Revolt of the elites comment

[Greg Jay]

Dear Dhanesvara prabhu, PAMHO AGTSP

Here are my comments on your essay "Revolt of the elites". My comment are in (BRACKETS).

I have deleted large chunks of your essay and will only comment on portions I think are interesting.

Since there is no mention of sastra here, I find it to be unsatisfactory and somewhat unconvincing. I read the wikipedia article on Christopher Lasch and he seems to be a very confused character who first adopted marxist ideas but later became a radical right wing idealist.

Revolt of the Elites

Moreover, the elites have lost interest in the plight or the needs of the common man, and have become alienated from them, and “the professional classes in particular, regard the masses with mingled scorn and apprehension.”  Lasch called it a Revolt of the Elites, also the title of his book. Sensing this disconnect, the working class has responded with a sense of apathy and become alienated from the intellectual class of “symbolic analysts.” This is a breakdown of the social order.

(It is natural for those of the same class to identify more with their own class. I don't think this necessarily is a bad thing. I find his thesis alarmist. He must prove that social order is broken more than it always is to a certain extent.)

Lasch was increasingly concerned about the future of the world and questioned whether democracy can survive. His last question of his last book (before passing on) demonstrates his concern for the future: can a society survive when a significant portion of its elite have forsaken its founding principles?

(Since you have not said what these founding principles are, I won't speculate on them. But if you want this essay to be understood you need to state them clearly)

We can answer that question from the Vedic perspective of history: No. When the brahmanas began to fail in their duty, the entire varnashrama culture began to fail. Next the ksatriyas failed, and now, the vaisyas are having their turn at neglecting their duties to the detriment of the entire world. As the world cascades down the slippery slope of tamo-guna the orientation of the entire society is: every person for themselves.

(Why do you consider communism to be the answer. This is the system you have proposed communism, spiritual communism but communism none the less. Is not that system a sudra dominant form of society? How can that be the answer? If your idea is to restore to society proper acting ELITES or LEADERS i.e. Dvijas then how can you do they by denying them the ability to work independently and accumulate wealth? You cannot have divjas who do not have the rights and powers of dvijas. Otherwise they are not dvijas. So if you want dvijas to act responsibly like they should then you also have to allow then their rights and privileges. The ability to accumulate wealth and be independent are part of those rights of the dvija class. You cannot create independently thoughtful men who are dependent. Neither can you have poor ksatriyas and vaishyas and expect them to look after the needs of all the other classes. So they have to be able to accumulate wealth. Otherwise you can have communism and have one all powerful leader dole out equal shares to everyone but that is not Varnashram and it will not satisfy real dvijas. It can satisfy very surrendered ie dependent dvijas, women and sudras.)

I Got Mine

Those three short words sum up the attitude of many people in the world today. It’s actually an abbreviated form of “I got mine, and that’s all I care about. You didn’t get yours? That’s your problem, not mine.” Although the phrase “I got mine” is perhaps the most recent expression of the attitude it is not new. Students of the Bhagavad-gita can recognize attachment, envy, selfishness, and a lack of empathy in these statements. These qualities are characteristic of the modes of passion and ignorance. This consciousness shows up in all sorts of ways. Some think that it is an expression the “conservatives.” Indeed, I recall years ago hearing a conservative radio-show host ranting against having to pay anything for the less able, who must simply be lazy ner’ do wells, and freeloaders, who suck the energy of those who are willing to work. Their idea is that everybody has an equal chance in this world and they have gotten what they have by their ability and hard work, and all others have likewise. If you don’t have as much as me that is the result of your own lack of initiative and effort.

(While it is not true that everyone is equal or has equal opportunity or success for equal effort, still some people do by their efforts accumulate more wealth than others. You cannot also disallow this. There is no reason to deny a dvija the potential to accumulate wealth in a fair manner just because you don't like the way he might want to spend it. In Varnashram dvijas can and do accumulate wealth and because they are dvijas they also redistribute some of it or use some of it for altruistic purposes. There have always been those miserly people who do not care for others but I do not see that this is cause to create a classless society.)

 Instead, I mean the inherent social contract based on the natural abilities of men that is established in Vedic culture. By combining their interests and committing their efforts to mutual advantage everybody’s interests are served.

(Right but different classes have different interests. Kama, artha, dharma and moksha.)

 Each contributing what they have to offer: the brahmana his vision and spiritual guidance, the ksatriya his strength, protection, and facility, the vaisya his organizational and wealth-creating abilities, and the sudra his labor. Formerly it was the case that all varnas committed to doing their duty according to the dharma shastra, working together for the common good. This is the Vedic social contract, which extended even into the Middle Ages in the form of the feudal culture.

(I notice that all your writings are very Euro-centic. I agree that Feudal Europe was also a Varnashram society but do not think that this society or even the Varnashram of India or other medieval or ancient societies was a bed of roses for the lower working class. The workers can expect to be looked after by the upper classes but in return they have to give up their independence/freedom and right to accumulate wealth as Prabhupada said they should. If the sudras stop trying to act like vaishyas and ksatriyas then you can and should expect the vaishyas and ksatriyas to look after their needs. But it is a two way package. Today it comes down to negotiation between workers unions and management with the government playing a small role in setting minimum wages and standard conditions of labor, and perhaps providing some types of social safety nets like unemployment insurance, welfare, food stamps. Any slack is taken up by charitable organizations who are supported by both the middle and upper classes. Most people would not agree with you that this is more oppressive than the European Feudal system's treatment of serfs. You can try to convince them, but so far I'm not convinced.)

But with the increase of tamo-guna that system was purposely destroyed.

(Show how this follows and give proof and examples to clarify this assumption please)

A succinct explanation of how the social contract formerly worked and how it was destroyed is given by social psychologist Eric Fromm in his book The Sane Society: 

“The breakdown of the traditional principle of human solidarity led to new forms of exploitation. In feudal society the lord was supposed to have the divine right to demand services and things from those subject to his domination, but at the same time he was bound by custom and was obligated to be responsible for his subjects, to protect them, and to provide them with at least the minimum—the traditional standard of living. Feudal exploitation took place in a system of mutual human obligations, and thus was governed by certain restrictions.

(Please explain more about the restrictions)

 Exploitation as it developed [under the money economy] was essentially different.

(There was money in Feudal Europe so how is it not also a money economy??? Explain.)

 The worker, or rather his labor, was a commodity to be bought by the owner of capital, not essentially different from any other commodity on the market, and it was used to its fullest capacity by the buyer. Since it had been bought for its proper price on the labor market, there was no sense of reciprocity, or of any obligation on the part of the owner of capital, beyond that of paying the wages.

