dharma ought not to be used for fulfilling one's whims.

Dharma--what's that? Seems like it's something I'm supposed to have in order for it to be something that I'm not supposed to misuse the results of. Guess if I don't have it, I can't misuse it. I can taste the freedom now.

QUOTE

The purpose of one's deeds ought not to be the fulfilment of sensual desires

"Ought not" is nice but to be honest, my sensual desires are too strong. Isn't there still some place for me?

QUOTE

Tell that to people, and you have your varnasrama there. Sixty-four syllables, that's about as much effort as I'm going to put into establishing varnasrama.

I don't think you do have VA there, unless the recipient is either thoroughly integrated or already advanced. The Bhagavatam presupposes a cultural backdrop. If someone can actually connect with those verses, then they don't need VA for they have accomplished its purpose.

Although I'm being argumentative here, I do agree with you in principle. It was rejected by Caitanya Mahaprabhu as external and its role is therefore dubious. But the lack of sub-religious principles and dearth of a social/cultural backdrop is something that devastated ISKCON, IMO. And I am convinced that the same issues will always arise when Vaisnavism meets the West on any scale larger than the individual and possibly the family.

QUOTE(Ananga @ Dec 10 2003, 05:50 PM)

Even discussing varnashram is just a waste of time and energy. It may help some to study the underlying doctrine, such as we find in the Gita and Bhagavata, but any talk of it being in any way implementable is patently absurd. As far as the supposed advanced level of civilization in so-called 'previous ages', that is not a foregone conclusion and archaeological evidence gives us a very different picture. Would any reasonable person believe that people were twelve feet tall and had lifespans of a thousand years in the age known as dvApara-yuga? I think not. So, how do you expect them to believe that such were the conditions in ancient times and that there was this utopian society organized on the principles of four divisions? The statistic I saw the other day is that there are still 42 million people living in slavery in the world today. It was much worse in ancient times, as we can see from the history of Hebrews being enslaved in Egypt and so many other cases.

Ramdas,

If you don't mind me asking: What do you take from the Bhagavatam--just Krishna lila? Do you "believe" in the demons he encounters? That he lifted Govardhana? Where do you draw the line of believable/unbelievable?

(One children's book I saw in India had Krishna finding a cave on the side of Govardhana to shelter the brajabasis from the torrential rain.)

QUOTE

No, people - varnashram is NOT the answer. Democracy may have its flaws, but it works far better than anything else that has been tried before. Pretty good for an experiment devised by politicians and statesmen, I would have to say.

There was a funny incident when ACBSP went to New Vrindaban and set up the management there. Kirtanananda thought he would be in charge as he was a sannyasi but I think Hayagriva was appointed as the manager or TP. And then ACBSP went on to appoint a board along with some kind of voting system for the appointments. Kirtanananda replied, "But Prabhupada, that is democracy!"

"Yes," he replied, "this is the age of."

QUOTE(braja @ Dec 10 2003, 10:51 PM)

Although I'm being argumentative here, I do agree with you in principle. It was rejected by Caitanya Mahaprabhu as external and its role is therefore dubious. But the lack of sub-religious principles and dearth of a social/cultural backdrop is something that devastated ISKCON, IMO. And I am convinced that the same issues will always arise when Vaisnavism meets the West on any scale larger than the individual and possibly the family.

We here are such a small sample that we have little collective practical experience so far.

But, Braja, there have been several Gaudiyaite instutions operating in the west for decades, and Iskcon is the only openly 'Varnashram' one.

The rest are usually integrated as normal members of the society they are in, and come out as Vaishnavas at weekly kirtan meetings, or in their homes in morning puja : it's already happening.

I was a GMath member outside Iskcon for 15 years. No Varnashram, no intrusive rules. Just be a good person, and be a good Vaishnava when visiting the Temple or associating with other devotees. We often met in each other's homes for kirtan and prasad. We sent our kids to normal schools. We participated in our communities without drawing attention to the fact that 'We are Vaishnavas, look at us'

We also got on each other's case sometimes, and had a few fights and scandals, but association was voluntary, so there was not uniform pressure to conform.

I have 15 years experience of this. Sometimes it was harder without a group of devotees around all the time for support. But in the same way, without a bunch of politics going on it was also easier, as you can imagine!

