Money And Varnashrama Essay

[Greg Jay]

Dear Prabhus, PAMHO AGTSP

I just finished reading Money and Varnashram essay which was not signed but which I assume was written by Dhanesvara prabhu.

Here are my comments (IN BRACKETS):

Money and Varnashrama Culture

Money, that ubiquitous substance that everyone the world over pursues to fulfill their desires, is rather young in the history of the world—a mere 2,500 years or so old. Prior to that there was no such thing as we now understand it anywhere on this planet. The earliest form of money found in India was that of the Greeks, and is estimated to have arrived there not before the fifth century BCE. Prior to that time all trade was done by barter exchange. There was no notion of “the economy”, and such a thing was certainly not the focus of everyone as it is today.

(These are all assumptions ONLY. Based on Modern Scientific and Historical data. We have to ask the question as to what methods and data do we accept as authority. I'm not saying that we should not accept scientific data but the question has to be asked as to why we accept it in some cases and reject it in other cases? A consistent understanding must be build on a consistent epistemology. Vaisnava epitemology is based on accepting the three pramanas or proofs pratyaksha/sense perception, anumana/inference and sabda meaning the views of authorities like guru, sadhu and sastra.)

Often when I make this point someone will cite the fact that Balarama wagered gold coins in His chess gambling match with Rukmi, and that this is therefore “proof” that money was in India at that time.

(Indeed in my last email addressing HH Sivarama Swami's Hungarian farm project, I have quoted these slokas from the Bhagavatam.)

 While coins may well have been crafted as a convenient way to handle gold, those coins did not serve as a medium of exchange as money does today.

(This view is offered without any proof what so ever. It is therefore speculation. It may be true or not, but it needs some proof otherwise it is only a theory.)

 Indeed, in the KRSNA Book (Chapter 11) Srila Prabhupada explains that in those days trade was done by exchange: “Upon hearing the vendor call, ‘If anyone wants fruits, please come and take them from me!’ child Krishna immediately took some grains in His palms and went to get fruits in exchange. In those days exchange was by barter; therefore Krishna might have seen His parents acquire fruits and other things by bartering grain, and so He imitated.”

(The example of a child offering some grains in exchange for some fruit does not in itself prove that ALL COMMERCE was performed by the barter and trade system. Even today some people barter and trade some items in some circumstances. It does not mean all commerce is performed this way. What we need is evidence that it was the prevailing system. Indeed the author suggests that it was the ONLY system. This cannot be substantiated on such flimsy evidence.)

Understanding this point is essential for our correct understanding of how the varnashrama culture operated, because we often hear devotees assuming it to be the case that money was a feature of Vedic society.

(No reason is given for this assumption. It is simply tacked onto the previous unproven assumption. The two parts of this sentence are unrelated. It is not because devotees believe or do not believe that money was used in Vedic society that it is an essential point to understand varnashram culture. The author makes an assumption that money is not part of varnashram culture and then suggests that this is an important reason devotees do not understand varnashram.)

 It was not, and there are important reasons for that. We will come back to money and varnashrama culture below, but let’s first look at how varnashrama culture functioned.

Varnashrama culture functioned by the cooperative effort of all segments of society.

(All societies function by cooperative efforts of all segments of society)

 From the Bhagavad-gita we learn that people are divided into categories known as varnas, and that each group would work according to their guna and karma, or their own nature. Many people have experience of the great satisfaction achieved by doing work that they genuinely like to do, which is another way of saying that it is according to their guna and karma.

(Good observation. I agree.)

 Each varna had their “duties,” which are explained in the dharma shastras. In the varnashrama culture members would voluntarily do this duty understanding that doing so would lead them to a heavenly reward and a higher birth in their next incarnation. Further, the ksatriya was tasked with seeing that everyone had proper engagement.

(Yes, the King was charged with this overall. But also all Dvijas were responsible to the Sudras they were responsible for.)

This protected both the individual as well as the group. Their duties were typically performed in cooperation with others, each person reciprocating the service of others with his own service.