(But this is essentially the same as renting a slave instead of buying and owning a slave. In both cases there is no real need for full reciprocity, because a slave whether rented or owned is still a slave. If your idea is to convince people of the merits of serfdom or slavery then go right ahead however I think most intelligent people today will see through this and still reject a return to actual serfdom or slavery. At least in Western countries, maybe a return to slavery is popular in Eastern Europe due to the failure of communism and now problems changing from communism to capitalism.)

If hundreds of thousands of workers were without work and on the point of starvation, that was their bad luck, the result of their inferior talents, or simply a social and natural law, which could not be changed. Exploitation was not personal any more, but it had become anonymous, as it were. It was the law of the market that condemned a man to work for starvation wages, rather than the intention or greed of any one individual. Nobody was responsible or guilty, nobody could change conditions either. One was dealing with the iron laws of society, or so it seemed.”   

(The recent decline in power of the union labor movement in the US and rise in serf driven economies like China have lead to admittedly worse conditions for workers in Western countries )

As we moved into the 20^th and 21^st centuries the concepts of the “free man,” the “rugged individual,” and the idea that “everyone is equal,” has been indelibly drilled into the consciousness of the people through repeated propaganda. These three ideas have been used to separate people and to destroy their mutual dependence. Indeed, following the principle of “divide and conquer” the government also sought to destroy any mutual dependence.

(Which government and how, give examples, clarify)

 Nineteenth century social critic Peter Kropotkin explains how the formerly strong bonds between the people were long ago broken in order to force them to depend on an impersonal and authoritative state:

For three centuries the States [governments], both on the Continent and in these islands,  [British Isles] systematically weeded out all institutions in which the mutual-aid tendency had formerly found its expression. The village communities were bereft of their folkmotes, their courts and independent administration; their lands were confiscated. The guilds were deprived of their possessions and liberties, and placed under the control, the fancy, and the bribery of the State’s official. The cities were divested of their sovereignty, and the very springs of their inner life—the folkmote, the elected justices and administration, the sovereign parish and the sovereign guild—were annihilated; the State’s functionary took possession of every link of what formerly was an organic whole. Under that fatal policy and the wars it engendered, whole regions, once populous and wealthy, were laid bare; rich cities became insignificant boroughs; the very roads which connected them with other cities became impracticable. Industry, art, and knowledge fell into decay. Political education, science, and law were rendered subservient to the idea of State centralization. It was taught in the Universities and from the pulpit that the institutions in which men formerly used to embody their needs of mutual support could not be tolerated in a properly organized State; that the State alone could represent the bonds of union between its subjects; and the State was the only proper initiator of further development. By the end of the last century the kings on the Continent, the Parliament in these isles, and the revolutionary Convention in France, although they were at war with each other, agreed in asserting that no separate unions between citizens must exist within the State; that hard labour and death were the only suitable punishments to workers who dared to enter into “coalitions.” “No state within the State!” The State alone, and the State’s Church, must take care of matters of general interest, while the subjects must represent loose aggregations of individuals, connected by no particular bonds, bound to appeal to the Government each time that they feel a common need. Up to the middle of the [19^th] century this was the theory and practice in Europe. (emphasis mine)

Not only are we now free and equal, and depending on ourselves alone, we are divided. Having the state in between the people has isolated them. Even worse, having been acculturated to this idea we think of independence as good and the proper way to live, and distrust or even fear having to depend on others, thinking it a source of shame. Having lost the culture of mutual dependence, and having nobody to depend on but ourselves, many people have lost a sense of responsibility, and have indeed become untrustworthy. When we are not called on to be responsible we do not behave responsibly. Parents and teachers know that what we become depends a great deal on what is expected of us. 

(OK, very Eurocentric. Also really out of date. But of course this is one point of view. I think a little one sided.)

The evolution of this social decay has worked its way so deep into society that many people are no longer concerned about others. “I got mine. That’s all I care about.” The real tragedy lies in the fact that we are not equal, and we need the help of each other. However, when this consciousness continues for an extended period of time it has a severe impact on the social structure, resulting in a two-tier society—the have’s and have-nots. Currently less than 1% of the people own more than 40% of all wealth, while 50% of the people own 1%. It is clear that the elite, rather than protecting and guiding the lower classes, now either exploit them, or neglect them. Famed maverick economist E. F. Schumacher, author of the classic text on caring economics, Small is Beautiful, observed the results of this mentality in India during the several years that he lived there. He noted that the educated classes felt no obligation to serve their less endowed countrymen. Indeed, they used their education as a ticket to escape the plight of the poor—“I got mine. That’s all I care about.” Schumacher asked how the general welfare of the people could possibly improve if those with ability and know-how did not apply it to the general welfare. His answer: it cannot. Despite not being trained in India’s spiritual wisdom, he chided the elite of India that it was their duty to look after, and even lift up, the lives of the less capable. Although the lessons were already present in their own scriptures, their duty had to be shown to them by an outsider (to little avail even to this day, however).

(This is the same message that Christian and Muslim missionaries preach about Hindus in India. I'm not saying that it is wrong and that India is not a very competitive dog eat dog society but still I do think there are groups of altruistic people in India and in the other countries of the world. There are never enough of course but I don't see a strategy of getting rid of money and reducing people to medieval serfs is going to make any difference. Better to focus of education of the poor so that they can lift themselves out of poverty. This type of idea of some ISKCON devotees to reduce everyone to the lowest and simplest form of subsistence living and denying any form of higher technical education is just teaching our devotees to become the slaves of karmis in the future.)

Varnas and Duty

What Schumacher was saying without realizing it, was that the different orders of society, the varnas, have an obligation to each other. When they follow their duty properly the varnashrama social system functions to everyone’s benefit. If they do not, as in modern society, we have what Srila Prabhupada called “asuric varnashrama.”

(There are certainly problems in the world. But most people do not think that insituting some sort of model based on a medieval social system is the answer. Even Indians do not accept this paradigm. And I doubt that even the Indians who like the idea of reintroducing Varnashram would agree that the ideas you have are actually Varnashram. So first you have to convince devotees and those who love Sanatana Dharma that your ideas on VA are correct, then you have secondly to convince people that those ideas will actually solve the problems of masses of people. It is certainly a big task. The evidence for your ideas on no money seem slim to none in the Vedic literature in my opinion. I think you should try to get scholars like Olivelle who is the expert in the history and practice of VA amongst intellectuals on your side. If you can convince him and others like him who know the source material and history in detail then you can convince anyone. But if you can't convince them then I see no hope of attracting anyone in large numbers. If you aim is simply to set up a few model communes and "save" a few hard core devotees from the big bad money economy then that is fine. However if you goal is larger than this and you actually want to accommodate large numbers of people and change the dominant society then you must convince the scholars on VA that this is part of VA. Plus I think that Sivarama and yourself preaching this interpretation of Srila Prabhupada's teachings ie no money, is something that eventually the GBC will have to make a decision on. I suggest that you ask the GBC to sanction this interpretation otherwise you may find that eventually they do not sanction it and brand it as detrimental to the spreading of KC and not a correct understanding of Srila Prabhupada's teachings.)