My GMath guru never asked about our married life, it was our private affair. Meanwhile when Iskconites visit, they have to check the bedrooms, 'Oh you sleep in a double bed (shock horror!). Oh you don't call all the neighbours demons? You let your kids be normal teenagers? You encourage them to go to the 'slaughterhouse' of university?...'

For years we were afraid to visit the Iskcon temple, we would be scorned as 'bloopers' or renegades. The first Gaur-purnima at home (before we joined GMath) we felt so guilty. But then we cooked and offered nice bhoga, had our own arati kirtan. It was so nice we actually started to prefer our own home programs. Now Iskcon has changed and we have revived our friendships there, and enjoy visiting their temples too.

Mind you, if I was really sincere I could offer my dandabat to everyone I meet in the street and the local grocer. I think they might worry about my sanity, though!

QUOTE(braja @ Dec 10 2003, 11:03 PM)

There was a funny incident when ACBSP went to New Vrindaban and set up the management there. Kirtanananda thought he would be in charge as he was a sannyasi but I think Hayagriva was appointed as the manager or TP. And then ACBSP went on to appoint a board along with some kind of voting system for the appointments. Kirtanananda replied, "But Prabhupada, that is democracy!"

"Yes," he replied, "this is the age of."

It always disturbed me how readily many of BVPrabhupad's top followers assumed that he wanted authoritarianism, while BVP himself was quite ambiguous.

Even recently, I met Bir Krishna Swamiji and he was complaining that 'there should be full employment'. With respect to the Swamiji, such a thing is a feature of the totalitarian state and modern liberal states always have a certain amount of workers in transition. This redistribution in response to changing factors is more efficient in managing scarce resources and is hence better for the natural environment (compare China or USSR). Also with modern welfare system, unemployment is not painful (I know!).

Another anecdote, with apologies to Tarun. Harikesh and some of his German followers had funny ideas about Varnashram. I remember a Parikram party in Mayapur 20 years ago. These big German Brahmacaris had all bought Indian lathis. They stood on either side of the party, the usual Indian anarchy, but these self-appointed 'Ksatriyas' would brandish their lathis so we would form orderly lines! I wondered what they would do if we broke ranks, beat the devotees?

Again I remember Bhavananda appearing on TV to advocate summary execution for drug dealers. 'Shoot them in the head!' He also gave classes condeming homosexuals as deserving to die from AIDS (which several of his disciples in fact did). Rather sad when he later admitted his own sexual preferences and moral weakness.

Hailing from New Zealand, I have experienced the comfort of a social welfare system; having lived in the United States for the past few years, I have come to despise that weak-kneed, yellow-bellied approach to life. Everyone mu$t work, even when it is not fea$isbly po$$ible. It only cost me $2000 to take my son to emergency a couple of months back. And I was lucky to get a good sale on pneumonia last year--$2100.

There is some saying about a fanatic being someone who wants to share his misery with others, but I won't launch into a diatribe onto the joys of scratching out an existence in second most competitive economy in the world (Finland first) or Gandhi's sin of wealth without work.

Can't find the actual quote now about the fanatic sharing misery, but these are pretty cool too:

A person who is fanatic in matters of religion, and clings to certain ideas about the nature of God and the universe becomes a person who has no faith at all. Instead they are holding tight. But the attitude of faith is to let go, and become open to truth, whatever it might turn out to be.
—Alan Watts

A fanatic is a man that does what he thinks th' Lord wud do if He knew th' facts iv th' case. - Finley Peter Dunne, American humorist (1867-1936)

That Qutb article earlier in the thread was really interesting
Braja The Junior, Fanatic (2003)

A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject.
Sir Winston Churchill

And on that appropriate note, I'll drop the subject, instead pledging to remain around for the next few hundred years to take notes on exactly how varnasrama does or does not influence the course of history.

QUOTE(braja @ Dec 11 2003, 03:01 AM)

A person who is fanatic in matters of religion, and clings to certain ideas about the nature of God and the universe becomes a person who has no faith at all. Instead they are holding tight. But the attitude of faith is to let go, and become open to truth, whatever it might turn out to be.
—Alan Watts

BRAVO!