An Essay on Compromise
BY: KRSNACANDRA DASA
Nov 22, VRINDAVANA, INDIA (SUN) — In modern times the term compromise is understood to be the synthesis of differing
views or attitudes etc to form an acceptable interaction between various conflicting parties. This is a concept that has taken a prominent role in secular society. In the broader sense compromise is where solutions to problems are achieved via either arbitration or negotiation. The former meaning, where an 'arbiter' is used, comes from the archaic Latin 'root meaning' of the word - compromise, where both parties accepts the decision of an arbiter. However, in the secular world the latter
meaning, a process of negotiation, is more widely used.
As the years unfold, scientists, moralists, religionists, philosophers etc become more and more secure in their beliefs systems as they seek to aid man
to adapt to evolving trends and methodologies in order to make a safer and more efficient society. This process is how the concept of 'compromise', usually the latter meaning, affects and impacts on the development of human society.
The process of decision making is usually where the more intelligent,
practical, moral, ethical or forceful opinion is accepted over 'so called'
inferior opinions. This process is easily demonstrated in the field of
science where a scientific hypothesis when posited is considered under
'Poppers Law of Falsifiability' and is then either accepted or rejected by
the scientific community. This law loosely translates as the process of 'If
the hypothesis can be disproved - by scientifically accepted methods - then
it is rejected and if it is not able to be disproved it is accepted as a
theory.' In this way science makes advancement and builds its knowledge
base.
In the socio-political communities the processes of decision making varies.
They range from 'top down' Despotic regimes to 'bottom up' Democratic
systems. The Democratic system is in the majority in human society. Here the
decision making process is by 'vox populi' where the higher percentile
averages of voting public make the decisions. Here, it is by precedent and
laws, that society makes advancement.
The basic tenet of the various processes outlined above is 'sophistry'.
Where one view can be accepted as the predominant view over other views due
to either intellectual / practical or sentimental considerations.
An individual's view can be changed, modified or consolidated by the
influence of the considerations described above. For example: In post-9/11
US Gallup polls were conducted, to gain the people’s views on Capital
Punishment and to seek people's views on whether the US should 'nuke' Iraq,
to eradicate the perceived threat of their ability to make and use weapons
of mass destruction.
The percentage of people 'for' capital punishment for rapists / murderers
etc had dropped since 9/11 and the percentage of people 'for' the 'nuking'
of Iraq - (innocent women and children included) was 29%, that is over one
quarter of people were in support of using nuclear weapons against Iraq much
more powerful than the ones that the US used against Japan.
The question here - is this a case of simple compromise where people made
two mutually exclusive decisions based on sentimental / intelligent / moral/
ethical or practical terms? Or is this a simple case of mass stupidity?
How can this be a simple case of mass stupidity when the average person has
been educated by a society that has been created by intelligent / educated
majorities?
The decision to nuke Iraq by the voters is of course not done without
precedent, for the US is the only country that has used weapons of mass
destruction, namely nuclear bombs, on another country.
The process of 'vox populi' is very infectious as seen above. Thus we saw
sentimentality, taking precedence over the practical and/or intellectual
considerations of the general population.
The Media in all its forms are very important 'normalization' tools. Here
governing bodies can manipulate the masses by using multimedia process in
order to appeal to the individuals sentimental mind as opposed to rational
mind.
The rational mind seeks to protect the life of one’s child, spouse, sibling,
friend or fellow human being. In the case of one’s child, spouse, friend
being raped and murdered the natural response for the average person would
be to have the culprit be given the death penalty. If one was to witness the
act then one may, according to the circumstance, enact that death penalty on
the spot in order to protect the victim whom they care about. However, once
emotionally detached from the victim then it now appears easy to protect the
living, in this case the perpetrator.
The societal trend is to abolish the death penalty. It is seen as being more
civilized and therefore advanced. Yet how is this so? How did a society come
to this conclusion?
As we progress and advance in so called modern society we are seeing more
and more lenient punishment for the perpetrators of crime. More and more
laws that are modified by 'vox populi' that make the rights of the criminal
more and more important than their rightful punishment.
Recidivist rates increase and jails become overcrowded, therefore more
criminals are released early by probationary boards. Yet crimes become more
and more heinous. Children begin entering into the more heinous crime
bracket and we call this advancement.
The average citizen is reluctant to report crime for various reasons that
are usually based on fearfulness of retaliation by the 'soon to be released'
criminal.
It is more like the system has turned upside down. The mentality of the
citizen becomes more like a 'criminal mentality' as opposed to an empowered
citizen. Why punish the criminal? Why report the criminal? Why get involved?