The Srimad-Bhagavatam recounts how, with the increase of rajo-guna and tamo-guna, the elite began to fail in their duty. As everyone focuses on their narrow interests, parts of the social machine cease to function. Eventually the breaking point is passed and the entire society fails. We have witnessed the decline and failure of several Western cultures on these grounds.

(Well devotees can rationalize anything. The rise of Kali yuga is supposed to be getting worse and worse as time goes on. So if the devotees say this and suggest we do something about it two things can happen. Either the devotees do something that has a good effect in which case they win. Or they do something that does not have an effect in which case they simply say that this is because of the increase in Kali yuga. So either way devotees win. It really does not matter as far as the ISKCON corporate church is concerned whether this or that approach is bonafide. What matters more to the Church leaders in my opinion is whether it increases the numerical strength of the membership or not. Such an austere system you are suggesting whether it is right or wrong does not have the potential of attracting large numbers of people to it. Yet all the instructions we hear from Prabhupada about VA is that it will attract masses of people. Therefore it is my understanding that the type of VA that Prabhupada wanted was a type that would be attractive to masses of people and your system does not seem to have the real potential to attract more than just a very minute number of strict religious zealots. Sorry that is just how I see it. This is all besides whether you are correct in your interpretation or not.)

The social system of varna is established by Sri Krishna Himself. As He states in the Bhagavad-gita (4.13, 15): “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 non-doer, being unchangeable...All the liberated souls in ancient times acted with this understanding and so attained liberation. Therefore, as the ancients, you should perform your duty in this divine consciousness.” 

Note that Sri Krishna admonishes us to follow in the footsteps of the liberated souls and perform our duty in the varna system.

(First step is not to ban money. First step is pick your Varna and start doing your duty. If you can't do that then it does not matter if you ban money or not, you have lost the battle.)

In ISKCON we take it as a given that we are taking up the Vedic culture, and we have added a part of the culture of Krishna Consciousness to our lives. But the fact of the matter is that in many ways we mirror the dominant, materialistic culture, including its asuric varnashrama. 

(I agree. Especially since we have not introduced Varnas in ISKCON. That would be a good first step. Everyone in ISKCON seems comfortable with Ashrams but no one is comfortable with Varnas. That does not make sense. Especially since Varna determines potential Ashram.)

After all, most of us spend most of our time immersed in it, and we are subtly, but very powerfully, affected by it. Just as Lasch observes that the elite have focused on their own narrow interests we can observe the same in our Society. It’s the way the world works, and unconscious of it we follow its ways. And that part, that speaks to us so subtly as the expression of the values that underlie our existence, has yet to change.

(OK, you have your theory on how to change the underlying social dynamic. I disagree. What you have to do is to convince the GBC and also convince the intellectuals like Olivelle who are the scholars who are real experts on this. If you can do that then people in general may take up this idea. Otherwise I think it will remain a fringe idea and movement even within ISKCON.)

The fact is that we live mostly unconsciously without thinking of how society works. This is because we are raised up in a culture from the time of being infants and that culture is instilled in us. We no longer see it, and it acts invisibly to us. As we attempt to become Krishna Conscious it is imperative that we begin to live consciously and see the connection between our actions and the consciousness that they reinforce. Actions affect consciousness. This is why in spiritual training we learn how to offer obeisances by bowing down, touching our heads to the floor, how to respect seniors by standing up or bowing down, to offer obeisances before taking prasadam, and so on.

(Actions do indeed effect consciousness. However those actions must be based on solid pramanas guru, sadhu and sastra. I haven't seen the guru, sadhu and sastra that convinces me about this no money philosophy.)

Still there are an entire host of issues that we conveniently overlook because, to date, we have not developed within our society acceptable alternatives that are in keeping with our philosophy. Among these are: the concept of private ownership, the concept that everyone is equal, money as a means of maintenance, the lack of a social contract, and the concept of marital divorce.

(We do accept private ownership. Amongst independent grhasthas it is common. There is due to no acceptance of Varna an idea that everyone is equal even materially. Of course we are equal spiritually on the level of atma. Money is accepted as a means of maintenance. I think there is a social contract there between ISKCON authorities and members. The members know that if they are fully surrendered to the authority that they are supposed to be taken care of. Unfortunately that can change at any moment so most do not fully surrender, and even GBCs and sannyasis have their private homes and banks accounts. You should preach your philosophy to the leaders of ISKCON. I'll take it seriously when I see the leaders, GBC and Sannyasis give up their money and private homes. Until then very few will find your ideas compelling. I would suggest that it is the personal charisma of HH Sivarama swami that sustains the zealots who follow his system. The problem is that such cult mentality does not last after the lifetime of the one charismatic leader. VA is about a social system that works by itself because it is natural and does not depend on being sold out to such charismatic cult leaders. I have a lot of respect for Swami ji but he has a closed system there in Hungary and that in my opinion is why he has such success. It would not really matter what he asked people to do as long as his system remains basically closed and he is the sole authority it will be stronger that in other parts of ISKCON that have multiple authorities. If you want to really prove that your type of system works do it in a place like the USA. If you can succeed in convincing Americans of it's benefits you can persuade anyone. Convincing some eastern european devotees who only a few years ago lived under communism and who grew up with that system does not prove to me that it will fly in more diverse devotee societies let alone with non-devotees which was Prabhupada's hope.)

In all of these areas we follow the ways of the dominant culture despite the fact that they are diametrically opposed to the philosophy of Krishna Consciousness.

(In your opinion. I do not think private ownership is against KC. Nanda maharaja owned cows. So many people in our scriptures own things. Even wives are considered as property in most ancient cultures. What do you mean by ownership if not for what these examples portray? As for divorce, if you can't have polygamy then you will have to accept some sort of divorce. In the Vedic civilization there was polygamy, prostitution (as there is today) and no divorce. Arguably you can say divorce in ISKCON is just a form of serial, instead of parallel, polygamy and that divorce and remarriage is just another form of prostitution. I am not defending any of these practices. I am just saying that when you deal with people who are less than pure devotees there are problems and these same problems are solved in slightly difference ways by different cultures. If you want to stop divorce then you have to allow polygamy and prostitution. This is the VA answer to divorce. Married women are always protected by allowing low class men access to more than one wife if they are rich enough (polygamy = buy another wife) or to prostitution (rent a wife) if they are not.)

