Harimedia Forum

Haribol!
I have a question to Hari.
Do you still agree with all the ideas that you've represented in this book?
It was published at first a long time ago, in 1981.
Thank you in advance for the answer.

You are from the Ukraine, so you are reading the Russian version. The Russian version is very badly translated and has little connection to the original, so you are not getting it properly.

I think Varnashrama is a fine system and had ISKCON taken it seriously, it could have helped create a society that was useful for all members. My presentation might have had faults, but the basic idea was useful.

Today, I am not interested in presenting anything in relation to ISKCON or to its philosophy and therefore am not interested in discussions that are restricted to the varnasrama system. However, I feel that the basic principles of varnasrama are very useful. These principles can revolutionize interaction between people. The implementation of these principles is difficult and if this system is not accepted or useable within ISKCON, an organization that professes to follow the Indian systems, then there is little hope it can be implemented outside of ISKCON.

So there is little use of the entire idea, IMHO.

Why do you think it's badly translated? For my opinion it's adequate.

Did you compare it with the original english version line by line? Others compared it and found it lacking.

What I like about Varnasrama:

* It openly clarifies the fact that people are different and feel most comfortable in a work that suits their nature. I feel that a lot of anxiety is created in modern society when we all struggle with being something we are not. This system allows everyone to understand the inherent relationships between individuals who share some basic qualities and differ in others. There is nothing hidden about it, nothing behind the scenes. Modern societies speak about equality, yet under the surface there is a raging current of class distinction, elitism and differentiation. At least Varnasrama is honest and open about it. Makes it easier to accept, easier to deal with, and to more openly resolve differences.

* It professes to give appreciation, acknowledgement, acceptance and gratitude to everyone in the society regardless of their position. It gives the means for this to occur, although it does not always do so. Indeed, how this functions is related to the quality of the individuals within the society. No ideal can change human nature and since a lot of humans are not evolved enough to see that there is only one of us performing functions within one society meant for the benefit of all, we have individual exploitation. This leads to disrespect, abuse, and all forms of unwanted social interactions.

* It is also flexible and allows for individuation within the four broad social classifications.

* It is open to discussion, debate, and clarification.

I cannot say there is much I do not like about the system in its pure form. However, we see that it has existed in a somewhat "pure" form, or at least a form where people were happy and prosperous, only when a Rajarsi ran the society. A successful society depends on a good leader. Nowadays this is rare, not only because the political system does not encourage idealism and breeds servants of the entities that place the elected in power, bit also because many of those who should guide the development of society, the educated and influential intellectuals, are themselves motivated in ways that are not always beneficial to others. Sure, this is due mainly to the all pervasiveness of money and power that influences education, research and social directions, but without clear minds and strong independent thought, one cannot implement social egalitarianism. In short, while the system is good, the implementers of it are not so good. And as there are many groups and individuals dedicated to blocking anything that reduces their power and influence, it is highly unlikely any substantial social change can take place that does not benefit those who make things happen behind the scenes in this world.

I suppose I wrote that book hoping that it would spark interest within ISKCON to be the leaders of the social transformation according to the system and wisdom of the vedic times. Perhaps I was trying to create a rallying call for transformative change? Perhaps I looked into the future of ISKCON and saw that without this direction, there would be no attainment of the vision of assisting the world to find peace and prosperity in a God Centered society?