We can get some insights into the social dynamics of the varnashrama culture from Bhakti Vikasa Maharaja’s description of Bangladeshi culture in his book Glimpses of Traditional Indian Village Life. There he writes: 

“Bangladeshi culture does not promote individual dynamism, competitiveness, or the type of efficiency required for technological advancement. Rather, although not uninterested in economic development, a Bangladeshi is more concerned to preserve the indigenous group culture that fosters the sharing and cooperativeness necessary for a traditional labor-intensive agrarian society... Necessity also dictates maintaining good relationships with neighbors. Most people aren’t well situated economically, so those who have more are expected to help those with less. It’s a culture of sharing and responsibility toward others... Bangladeshis emphasize dependence on others and a sense of group identity. They usually say “our house” and “our country” rather than “my house” or “my country.”... The group lends support when a member is in difficulty, whether moral, social, or economic. Reciprocally, members have obligation to the group, one of which is conformity. In fact, the pressure to maintain fellowship with the group is extremely strong. In this way the group regulates the behavior of its members, keeping them within the bounds of acceptable conduct.”

(Bangladesh would not be my example of varnashram. It is mainly a muslim country. I suggest that if you want to prove this point, which is a nice point about shared responsibility, you should find a hindu culture in India that fosters this. I think many small Indian villages do have this sort of cooperative spirit in them. I do not doubt the point but simply suggest a better example should be found that is more applicable to Varnashram. If for example you can show that all hindu village culture in India works this way then you have made a valuable point.)

I want to underscore that efforts that were made to maintain the group dependency, because individual members falling away from the group would threaten the survival of the entire group. 

(Another assumption without examples or proof. You have to give some examples and proof. Also explain the negative and positive consequences of social apostasy.)

Although I do not know that varnashrama culture is intact amongst these Bangladeshis it is not unreasonable to extrapolate their experience to varnashrama culture, since it must also have been a labor-intensive culture that depended on the support of the group.

(Another assumption. You assume that all labor intensive cultures are dependent on a group support system. Is your idea the more intensive the labor in a culture, the more group support is fostered?)

Varnashrama culture also functions on the basis of such mutual dependence.

(See above. All cultures function on the basis of mutual dependence.)

 The varnashrama culture is often compared to a social machine, and if important parts are removed from the machine it cannot function.

(Actually it is not compared to a machine. It is originally compared to the body in the Vedic purusha sukta. The brahmin are the head, the ksatriyas the arms, the vaishyas the stomach and the sudras the legs or feet. Why not say so and quote the verse. No scholar would dare to talk about Varnashram and not quote this sloka from the Veda.)

We learn from the Bhagavatam how the varnashrama culture began to disintegrate with the fall of the brahminical class, then later the ksatriya class, and now it is the vaisya class that is wreaking havoc all over the world.

(Give some quotes to support this. Also it might be worth mentioning that in Satya Yuga there was no Varnashram. There was only one Varna and everyone was living a sattvic life. So Varnashram itself only came about in the next age Treta yuga.)

Adding Money to Varnashrama Culture 

(The heading presupposes that there was no money. Something which I think you have yet to prove.)

What would happen if money is added to a mutually-dependent group such as the Bangladeshis or varnashrama culture?

(There is money in Bangladesh and you have yet to prove that there was no money or equivalent in Vedic society)

 Let’s consider the influence of money. Typically money makes us feel independent of others because money allows us to purchase our necessities in the market.

(To some extent. If we have enough money we feel independent if we do not then we feel stressed. If we had enough grains, or other products the feelings would be the same. When the farmer has more than enough grains to eat and to trade and still has enough for seed crop then he also feels independent. So what? Try to explain specifically how money is different from commodities.)

This gives us a sense of freedom which we have come to value in modern society.

(Explain why one would not have the same sense of freedom from storing excess commodities?)

The result is that when a person has money, they don’t need others and don’t have to conform to the group standard. 

(Not quite true. You still need others to provide a market to exchange the money for goods)

They are free to act independently.

(Why is it that people today have money and yet do not feel free to act independently? Explain more clearly what you mean. Also explain exactly why feeling free to act independently is a bad thing. Prabhupada says Sudras and Women are never given independence, but he has never said that others/dvija men can't have at least some independence. In fact especially Brahmins are known to act independently.)

If I have money I don’t need you. And if you have money you don’t need me. It should not be too difficult to see that the effect of money is to destroy the group solidarity of the mutually-dependent cultures, which in turn destroys the culture itself.

(Another assumption. Indian culture has endured for millenia with money and with independent dvijas. I could rephrase the sentence above as follows "We have always had slaves, our culture will fall apart without slaves" Prabhupada admits that the lowest class and women must not be given independence but the assumption that everyone should be dependent is not warranted or proved.)

We have a recent example of this from the formerly isolated area of Ladakh.