Why? Because they are a part of the culture that we live in, and in order to survive in that culture we must live according to their values. If we did not it would be very difficult to remain in the social network of the dominant culture. All of which underscores the need for us to establish a cultural alternative that includes the social orders of varna, and an economic foundation that allows us to fully live our spiritual culture with its attendant values.

(I can argue that prostitution is part of Vedic culture. There were prostitutes in Krsna's Dvaraka. Do you accept that prostitution may have a role in VA? I do. Because my idea of VA is for everyone not just for zealots.)

Revolt of the Elites in ISKCON?

By referring to the elites of ISKCON I am referring to men of ability, specifically those of a ksatriya and vaisya nature. Now we may ask, what is their duty in the present day? Well, it is no different than in previous times. The higher orders of society have a duty to create the circumstances in which the culture functions. Because, by themselves, the majority of the population, those of a sudra nature, cannot do that. Not even with the help of the brahmanas.

(This is an interesting view since it seems that Srila Prabhupada thought that simply by creating Brahmins he could change society. I'm not saying that I accept that either.)

Those of a sudra nature have a difficult time to look beyond the immediate future, or their immediate self-interest. The brahmanas lack the passion to make it happen.

(Brahmin work in a different way than Ksatriyas and Vaishyas who are influenced more by the mode of passion)

Men with different abilities are required. Men who have ability to see the long-range in terms of time, who understand the effort required to create a specific result, and who can direct the labor of others toward that purposeful end.

(I agree, however they probably need advise from the Brahmins before they decide on a course of action.)

And as Lasch is attempting to point out, when they do not, the society cannot function.

(This is an over statement. The society does function, but not in the way you want it to.)

 At the beginning of Kali yuga it was the brahmanas that failed to execute their duties properly, and rule passed to the ksatriyas.

(You must give some quotes for this. Then it will be more believable. I don't think you can single out the brahmins as being first to fail in their duties.)

 Then as the ksatriyas failed, control passed to the vaisyas.

(You really should show this in detail instead of just stating it. Maybe you have in your book.)

 Now we are witnessing the failure of the vaisyas in terms of global economic disaster, extreme disparity, billions of helpless and hopeless people, etc., and rule will pass to the sudras.

(The sudras already tried their system of communism which failed. Actually India and China are prospering now and they have aspects of capitalist systems so you can't make general statements about Europe and America without taking notice of them too. Of course their societies are also messed up I admit that. But I think you need to more carefully document your claims otherwise no one but zealots are going to take you seriously. Perhaps you have in your book.)

 Srila Prabhupada explains it thus: 

“At present, human society is specifically cultivating the mode of ignorance (tamo-guna), although there may also be some symptoms of passion (rajo-guna). Full of kama and lobha, lust and greed, the entire population of the world consists mostly of sudras and a few vaisyas, and gradually it is coming about that there are sudras only. Communism is a movement of sudras, and capitalism is meant for vaisyas. In the fighting between these two factions, the sudras and vaisyas, gradually, due to the abominable condition of society, the communists will emerge triumphant, and as soon as this takes place, whatever is left of society will be ruined. The only possible remedy that can counteract the tendency toward communism is the Krishna consciousness movement, which can give even communists the real idea of communist society.” Cc Adi 8.20 purport

(It is hard to understand what Prabhupada means here by devotees teaching communists about REAL communism. VA is not communism.)

Although communism has ostensibly faded into the annals of history 

(This is an admission that Prabhupada was wrong above when he said communism would win the battle.)

the general idea still holds—everything will collapse under the influence of tamo-guna, regardless of what you call it. We are witnessing the manifestation of the same tamo-guna under capitalism in the form of predatory economics, disaster capitalism, vulture capitalism, casino capitalism, etc., various pejoratives that have certainly been earned. Unless this Krishna Consciousness Movement demonstrates how the upper classes of society, the elite, can, under the influence of sattva-guna and suddha-sattva, transcendental goodness, guide and protect the lower classes, whatever is left of society will be ruined. The selfishness of looking after  only one’s immediate interests are the symptoms of tamo-guna, and this must bring the result of tamo-guna—collapse and destruction.

(I agree that direction must come from the leaders. So you need to convince the leaders of ISKCON to go live on the farm without money or electricity. Then people will really take notice.)

Now the question arises: will they? Will the upper classes of our Krishna Consciousness Movement rise to the occasion and demonstrate how to guide society to a higher purposeful end? Unfortunately, that is in doubt. The problem is that within our society we have not adopted the social relationships of the varnas.

(Do you wonder why? No one will even self analyze and accept a Varna. Even you won't do it!!!! So, the leaders have to do it first. Stand up and be counted, self analyze and accept and commit to a Varna. I am more and more thinking you have to commit to either Ksatriya or Vaishya. You certainly seem to have the passion to go out and do something so my guess would be Ksatriya would be the best position for you. But this is up to you.)

 Instead, our devotees live according to the ways of the dominant culture. This is to say that the men of ability, those who can lead and guide society seem to content themselves with living the modern lifestyle and doing their duty to the Society by making financial contributions.

(Or living of their disciples or as GBC, TPs or Sannyasis living off of the donations of their congregations or their devotee businesses.)

 While this financial help is certainly necessary, I dare say that it is not enough.

Let me make this point more clear by stating that in my observation of our efforts to establish the varnashrama culture, it is mostly devotees of a sudra nature that participate (that is not to be taken as a criticism. 

(Of course. Because the systems that are set up are meant for sudras. Like the no money farm system which is just covered communism. No wonder sudras feel more at home there. If you do not allow dvijas to make profit or wealth then you will not attract them.)

These are good and honorable men, and far superior than the vast majority, especially considering that they are devotees of Lord Krishna). The men of greater ability, those of a vaisya or ksatriya nature, however, are noticeable by their absence. I am aware that there are exceptions to this rule and that the situation is different in different parts of the world. Still, the observation generally holds.

(Other spiritual movements attract and keep many talented Vaishyas and Ksatriyas and even Brahmins to their folds but ISKCON leaders try to control everyone so tightly that they can't keep any qualified person's loyalty. The really qualified people do not respond if you treat them like sudras or children. And if they see the leaders of ISKCON simply self serving.)

When are the men of ability going to take up their duty and begin to participate in establishing the varnashrama and daiva-varnashrama culture?

(When you understand that all devotees who are not completely pure need to be allowed to use their intelligence and qualifications to worship the Lord and at the same time regulate their material desires according to the actual system of VA. As long as you treat Brahmins, Ksatriyas and Vaishyas as sudras or children and ask them to give up their independence and right to pursue the pursharthas you won't have any but a very few poor brahmins joining you. All the rest will be sudras and they will not even come in large numbers, only those who are religious zealots will come. Thus you can defeat your own aims by trying to make everyone live like sudras or serfs.)

