A question on the Harimedia forum, May 2005: “What are your thoughts on social issues relevant to spiritualists? Should we try to build some kind of social structure among ourselves, or simply function within the existing fabric of the existing society?”
Some traditional spiritual social structures, specifically the traditional varna and ashrama structure in ancient India, had good elements in them, but implementing something like this is far too difficult at present. Even dedicated religious groups have intensely refused to experiment with these ancient systems, so you can be certain it has no chance of reviving until there are some really significant changes in society. It is highly unlikely such changes will occur. Most persons I know are not eager they do!
Aside from attempting to implement social structures transplanted from the ancient past, there are ways to create a favorable social atmosphere through transforming the inner self:
1) Always endeavor to do the right thing.
2) Avoid judging and condemning yourself and others.
3) Be fair and consider there is only one of us; meaning, we are all affected by the resonating effects of events.
4) Expand that principle in your economic dealings and make decisions that are good for you, good for others, good for the environment, and good for the world.
5) Be charitable and help others in need.
6) Always desire to be of service according to your capacities.
7) Love yourself and love others.
8) Do not have false expectations or place demands on yourself and others.
9) Have a stable family situation.
10) Be non-violent.
And so on...
Creating a relevant social structure begins with finding people who agree with these principles. They do not need to believe in the same God or accept some specific philosophy, for society can run nicely if all are good people who follow the principles of personal integrity and mutual respect for life.
You can then either:
1) Move all together in the same physical location (a lot of work and risky nowadays)
or
2) Associate in ways that do not demand physical proximity, such as by creating events, projects, social gatherings, and so on, where you can essentially have a community without the hassle of working out the practical details of a support infrastructure.
Although the first idea has multiple benefits, I favor the second at present as it is easier and attainable. For example, I live peacefully in my community with little demanding contact with the people around me. I am friendly, assisting when required, and thankful for the way we cooperate when we have common interests. I associate with many other like-minded people through harimedia.net, through the Saturday Broadcast, or when I associate with spiritually minded people from the area. It is enjoyable to meet friends at their homes or in my home, when we go to concerts and shows together, or when we have a picnic or party. Although all interactions are good in one way or another, it is comforting to know that at the end of the day we all go back to our own places of peace and stability. We have our own lives, our own economies, and are fulfilling our own dreams. Where these aspects interact with others, we meet, and when they do not, we do not meet. Naturally, when friends have a need for support I am there for them – that goes without saying.
Even a seemingly perfect society or situation can be distorted and even destroyed by economic entanglements. Friends can become enemies and families can fall apart. When there are social, religious, or community restrictions placed on people which prevent them from doing something they should be doing for their own personal or familial benefit, it creates ruptures in their lives which affect the entire community. Fixing these broken elements is very hard and takes enormous effort. Better not to be bound to each other with any other force than mutual love, respect, or agreement to associate. Things work best when there is freedom to move, ways to escape when needed, and the possibility to create a life compatible to one’s own energy.
Existing society, for better or worse, functions in a structured manner and already has enough restrictions and rules. A problem often faced by those attempting to create idyllic spiritual communities is the creation of a seemingly relevant subset of the existing society’s rules which usually makes life far too complex for those who are responsible for a family. This might be avoided by creating an independent society with its own rules, but trying to reinvent the [social] wheel in search of the perfect social structure forces one to repeat historical patterns, duplicate similar mistakes and waste years, if not lifetimes of time while traumatizing your idealistic members.
Any endeavor to create a better society will always depend on the continued idealism and nose-to-the-grindstone practicality of those who do it. Pulling principles out of history and implementing long lost social patterns within the modern context is a formula for stress.
Therefore, it seems to me that living within the structure of the modern world by picking and choosing those aspects we have the freedom to choose while remaining close to those who share our ideals is an easier path more in tune with the time and with reality.
I do not believe that the circumstances of today can be successfully adapted into historical 'vedic' terms or traditions. Life and time is not static and things do change. The changes that are present today as compared to the historic past in India are massive. Attempts to fit the present manifestation of the modern world into the patterns that were comfortable to people in ancient times will be troublesome. Some will defend the past and its conclusions to the bitter end. Some will call to throw it all to the wind and start again. Others will try to compromise and balance the disparate cultures and people. I am sorry to suggest that I do not see the possibility of anyone or anything resurrecting the past in a successful format. Often it just becomes further impetus to argue and fight about how people are not properly following or how one is not accepting the principles of ancient cultures, and using this fact as the proof of why the attempt is unsuccessful.
I do see paradigms which make sense to me. Religious social structures usually dealt with the four major classifications of work which were required to structure society. Always there are those who work with their brain, those who work with their brawn, those who manipulate money and organize production and those that regulate what all others do. If I may translate the ancient terminology into modern terms, I find patterns and similarities between the modern categories of work and those found in ancient cultures.
I see the problems of brahmanas (scholars or priests) when I associate with University professors, men of the cloth, or researchers attempting to find truth. I see the problems of ksatriyas (defense or government related authorities) when I watch the President grappling with a problem, see administrators trying to make ends meet, or read the news. I see the problems of the agrarian and business community when I use their products, eat their food, or am forced to upgrade my systems all the time to keep pace. I see the problems of sudras (laborers) when their [lack of] purchasing power dominates what is presented to me in the media or in the stores.
