Pariprashnena — Q&A Archive

Warning, devotees should give examples that are practical. Most devotees are working outside and earning money so it is difficult for them not to agree that this is the most advanced civilization, otherwise why are they wasting their time in it? The fact that we are using our computers and cell phones (of course we are doing it to take down this material civilization right?) just proves that we are involved in it.

We can make academic arguments against the modern way of life and criticize it in our Bhagavatam classes but as long as ISKCON has no practical examples of farm communities where devotees can live happily, peacefully, and independently it does not have that much practical value. Of course there are a few simple living farm communities out there (at least I think so).

"Modern civilization is considered to be advanced in the standard of the mode of passion. Formerly, the advanced condition was considered to be in the mode of goodness." (BG 14.7 p.)

Dharma is the real criteria of advancement, not artha, or kama since they depend on dharma and karma in this or previous lives.

I work in a technology corporation, so Im intimately familiar with modern civilization and its paradigm.

Certain aspects of technology have never been so advanced as they are now, without doubt. But "civilization"? How do you define civilization?

I just returned from the United States, and the television was filled with ads for medications to deal with the liefstyle consequences of their "advanced civilization". Two that I remember were for inability to sleep, and for "restless leg syndrome". For restless leg syndrome I recommend eating less and passing stool regularly, rather than a medication.

Both of these ads ended with a list of side effects and consequences of taking the drugs. The current "civilization" is like the story of the lady who swallowed a fly, then swallowed a spider, then a bird, and so on. We are trapped in an unending cycle of dealing with the fall-out of our innovations.

At the same time, the basic necessity of human life, happiness, is not increasing. Objective studies show that happiness and satisfaction are decreasing. No one wants more technology or more economic development, per se. What everyone is seeking is happiness and satisfaction. The Bhagavatam compares the current civilization to a deer that leaves an oasis and travels out into a desert chasing a mirage looking for water.

We are like that. No technological innovation satisfies us. No amount of economic development satiates our need for fulfillment. As a result we expand and consume unlimitedly, destroying the ecosystem and creating huge imbalances and inequities as we do it.

People, if satisfied easily, will not endeavour so hard. They will not mine so much metal and petrochemicals from the earth, at great endeavour and expense. A really advanced civilization has no need to develop the technology that we have, and they dont have to deal with the side effects and consequences that we are dealing with.

Civilization has never been as advanced as nowadays

This is a premise that took root in society since the Enlightenment era, where the idea of whatever present and future developments society achieves must be better than those of the past. In sociology this is attributed to a colonialist perspective where anything from the west must be better. This formulism has been applied in most areas of human development such as arts, politics, science, philosophy, etc.

The way to counter argue such reasoning is to see the actual condition of human society, particularly influenced by modern values and attitudes. Take medicine for example, there are plenty of arguments against allopathic medicine, that overlooks the causes of disease but rather addresses mostly the symptoms. In fact there are many places where the medicinal knowledge and skills of native people are taking seriously and proving to be more therapeutically effective. The same applies to art, lately even in philosophy (with the increased interest in Eastern philosophy). Of course, politics is the sacred cow of this civilization (just see Irak)... I wont go there...

More contrastingly is the current social condition; if the more civilised we become, then our societies should also be improving in practically every sense. More wars, social dissention, diseases, depression, etc.... are the consequences of such a fallacy in terms of development.

In academia there are people that argues against this concept, and certainly you dont need to have a self-sufficient farm to do so and doesnt need to be constrived to Bhagavatam clases in closed doors discussions. Of course, is good to prove our point with practical examples (such as a farm), but even if in our lifetime we are not able to live happily ever after in a god-forsaken :) farm community, still the very fact that we can have a spiritual consciousness and the consequent results of it, will be sufficient practical proof that material civilization is not necessarily better. The fact that our knowledge comes from an ancient civilization gives us the authority to talk according to our own experience.

Being involved (working, etc) in material civilization doesnt mean that the devotees share the ideology of material civilization.

Modern and vedic civilization - discourses by H.H. Bhaktividya Purna Swami Maharaja (english-hungarian) - 2007.08.01. - 2007.08.10.:
http://lepnikell.hu/index.php?action=down_categ

pr?ye??lp?yu?a? sabhya
kal?v asmin yuge jan??
mand?? sumanda-matayo
manda-bh?gy? hy upadrut??

"O learned one, in this iron age of Kali men have but short lives. They are quarrelsome, lazy, misguided, unlucky and, above all, always disturbed."

(I just wanted to test the diacritics. And this verse is sorta relevant.)