 Will they give up their lucrative careers and businesses, and comfortable lifestyles to live simply and help build an alternative spiritual culture based on self-sufficiency?

(Not unless they are allowed to pursue their Varna dharmas and the purusharthas)

 Without them the varnashrama culture cannot be established,

(Prabhupada told us that Varnashram would be popular. If your system is not popular then it must not be actually Varnashram. My suggestion is to accept cultivation of the purusharthas otherwise no real Varnashram can be established. Instead of speculating about what VA is, you simply have to accept the Historical system as much as you can, rejecting only those parts that are impossible to implement. Ancient Indian society worked, but it did not deny dvijas the right to accumulate wealth or have their independence. VA is stunted in ISKCON because of the leaders trying to control people too tightly.)

 and this Krishna Consciousness Movement cannot offer any possible remedy to the debilitating influences of the age.

(Have you read Caitanya Siksamrta by Bhaktivinode? He describes that there are two types of bhakti. Mukhya or primary bhakti and gauna or secondary bhakti. Primary bhakti is the 9 types of bhakti. Gauna or secondary bhakti are things that help us to perform navadha bhakti. Bhaktivinode gives the example of taking a bath in the morning as an example of secondary bhakti. A main principle of navadha primary bhakti would be kirtan or japa of the Lord's names. Now we can chant anytime or any place but if we get up early in the morning and take a bath then it helps us with our kirtan and japa. We can get up and not take bath but we may fall asleep while chanting. So Varnashram is like that. It is secondary bhakti (the second 50% according to Prabhupada). It helps us to keep performing our primary bhakti. Prabhupada wants to give everyone KC but many due to being too attached to kama, artha, dharma and moksha are not interested. They have material desires and this stops them from becoming devotees and learning navadha primary bhakti. Thus the important thing about Varnashram is that it allows people to fulfill their material desires for sense gratification, wealth, righteousness and prestige and liberation in a regulated way so that they will be able to also cultivate primary navadha bhakti. This means that one must allow the different Varnas in VA to pursue their material desires in a regulated way. Your system does not do that. It strictly curtails any pursuit of material purusarthas by the different Varnas thus only sudras are attracted to it because all they want is food, shelter, clothing and basic necessities. This is why there are prostitutes in Dvaraka, because there will always be some low class men who require their services, and there will always be some low class women willing to provide those services. The alternative is that the higher class women are polluted by rapists. So today's societies deal with different social problems in different ways from the Vedic society. If you want to emulate the Vedic society you have to re-introduce those answers to replace the modern ones. Instead of the modern answers to illicit sex i.e. pornography, divorce, rape, abortion and contraception you have to allow for marriage, polygamy and prostitution, etc. the Vedic answers to illicit sex. But most devotees think that the answer to illicit sex is simply abstinence. Abstinence is fine for totally surrendered pure devotees. I have no problem with it. The gita says however that one cannot give up a lower taste unless one experiences the higher taste. Most of us are not on that higher totally surrendered platform. Therefore we must dovetail our material desires by regulating them in Vedic ways which are better than the modern ways which may be demoniac like rape and abortion. If you have marriage, polygamy and prostitution then you can expect the members of society to refrain from rape and abortion.

Would Prabhupada have liked it if every devotee who joined ISKCON could be fully surrendered chanting 64 rounds and being totally celibate, etc. Sure! But is that realistic? Not at all. So Varnashram is what makes KC realistic. If you do not allow the different Varnas and Ashrams to pursue their material desires in a regulated Vedic way then people will just leave and give up chanting. As long as they can regulate their material desires they will stay and continue chanting. Eventually either in this life or subsequent lives they will become more and more purified and ultimately achieve perfection. Pure completely surrendered Bhakti is the quick rare route but Varnashram is the safe and sure route that everyone can take to.)

 Is it that the men of our society have also developed the idea “I got mine?” Is it that they are also in revolt, to leave those of less ability to function as best as they can without their guidance and assistance? Is it that they have not been trained to understand their duty to the other orders of society and how to apply it? Or is it because their leaders have not understood the imperative of the daiva-varnashrama culture? Whatever the reason, it is time that we all understand the urgent need for the varna culture and begin to seriously move in that direction. If not, the only remedy that Srila Prabhupada spoke of to save this world will not exist, and society will indeed be finished.

(I have described to you my understanding of the place VA has in the system of devotional service. Please read Caitanya Siksamrta by Bhaktivinode for more. VA is the social system for the rest of us, if you make it only for the zealots and pure devotees then you will have very little effect.)

GKD

[niscala dasi]

Dear GKP,

I read your responses, which I have deleted large chunks of- I am just
responding to the interesting parts... ;)

>>>It is natural for those of the same class to identify more with their own class. I don't think this necessarily is a bad thing

well, in VA under the guidance of brahmanas, they would be encouraged
to think in terms of service to other vaisnavas, regardless of sect.

>>DP >can a society survive when a significant portion of its elite have forsaken its founding principles?
>
> GKP: Since you have not said what these founding principles are, I won't speculate on them. But if you want this essay to be understood you need to state them clearly)

In thye context of the essay, it is about taking responsbility, but
isn't this concern very similar to the concern of the sages at
Naimasaranya- they also wondered how society could go on with the
degradation of the brahmana class...

> GKP: Why do you consider communism to be the answer. This is the system you have proposed communism, spiritual communism but communism none the less. Is not that system a sudra dominant form of society?

Where is the reference to communism? Or a sudra dominant form of
society? The case is about taking responsibility for workers, not
being dominated by them...

>>>GKP: If your idea is to restore to society proper acting ELITES or LEADERS i.e. Dvijas then how can you do they by denying them the ability to work independently and accumulate wealth?

Answered already in another thread- wealth is measured in the bounty
of nature, not that place that the Personality of Kali entered.

>>>GKP: You cannot create independently thoughtful men who are dependent

Brahmanas would accept no wage- and this (Revolt of the Elites) is an
essay about the problems of money consciousness- so what is your point
exactly?

>>>GKP: Otherwise you can have communism and have one all powerful leader dole out equal shares to everyone

That is not being proposed, or please quote where it is...sounds like
a tich of McCarthyism...

>>> GKP: While it is not true that everyone is equal or has equal opportunity or success for equal effort, still some people do by their efforts accumulate more wealth than others. You cannot also disallow this.

it is not being disallowed but exposed for what it is- greed and
narcissism. That is anti-thetical to VA, at least as devotees practice
it.