I see problems based on personalities as they relate to the working environment. I see human psyche at work in basic patterns. Perhaps it is better to call these patterns archetypes because the four basic varnas (the work groups from ancient India) are indeed archetypes and it could be clarifying to treat them as such. Even within the social organization of ancient India, there were many subdivisions within the varnas and many special circumstances and situations and these caused the archetypical responses to be challenged, discussed and updated.
Since the ancient Indian social system never existed in a static or simplistic format, it would be more interesting if we could extract the specific relevant aspects of these archetypes and their interactions and apply them to ourselves in our own environment when we relate with each other in a social setting?
If you try to outwardly discriminate between people using these forms you could find yourself in a dangerous situation because no one wishes to be categorized in this way with all the connotations and class prejudice that come with them. But if you were to observe the mentality of the people with whom you relate and understand them from the archetypes, your relations with them can improve.
For example, if a sudra needs praise and appreciation and you find yourself with someone who seems to fit within that form, praise and appreciate them and see what happens. If you are with a person who seems to fit within the brahminical form (skip their having to act perfectly as this is not relevant to the experiment) listen to them, respect their intelligence and learning, and inquire from them in a way which will amplify their gifts. Although brahmanas love to argue and justify their existence by being smarter or sharper than others, arguments usually get nowhere fast, whereas researching what someone has to offer and integrating it into [whatever you feel you can] has some value and will earn you a friend and allow you to sleep better and live longer. Anyway, you get the point.
In case you do not, when you meet a person who fits within the vaisya mold, do business or engage in charity with them. Make sure that there is some profit involved. And for those very determined ksatriya types, say, in a very innocent, sincere, and subtle manner that their clever detective minds cannot catch, "Yes Sir!" Or figure out how you can assist them in protecting others.
All this is an extreme over-simplification of a very complex and interesting topic. I thought to bend the discussion in a new direction.
I see the present value of varnasrama as a psychological tool for dealing with people who have certain qualities that fit into these basic patterns. I see little value in trying to make the structure of social, economic and governmental organization work in the modern world for a few billion reasons. This does not mean it can never. I do not wish to limit the future. I am sure there is much to be learned from these psychological profiles and the interactions they suggest. It is another way at looking at interactions and I am sure when those who have the opportunity to utilize these profiles do so within a work or social environment it will give them the tools to make things better. After all, this is all that ultimately counts within any organization: to make things better for those within it.
I look at these social creations in a rather simple manner. It does not take long to observe if something can work or not. When it is observed that something does not work, then one who wishes to make it work will make adjustments until it works or works better.
Most projects that I saw or participated in worked to some extent and constantly needed adjustment. The general trend was usually disintegrative unless there was a powerful leader who compensated for the defects of the community to keep it working with charisma and words of encouragement. However, observation has shown that this works for a limited time. The long-term trend is a constant change of membership and instability. Other factors, such as the adherence to the core values and principles ruling the social fabric of the community, can discourage people who may not fully agree to live according to these ideals. People who leave usually feel unhappy, not part of the community, not wanted, irrelevant, or exploited.
My conclusion is based on observation of what makes people want to remain within a social structure: Their desire to be in that structure cannot be dependent on the words, desires, or encouragement of a charismatic leader or some force not connected to their family unit. Every individual must be given the potential to gain prosperity, acceptance, peace, comfort, and facility within that community.
Therefore, if a community wishes to survive, it must provide the structure within which each unit, a family or an individual, can contribute to its prosperity and welfare. Any ideals or theories that interfere with this, interfere with the goal of creating a community.
One should then question: Should the vision focus on creating community or is it meant to create followers of ideals? If the idea is to create followers, then there is no need to waste time working hard to create a community because followers will follow in any situation. Being a follower means you are automatically registered in a community based on who or what you are following. But if the vision is to create an actual community, it must be designed to fulfill the needs of the people within it who come together desiring to live in a nice place supporting their peace and prosperity. This becomes much easier when one puts community first, the context of spirituality second, and removes the insistence on being a follower of ideals.
If one feels this is not possible, intolerable, useless or whatever, one should then re-examine the validity of the attempt to create a community because it is possible (which means, this is a risk to be considered before starting the endeavor) that community and followers are incompatible concepts. Perhaps this is why we usually hear the phrase, "Groups of followers," rather than "Community of followers."
Communities can be based on specific concepts, for example, a community of people who like to help children, or a community of scientists who believe in peace, or even a community of Vaishnavas. But when residents feel that their neighbors worry about whether they are living up to the ideals of the conceptions that imply community membership, the social structure eventually breaks down. Cooperation, tolerance, awareness of the needs of others and the desire to facilitate them, are building blocks that cannot be avoided. When idealism suffocates reality, everyone suffers.
Living together and thinking alike are actually two different concepts. In many religious communities, this distinction blurs by design. In places where you are allowed to live together and think differently, community in the physical, social and economic sense can thrive and thus one can create a social fabric where there are threads running in different directions. One cannot create a fabric if the threads run in the same direction because cloth is created by an inter-twining, threaded structure.
This text is filled with assumptions and is not written as an exhaustive explanation. Thinking persons can take from it a way to continue the evolution of communities and the narrow minded can reject it as presumptuous. Thus it serves a purpose for all groups of people.