Anthropologist Helena Norberg-Hodge, was the first foreigner accepted to make her home in Ladakh (Kashmir). She had the privilege of living there over the course of three decades, coming to know life in the traditional villages before the intrusion of Western culture. She documented what it was like both before and after the influx of the West, and how the Ladakhi culture was destroyed. She writes:

“A Western tourist can spend more [money] in a day than what a Ladakhi family might in one year. Seeing this, Ladakhis suddenly felt poor. The new comparison created a gap that never existed before because in traditional Ladakh, people didn’t need money in order to lead rich and fulfilling lives. Ladakhi society was based on mutual aid and cooperation; no one needed money for labor, food, clothing, or shelter...In the traditional economy, Ladakhis knew that they had to depend on other people, and that others in turn depend on them. In the new economic system, local interdependence disintegrates along with traditional levels of tolerance. In place of cooperative systems meeting needs, competition and scarcity become determinants for survival.” 

(A good example. Did Ladakh have money before when it was isolated from the West? If YES then it is not the money but the break in isolation from the dominant world culture that is the real problem. How can you solve the problem of isolation? HH Sivarama Swami solves this problem by not allowing TV, Radio, Internet, etc. This is like Saudi Arabia or North Korea. Eventually though people will be influenced by the dominant world culture. The only real way that they would not be is if that culture collapses. Many devotees pray for this. However this is misguided in my opinion because a total collapse of the dominant world culture would bring about attacks on the defenseless devotee culture. So if isolation is a prerequisite to preserving culture then there will be two classes of devotees as in HH Sivarama Swami's system. The first class will live in the dominant world culture and preach. Whoever they preach to and convert must then choose whether to stay in the dominant world culture and either work or preach, or otherwise go into cultural isolation. The problem with this is that the offspring/2nd generation who are produced in isolation will not have the resources or choice to rejoin the dominant culture if they do not want to follow the devotee culture in isolation. They will have no money, no education and will not know how the dominant culture works. Thus they will become for better or worse indentured laborers in the isolated devotee culture. There is nothing wrong with this as long as they and their leaders remain happy. But unlike their parents if they do something wrong or ever desire to leave the devotee culture or even decide they want to live in the city and preach they would have a very hard time. I see Sivarama Swami's system eventually leading to two rival sects of devotees. The city devotees will not want to collect money to spend on the farm project for it's expansion once the seed capital of the 1st generation is all invested. There will be no way for the 2nd generation farm devotees to earn that money. They can't trade surplus food for more land, they will have to convert it to money which is banned. Once they know that they have to convert their excess produce into money to buy more land to supply land and homes for the 2nd generation there will be competition between those who produce the excess products and those who serve the deities and do not directly produce the excess products. Unless every person is completely selfless the system is bound to collapse eventually as long as there is an outside dominant culture. City devotees will not pay for this necessary expansion. Therefore they will split off from the farm. When this happens subsequent generations born on the farm will have to be told they must go out and make some money if they want to live the farm lifestyle which by now is maxed out it's occupancy. They will not have the skill sets to make the money to do that. So they will never be able to return to the farm or buy land to supplement the farm. Either that or they will not want to return due to being influenced by the outside society. The solution to this will be that the school on the farm will be forced to teach skills to the next generations for dealing with and living in the outside culture. Once this is done, you have basically defeated you original idea of giving up life in the outside culture.)

Another important aspect is place: in mutually-dependent societies everyone has a place from which to relate to others. they may wish to have a higher status, but in any case they have some status.

(Please clarify this. In every society everyone has some status. Not just the societies you described.)

Having a place gives a person a sense of belonging and a sense of security.

(Explain this more fully.)

 With the introduction of money we can be free, but our place can only be had when we have a job.

(This is exactly the opposite of the point you made above. Above you said that when there is money you feel free and independent. Now you say that you only feel when you have a job. So is it job security or a monetary system that fosters the feeling of security and freedom?)

Without a job we have no place in society and thereby become alienated.

(I agree. Everyone needs a job. But I want more explanation as to why not having money ensures me of a job? It is like saying that if you have money and are independent you have less chance of having a job but if you are a slave then you are assured a job. That is true but some people do not want a job under those circumstances. Even in Varnashram a Ksatriya may be offered a sudra job should he take it or should he not? Even without money people will do different jobs according to their guna and karma and one group will develop envy for another. Why the pujaris sit around all day and we have to plough the fields? These sort of questions may not be asked by the 1st generation who have all joined this system voluntarily but subsequent generations who are born into such a system will certainly question it.)

This increases the sense of voidism and impersonalism that has so alienated the masses of people in the modern day.

(The history of the world is full of very religious cultures that used money. So I do not accept this assumption.)