>>>GKP: Any slack is taken up by charitable organizations who are supported by both the middle and upper classes.

Most people would not agree with you that this is more oppressive than
the European Feudal system's treatment of serfs. You can try to
convince them, but so far I'm not convinced.

He might have a chance now, with the escalating numbers of homeless,
unemployed, and so on. Many people would love to be in a situation
where their present families and for generations to come would be
assured of a roof over their heads, work that was hard but not
degrading (the feudal system was before the Industrial revolution)
regular meals, and employers who care about them. None is assured in
the present context.

> DP: But with the increase of tamo-guna that system was purposely destroyed.
>
> GKP: (Show how this follows and give proof and examples to clarify this assumption please)

the symptoms of tamo guna:
that action performed in illusion ("by accumulating wealth, I will
become happy") in disregard for scriptural injunction ("scriptural
what?") and without concern for future bondage or for violence or
distress caused to others is said to be in the mode of ignorance"

being without concern for violence or distress caused to others - that
is what the whole essay is about...btw, you complain about lack of
sastric reference, but where is yours???

>>DP Since it had been bought for its proper price on the labor market, there was no sense of reciprocity, or of any obligation on the part of the owner of capital, beyond that of paying the wages.
>
> GKP: (But this is essentially the same as renting a slave instead of buying and owning a slave. In both cases there is no real need for full reciprocity, because a slave whether rented or owned is still a slave.

yes and what is being proposed is neither slavery by ownership or by
lease, but doing away with the expoitative mentality altogether

>>>GKP ....(Which government and how, give examples, clarify)
>
> DP....For three centuries the States [governments], both on the Continent and in these islands, [British Isles] systematically weeded out all institutions in which the mutual-aid tendency had formerly found its expression

there is your answer! it pays to read on...:)

>>DP When we are not called on to be responsible we do not behave responsibly. Parents and teachers know that what we become depends a great deal on what is expected of us.
>
>GKP (OK, very Eurocentric. Also really out of date. But of course this is one point of view. I think a little one sided.)

how is that Eurocentric, when the Indian gov't does not give the age
pension to the working poor, and thus rickshaw wallahs that are 80
years old or more, and skinny as skeletons are forced to push plump
middle class young folk- all day long, every day, often in sweltering
heat, just to earn a bit of rice at the end of the day? Hmm?
Irresponsibility is all around the world, my friend!

[Greg Jay]

PAMHO AGTSP

Thanks for your comments.

On Oct 11, 2010, at 1:35 AM, niscala dasi wrote:

>>>> It is natural for those of the same class to identify more with their own class. I don't think this necessarily is a bad thing
>
> well, in VA under the guidance of brahmanas, they would be encouraged
> to think in terms of service to other vaisnavas, regardless of sect.

Classes or Varnas are NOT sects.

>>> DP >can a society survive when a significant portion of its elite have forsaken its founding principles?
>>
>> GKP: Since you have not said what these founding principles are, I won't speculate on them. But if you want this essay to be understood you need to state them clearly)
>
> In thye context of the essay, it is about taking responsbility, but
> isn't this concern very similar to the concern of the sages at
> Naimasaranya- they also wondered how society could go on with the
> degradation of the brahmana class...

Three classes (dvija men) take responsibility. Not just Brahmin men. Yes, it is similar but the real cause of concern with the degradation of male Brahmins is that they are meant to advise and guide society.

>> GKP: Why do you consider communism to be the answer. This is the system you have proposed communism, spiritual communism but communism none the less. Is not that system a sudra dominant form of society?
>
> Where is the reference to communism? Or a sudra dominant form of
> society? The case is about taking responsibility for workers, not
> being dominated by them...

In the context of the system followed by HH Sivarama Swami on his Hungarian farm. In the context of a farm community or village community proposed by Dhanesvara and Prabhupada das WITHOUT MONEY, where the workers are living in a communist style collective. That is communism not VA. So in that context.

>>>> GKP: If your idea is to restore to society proper acting ELITES or LEADERS i.e. Dvijas then how can you do that by denying them the ability to work independently and accumulate wealth?

>
> Answered already in another thread- wealth is measured in the bounty
> of nature, not that place that the Personality of Kali entered.

I do not see the difference between wealth in the form of gold or commodities. Both can be used for evil, both can be used for good.

You all seem convinced that gold is inherently evil and other forms of wealth are inherently good. What evidence do you have for such a view?

>>>> GKP: You cannot create independently thoughtful men who are dependent
>
> Brahmanas would accept no wage- and this (Revolt of the Elites) is an
> essay about the problems of money consciousness- so what is your point
> exactly?

If you force male dvijas to live dependently then how can you expect them to think independently? That is my point. Forcing all Varnas to not use money and to be dependent forced them to give up their Varna dharmas or duties. The duty of Dvija males is to be leaders not dependents. When Brahmins are dependent they cannot speak the truth to power, when Ksatriyas are dependent they cannot oppose unlawful ideas or acts, when Vaishyas are dependent they cannot oppose unlawful business practices. The example of Bhisma is there. Even he was a mahajana but due to living with the kauravas and being dependent on their food, and shelter, etc. He could not speak dharma and was indebted to the kaurava so much that he fought on their side against Krsna and Arjuna although he was Krsna's devotee. When you force divjas to live like sudras they become sudras.

>>>> GKP: Otherwise you can have communism and have one all powerful leader dole out equal shares to everyone
>
> That is not being proposed, or please quote where it is...sounds like
> a tich of McCarthyism...

McCathy was an alarmist. However he was against communism. What I see in this forum is a suggestion that communism is VA or that VA is communism. VA is not communism. Communism is a system where the aim is a classless society. VA is completely the opposite. VA is a system of differentiation. A society of four classes. If you think make everyone live the same and act the same and make no distinction that is not VA.

Please read my quote from Prabhupada again. He says sudras are never independent. If you make everyone dependent then you are making them sudras. Most ISKCON leaders would love their devotees to all be fully surrendered and dependent on ISKCON. The two classes of people who are dependent are pure devotees and sudras. Since most people are not pure devotees that means most dependent people are sudras. By forcing people who are not pure devotees to be dependent you are declaring them sudras or forcing them to live like that. This is not acceptable to dvijas in VA.

>>>> GKP: While it is not true that everyone is equal or has equal opportunity or success for equal effort, still some people do by their efforts accumulate more wealth than others. You cannot also disallow this.
>
> it is not being disallowed but exposed for what it is- greed and
> narcissism. That is anti-thetical to VA, at least as devotees practice
> it.