But is this really the mentality of criminals? What happens to a child
molester in jail? What happens to a child murderer in Jail? They are usually
isolated for fear that other criminals will kill them. Yet the law protects
them. The same law, the average citizen, has voted for.
This is one of the results of compromise based on sophistry.
Decisions are based on an emotional imperative, desire. So in a hedonistic
society where a person’s desires are stimulated and encouraged we see an
increasing number of decisions made out of over stimulated desires, derived
mainly under the modes of passion or ignorance.
When a person enters into mainstream 'normalization' processes such as the
educational system (School) they more or less knowingly fall prey to the
predominating trend or point of view.
The students are "schooled" to confuse process and substance. Once these
become blurred, a new logic is assumed. The student believes that more
educational process equals better results; or, escalation leads to success.
The pupil is thereby "schooled" to confuse teaching with learning, grade
advancement with education, a degree with competence, and fluency with
being independently intelligent. The curriculum becomes a systematic and
ritualistic (test / degree / diploma) process in order to judge ones worth,
inside the school system as well as where they fit into the consumer based
bureaucratic workforce.
Ones imagination is "schooled" to accept service or a position, in a place
that mainstream society values. Medical treatment is mistaken for health
care, social work for community development, police protection for safety,
military poise for national security, the rat race for productive work.
Health, learning, dignity, independence, and creative endeavor are defined
as little more than the performance of the institutions which claim to serve
these ends. Further that any improvement in their results will be entirely
dependent on the allocation of more resources to the management of
hospitals, schools, and other agencies in question.
Institutionalization of values leads inevitably to physical dis-ease, social
polarization, and disempowerment (psychological impotence). This leaves the
individual in a highly susceptible state and therefore easily influenced by
institutional values.
This process is accelerated when material needs are transformed into demands
for commodities; when health, education, personal mobility, welfare, or
psychological healing are defined as merely the result of services or
"treatments by agencies."
Rich and poor alike depend on schools and hospitals which guide their lives,
form their world view, and define for them what is legitimate and what is
not. Both view healing oneself as irresponsible, learning on one's own as
unreliable, and community organization, when not paid for by those in
authority, as a form of aggression or subversion. For both groups the
reliance on institutional treatment renders independent accomplishment
suspect.
In the past it was the normal thing to be born and to die in one's own home
and to be buried by one's friends. Now to begin and end life at home become
signs either of poverty or of special privilege. Dying and death have come
under the institutional management of doctors and undertakers. Society
dictates that a student is put through a process that conditions them to
accept and value institutional life as the best and only way of life.
The student graduate is one of the best "consumers" for this
corporate/institutional/consumer world that we live in. This is noticeable
in second and third world countries where the difference between the
educated and the villager is more pronounced. The graduate is a much better
consumer than the villager.
In the sixties there was a move amongst the younger generation and many
intellectuals to opt out of the mainstream 'normalization' system and thus
the hippie generation was born. They mainly stood for Nuclear Disarmament
(Hence the ubiquitous peace symbol) as they saw weapons of mass destruction
as the zenith of consumer culture. Here adherents understood the problems of
the "system" and rebelled against it.
Modern consumer based culture became manifest at the dawn of the
"industrial revolution" in the late 18 hundreds in Britain. This is when
"machines" became more important than humans in the workforce.
It also meant the rapid increase of production. With that demand increased
as did availability. With increasing demand (consumers) and subsequently
production, capitalism increased exponentially. This increased the need of
having people trained to fit into the roles within the production side as well
as the demand.
For consumer culture to be efficient then it needs absolute control of the
consumers and the best way to achieve this is to set up a system that
produces controllable consumers. Thus the life of a consumer had to be
institutionalized from birth to death and the best way to achieve this is to
instill values into the consumer such as the 'work ethic' etc that ensure
compliance.
Thus the Hippies opted out of the work force, refusing to accept
institutionalized positions as they saw it was the only way to break the
cycle. They were thinking that by the use of 'passive resistance' they could
achieve both awareness of the problem in consumers and/or a ‘revolution in
thinking’ that would lead to creating a better society.
Many social commentators of the sixties and seventies considered that monies
saved from say the school system could be diverted back into the community
in the form of training centers that were apprenticeship based and aimed at
teaching children and adults in a more "experiential" way with emphasis
being placed on ability and aptitude.
Srila Prabhupada arrived in the US at the dawn of the Hippie movement. He
offered a profound replacement for mainstream institutionalized consumer
based culture. The Vedic Culture. A system that's epistemology was based on
the instructions of the Supreme Lord Sri Krsna Himself and not man-made
de-constructions.