What we learn from these cultural lessons is that we cannot successfully mix these two cultures: the modern culture with its artifacts such as money, and the traditional of mutually-dependent relationships.

(Assuming for a minute that you are correct about no money in VA. Still I think that the only way to have a viable hybrid-VA community is to allow for money. It is not possible to have a sustainable PURE NO MONEY VA community unless it is completely isolated from the outside culture. I also think such isolation is ultimately impossible to maintain.)

Indeed if we want to have a close and supportive community we have to combine our interests, and particularly our economic interests. This will do much to bring us closer together and give us a real sense of security.

(I agree. But I think money can and must be a part of this.)

Unfortunately in our efforts to understand and establish rural communities we have not understood the necessity of village economics, and thus we have not been able to achieve the successful results that we so desired. In our future efforts to establish the varnashrama culture we must be careful to understand the proper functioning of the varnas, the positive results of mutual-dependency, and what is necessary to protect the budding culture from undesirable cultural influences.

(Simply not allowing money is not going to keep a community from undesirable cultural influences. It requires complete isolation. In my opinion this is not possible.)

(Let me know what you think of my comments Dhanesvara prabhu.)

GKD

[niscala dasi]

I think some important practical considerations have been made here
both by GKD and Dhanesvara prabhus. I particularly like DP's comment
that spiritual economics is about completeness and the joy of giving.
Money, on the other hand, is about limitations of value, and by
representing activity/service of a human being it depersonalizes the
same and the person who does it- being as it is reduced to paper
value. Yet above are some practical considerations of having a society
entirely without money. Also- what to do with the excess produce of
the whole community if one cannot sell it? At the same time, some
services may not be able to be provided without money- such as medical
needs, and houses for the second generation.

I think that a community based as much as possible on voluntary mutual
exchange of service and using money only for contingencies, not daily
affairs and maintenance, would provide an ideal balance. I don't know
what the Hungarian farm would do if a second generation devotee came
down with cancer, for example. How would all that therapy be paid for?
A ksatriya would always have a stock of gold and grains for
emergencies, so we also need to provide shelter and facility not just
on a daily basis, but for the future as well.

At the same time, I very much appreciate DP's deconstruction of our
faith in money, our need to have it, and our confusion of equating
having it, with happiness. I read about a survey that was done to
measure peoples sense of happiness and their circumstances- the
happiest people were not the richest, but those involved in helping
and making a difference to others lives. All the circumstances that
people think will make them happy, a house by the sea, and so on,
actually made little difference. Nor can money assure security as its
value can plunge overnight. But that bhakta will be there in the
morning with the wood for cooking, and that mataji will be there with
the vegetables, even if the Armageddon of depressions were to hit the
world market (which some economists say is around the corner)- that
is real security!

I don't think that much is gained from proving or disproving the
existence of currency in vedic times, as it is impossible to imitate
the vedic model in all respects. Varnashrama in its purity is
impossible in the modern age- therefore there is chanting to purify
the heart. But if we use VA as BVT suggests- to become free from the
weeds that spoiil our chanting, such as pratistha, distinction as a
great devotee, or as SP suggests, to become free from kutinati, the
duplicity of showbottle spiritualism, then even if it does not in
every way mimick the vedic model, it still purifies the participant-
as it is a facility for chanting purely- without pretense.

We have to see what parts of VA facilitate devotional service
attitude, and which parts, such as owning slaves, does not, in a
society of devotees. Also which parts facilitate the spreading of
Krsna consciousness, and which parts detract people from surrendering.
If people feel that becoming a sudra will lead to a condescending
attitude from others, or worse, exploitative, worse still, slavery,
then who will work our farms? But if they feel valued as part of the
understanding that each soul is of the divine quality of Godhead, and
if the mood is to serve each devotee, regardless of varna, and give up
all sense of ownership, replacing it with servitude in love, then
they will see true equality, not the false equality of body
perpetarted by the communist and capitalist cultures, with the
concomitant degradation of duty and responsibility to those in need.
(re. Revolt of the Elites) Actaully, we have slavery in modern
culture- as people are not free to work or not work at a job they hate
and that degrades them- due to the shortage of jobs, and the need to
pay bills, they are forced labour in the truest sense. But in VA they
have the freedom to choose which service is suited to their nature,
and through simple living their needs are vastly reduced. They are not
exploited for profit, nor are they "owned" by companies or employers,
as the whole society exists to elevate each member, not to generate a
profit for the eilte to squander.