No, different classes in VA have different amounts of wealth. Sudras according to Prabhupada should not accumulate wealth. Dvijas can accumulate wealth. Your idea is that the accumulation of wealth is wrong for all members of VA. That is not what Prabhupada said, or what we see in history, sastra, etc. Are you telling me that Maharaja Ambarisa and Sudama Brahmin and different members of that VA society all had the same amount of personal wealth??? That is nonsense.

>>>> GKP: Any slack is taken up by charitable organizations who are supported by both the middle and upper classes.
> Most people would not agree with you that this is more oppressive than
> the European Feudal system's treatment of serfs. You can try to
> convince them, but so far I'm not convinced.

Your statement is false. If MOST people think that it is better to live as a medieval serf is better than a modern wage earner then you would have millions lined up to join Sivarama's farm or to be communists. That is just not the case. You have made a statement now prove it. Prove that MOST people agree that it is more oppressive to be a serf than a modern independent worker. You are living in a dream world.

> He might have a chance now, with the escalating numbers of homeless,
> unemployed, and so on. Many people would love to be in a situation
> where their present families and for generations to come would be
> assured of a roof over their heads, work that was hard but not
> degrading (the feudal system was before the Industrial revolution)
> regular meals, and employers who care about them. None is assured in
> the present context.

Place an ad in any newspaper and ask for those willing to sell themselves and their decendants into perpetual serfdom for the price of a roof over their head, regular meals and medical care from loving slave owners. Then let me know how many people answered the ad and wanted the position. If you get more than 10 then I will concede your point. OK?

>> DP: But with the increase of tamo-guna that system was purposely destroyed.
>>
>> GKP: (Show how this follows and give proof and examples to clarify this assumption please)
>
> the symptoms of tamo guna:
> that action performed in illusion ("by accumulating wealth, I will
> become happy") in disregard for scriptural injunction ("scriptural
> what?") and without concern for future bondage or for violence or
> distress caused to others is said to be in the mode of ignorance"
>
> being without concern for violence or distress caused to others - that
> is what the whole essay is about...btw, you complain about lack of
> sastric reference, but where is yours???

I am critiquing his thesis. The onus is on him to provide proof not me.

I do not dispute that not following sastra or committing violence destroys culture. What I deny is that the accumulation of wealth in all cases causes the destruction of culture. That is what I want a reference for.

>>> DP Since it had been bought for its proper price on the labor market, there was no sense of reciprocity, or of any obligation on the part of the owner of capital, beyond that of paying the wages.
>>
>> GKP: (But this is essentially the same as renting a slave instead of buying and owning a slave. In both cases there is no real need for full reciprocity, because a slave whether rented or owned is still a slave.
>
> yes and what is being proposed is neither slavery by ownership or by
> lease, but doing away with the expoitative mentality altogether

Even if I love a person, if that person must necessarily work for me because they have no independence they are my slave and I own them. Please note that only recently women were considered NOT the property of their husbands. Rape laws were originally based on property laws. A man has not the right to violate my property. The woman was considered the property of the father which he gave in marriage to the husband who then if he renounced handed over to his sons. At each point the woman is OWNED by the males who are responsible for her. The idea that she is an independent agent is a very very modern idea. And in many societies even today she is not considered independent even now. Of course in VA higher class women did have some independence. But in general in VA every woman is dependent on a man at every stage of her life. So if I call such dependent woman and sudras as slaves it is simply an accurate description, it is not meant in a derogatory way. I am sure in VA they are all very happy well adjusted and well cared for and even loved slaves. But not all people are meant to be dependent. Dvijas due to greater intelligence and ethics are allowed more freedom in VA society. They are not described as dependent, though ultimately as I said everyone and everything is dependent on the Lord. But we are talking about social issues and in society some are dependent but others are not. So I reject the idea that male dvijas are dependent in the same way that women and sudras are in VA.

>>>> GKP ....(Which government and how, give examples, clarify)
>>
>> DP....For three centuries the States [governments], both on the Continent and in these islands, [British Isles] systematically weeded out all institutions in which the mutual-aid tendency had formerly found its expression
>
> there is your answer! it pays to read on...:)

Yes, I see that. Thanks for pointing it out. However I find Dhanesvaras quotes to be very Eurocentric in nature. Except when he quoted Bhakti Vikasa Swami concerning Bangladeshis he is always quoting European history and academics. Even Bangladeshis who are mostly muslims are not good examples of VA. I would be more impressed by case histories from Hindu Indian village life and history. What do Hindu Indian historian and sociologists think of his theories??? Maybe he should quote Gandhi. His philosophy sounds very like Gandhism. Remember that Post Independence India was greatly influenced by Russian communism.

>>> DP When we are not called on to be responsible we do not behave responsibly. Parents and teachers know that what we become depends a great deal on what is expected of us.
>>
>> GKP (OK, very Eurocentric. Also really out of date. But of course this is one point of view. I think a little one sided.)
>
> how is that Eurocentric, when the Indian gov't does not give the age
> pension to the working poor, and thus rickshaw wallahs that are 80
> years old or more, and skinny as skeletons are forced to push plump
> middle class young folk- all day long, every day, often in sweltering
> heat, just to earn a bit of rice at the end of the day? Hmm?
> Irresponsibility is all around the world, my friend!

I agree with you that the Indian government could offer more social services to it's people. And I am certainly all for socialist programs to help the disadvantaged. But I am against the elimination of profit. Profit is what motivates Vaishyas. We see the fall and failure of that communist system in Russia. Each class is motivated differently. Brahmins by knowledge, Ksatriyas by truth, justice and prestige, Vaishyas by profit, and sudras by basic comforts. My complaint is that you suggest that in VA no one can accumulate wealth. When Prabhupada says that ONLY sudras are not allowed to accumulate wealth.

GKD

[niscala dasi]

Dear GKP,

>>>> It is natural for those of the same class to identify more with their own class. I don't think this necessarily is a bad thing

well, in VA under the guidance of brahmanas, they would be encouraged

to think in terms of service to other vaisnavas, regardless of varna.

> > Where is the reference to communism? Or a sudra dominant form of
> > society? The case is about taking responsibility for workers, not
> > being dominated by them...
>
> In the context of the system followed by HH Sivarama Swami on his Hungarian farm. In the context of a farm community or village community proposed by Dhanesvara and Prabhupada das WITHOUT MONEY, where the workers are living in a communist style collective. That is communism not VA. So in that context.

No, that is not communism, in communist states, people get a wage- it
is ownership that is forbidden- everything is owned by the state. So
SP suggested- let us have spiritual communism- everything owned by
God. Since vasiyas can do either cow protection, agriculture or
business it is possible to have VA within the concept described in the
essay. Within the concept of VA, only one of the thirteen possible
varna and ashrama combinations create wealth (not necessarily money) -
the grhastha vaisya. In contrast, in the modern age, everyone from
paper-boy sudra students, to retired intellectuals who engage in stock
market speculation, all are absorbed in making money for themselves
and their families, caring little about the have-nots...