Krsna Himself constructed this super-excellent system for perfecting life,
however, humans have been busy changing this absolute system for relative
systems since time immemorial.
The "idea" of compromise, as it has been presented in this essay, is
redundant in the Vedic system. In the Vedic system the 'former' meaning is
utilized, where views of Sastra, Guru and Sadhu are accepted when they
align. Guru or Sadhu make the knowledge of Sastra readily available and
understandable to the general population.
ISKCON is a spiritual organization that is here to teach the absolute truth
as given by Sri Krsna Himself and explained by the disciplic succession. It
teaches by use of "religious principals" a moral and spiritual way of life.
Srila Prabhupada has further explained the principals of the disciplic
succession in a very practical manner for us to use in order to live our
life together in Krsna Consciousness.
There is no question of compromise in the "relative" sense. Srila Prabhupada
has given us instructions on both mundane and supramundane matters from the
"absolute" sense. Thus we can readily find instruction on all aspects of
devotional life to aid us. We also can find in the form of another devotee,
who is also attempting to follow Srila Prabhupada, a practical aid (Siksa)
to help us understand and practice our Krsna Consciousness.
Difficulty comes when devotees who, failing to understand Srila Prabhupada
and therefore weak in their spiritual resolve, become influenced by secular
trends and methodologies by being "enamored" and "valuing" institutional
consumer culture. This is especially noticeable when the devotee is in a
leadership position. Their advice and support is tainted with institutional
jargon and perspective and contradictory, thus ultimately confusing as it
conflicts with the higher Vaisnava philosophical view point.
In all religious movements we see both the mundane influenced and
Sastrically influenced devotee attempting to work side by side. They
eventually form into two distinct streams. The Traditionalists and the
Modernists.
The Traditionalist devotee is someone who understands the process as
described by the spiritual preceptors and laid down in Scripture and thus seek
to adhere to its tenets as closely as possible. While the Modernist seeks to
compromise and "blend" modern trends and methodologies with traditional ones
in the understanding that their opinions or views are for the betterment of
the system.
We must be very careful not to change the principals that our Archaryas have
laid down. When we attempt to "change" or "adapt" specifics in regard to the
implementation of the philosophy or its practice, we must first ascertain if
these changes are based on correct Vaisnava or Vedic principals.
In the education of our children and adults it is extremely vital that we do
not accept the modernistic idea of using government accreditation process.
It instills in our devotees values of mainstream consumer culture and not
spiritual culture and is therefore diametrically opposed to the instructions
of our spiritual master Srila Prabhupada and therefore guru aparadha.
Most of the changes that "Modernists" promote are in regard to secular
considerations and/ or sensibilities, therefore they are specifics of
secular principals and not appropriate for inclusion in our tradition.
As so called modern society changes newer and newer views, opinions and
attitudes become manifest. The modernist believes that views, opinions and
attitudes "evolve" as society "evolves", yet in the Vedic Scriptures we find
that many if not all these views have been postulated over the history of
the material manifestation and are not necessarily "new". They have
predominated as time, place and circumstance change, in the relative world of
the non-Vedantist.
The Vedic view, opinion and attitude still remains the same after all this
time. It's adherents accepting them and making advancement. While the others
fall away. The modernistic view while seemingly advantageous will only be
temporary as will the devotional lives of the modernist devotees, unless of
course they begin to understand the truth in what Srila Prabhupada and the
previous Acaryas have given us and try and maintain their life in the
service of our more spiritually advanced preceptors.
ISKCON must seriously look at this issue. We must ascertain where we are
developing our movement by using consumer based mainstream cultural
principals and therefore processes and make the necessary changes. This may
seem like a drastic step but we must remember that these processes are a 180
degree turn around from the direction that Srila Prabhupada wanted his
movement to go.
Mainstream consumer culture is very aware of the potency of "school" to
shape a child's world view, values and future and so should we. Our children
must learn to devalue the government accreditation and certification process
and value spiritual progress.
Monies, manpower, resources and buildings need to be redirected to look at
finding training and employment or service within our own communities.
Srila Prabhupada did not want us to focus our movement to "Krishnaizing" the
mainstream consumer based culture he wanted that we create our own
spiritual, agrarian culture. For this, mainstream consumer based culture has
no idea.
So please forgive my mistakes and sometimes the "force" of my presentation.
I have tried my best to present this essay as balanced as possible and hope
that I have not offended anyone in the process. I sincerely pray that you
think about what I am saying.
Yours in the service of Srila Prabhupada and Sri Sri RadhaSyamasundar,
Krsnacandra dasa
Vrndavana Dham