>>>>> Answered already in another thread- wealth is measured in the bounty
> > of nature, not that place that the Personality of Kali entered.
>

> I do not see the difference between wealth in the form of gold or commodities. Both can be used for evil, both can be used for good.

Agreed- even clear water streams can be used to wash away the waste of
factories. The difference is, clean air, clear water, trees and open
spaces is an environment in the mode of goodness. Depending on what
nature provides is a natural way to realize that one's nature is to be
dependent- and one becomes grateful for the little things- birdsong, a
breeze, the rustle of trees.... Gratitude has been described by
psychologists as the quality most indicative of mental health. Money,
on the other hand, is not a free gift from God, but something one has
to waste time in the valuable human form of life just to get a sense
one has earned it- therefore own it- which can never be- aham sarvasya
prabhavo...so the endeavour is based on greed and illusion...have you
read the story of Pariksit and the personality of Kali- it is in the
first canto SB. After reading it, you would not want gold- someone
very very nasty, greedy, cruel and exploitative is in it! And by
converting its value to paper- I don't think it sanitizes it- history
speaks otherwise...

> You all seem convinced that gold is inherently evil and other forms of wealth are inherently good. What evidence do you have for such a view?

see above...it is only evil in the age of kali, btw, but DP like the
rest of us, is writing about the modern context of things...the next
words from you, are the ones which really piqued my interest:

>>If you force male dvijas to live dependently then how can you
expect them to think independently? That is my point. Forcing all
Varnas to not use money and to be dependent forced them to give up
their Varna dharmas or duties. The duty of Dvija males is to be
leaders not dependents. When Brahmins are dependent they cannot speak
the truth to power, when Ksatriyas are dependent they cannot oppose
unlawful ideas or acts, when Vaishyas are dependent they cannot oppose
unlawful business practices.

A fascinating perspective, as we know that brahmanas accepted no wage,
no employment, not did they engage in business- they just depended on
the generosity of the other classes, esp the ksatriyas. So they were
dependent but not dependent, and by not being employed, they had no
personal interest in flattering the ruling class, thus they could be
independent thinkers and advisers. But in a sense, they were not even
dependent on the generosity of ksatriyas- if they were thrown out of
the court due to speaking the unpalatable truth, they could live like
many other brahmanas- in hermitages in the forest, eating roots,
fruits etc provided therein free of charge- that was their independent
mode of living that fostered their ability to give independent
feedback to the kings, devoid of personal motivation, greed and
subservience...in addition, the people were piious and would go to
them for advice, bringing gifts- but they did not depend on that- they
would accept cows etc, and give them away as well...btw in the sastra
it is rare to hear of someone NOT accepting a gift or charity, even if
they were detached- they simply gave it away! (wow, so thats what I
should do with all the unwanted xmas pressies! :)) So the 6 exchanges
of love between devotees played a vital role in VA- it was a gift
economy! They did not think - I am detached, I won't accept this gift-
because accepting gifts benefits the giver. They accepted, then gave
away or used it for the welfare of all. SP once decribed a brahmana as
he who could be given a vast sum of wealth, and spend it all in the
service of the Lord by nightfall...

>>>Ksatriyas are dependent they cannot oppose unlawful ideas or acts, when Vaishyas are dependent they cannot oppose unlawful business practices.

but they are dependent- they just accept no wage--which is being
proposed in the essay. It is clear that you are equating independency
with financial independency. There is no such thing. It is an
illusion. We are all dependent on the mercy of others, not money. Just
say you have a million dollars, and a bomb was dropped and the rest of
humankind was wiped out. Your million dollars is worth nothing. You
cannot buy, because you must buy from a person- so you are dependent.
Real independence is earned when one is dependent on the mercy of the
Lord- the brahmans are therefore independent in that sense.

> McCathy was an alarmist. However he was against communism. What I see in this forum is a suggestion that communism is VA or that VA is communism. VA is not communism. Communism is a system where the aim is a classless society. VA is completely the opposite

But it is not about a classless society, but upper classes taking
reponsibility for subordinates, rather than exploiting them...

>>>No, different classes in VA have different amounts of wealth. Sudras according to Prabhupada should not accumulate wealth. Dvijas can accumulate wealth.

No - which dvija? The brahmans do not accumulate wealth, except the
wealth of austerity. The ksatriyas tax the people- and create a
treasury for emergencies. Only the grhastha vaisyas accumulate wealth
they have earned, but they are advised to go out every day and call
out "is anyone hungry?" and invite them to feast. And they give 25% to
the king, as well, so their accumulation is spent for the welfare of
others, as is the king's. Alll this could go on without money, btw,
the treasury could be in grains, as could the taxes...I do feel
howvever, and DP agrees, that some need of money is there- not for
daily maintenance but for building projects, etc. SP recommended as
much as possible we build from local materials provided by nature, but
that science is lacking...how can you build without nails??? :( :o

>>> Place an ad in any newspaper and ask for those willing to sell themselves and their decendants into perpetual serfdom for the price of a roof over their head, regular meals and medical care from loving slave owners. Then let me know how many people answered the ad and wanted the position. If you get more than 10 then I will concede your point. OK?

Therefore I objected your description of sudras as "slaves" and that
they should be traded like other items of ownership. Such concept is
extremely depersonalizing. SP may have stressed the benefits of kind
and generous slavery in a situation where sudras are attached to wine,
women and gambling, and where there is no tendency to exploit the
ownership in any way by the upper classes- but we are speaking in the
context of a viasnava society, specifically ISKCON, where the ruling
class has broken the seal of trust, by allowing child molesters to be
gurus, and other scandals.; Also in ISKCON there is no tendency in the
workers to buy liquor as soon as they get money. Similarly, people in
the non-ISKCON world have had only experience of depersonalization and
exploitation by their bosses, who only care for the bottom line. So
although such dependency might allow them to give up vices like
alcoholism, they do not do it. They do not trust the leaders- the
leaders have not earned their trust.

First, establish trust by consistent care and concern of the leaders,
then when people see the loving dynamic of care - the gentleman ethic
("the real test of a gentleman is how he treats people who are of no
use to him")- then they will naturally be attracted. Gradually they
will become less worried about money, and more trusting of such real
luxuries as friendship, commitment, and gratitude. By practical
experience they will see that it results in a happier less-stressful
way of life.

It is amazing that you put so much stress on workers being owned as
slaves, in other threads, and then admit that no one will be attracted
to such a dynamic. Do you want no one to join a VA community, or why
this dichotomy?