Pariprashnena — Q&A Archive

Seems like a big topic. Interesting I would fit in to some of them quite easily (-:

My 2 bits worth.
On the level of karma everyone is entitled to desire what they want but may not get it but should be ready for the consequences.

On the level of varnashrama there are rights and responsibilities and some of these statements will apply others wont, some are higher in the level of conciousness some are lower like

9. I have the right to have positive, satisfying relationships within which I feel comfortable and free to express myself honesty -- and the right to change or end relationships if they dont meet my needs.

For example you wouldnt have the right to leave youre kids because you feel like it and would be judged neglectful and may even be punished by law for doing so (like in most countries). The same may apply to husband wives, parents etc.

As our consciousnmess elevates we think more selflessly than selfishly rising to goodness, more concerned about our responsibilities to others than our rights

On the highest consciouness it will be about only pleasing krishna with no other motive rather than our material wants and desires.

It is not in conflict if you are in full Krishna consciousness and is rather advanced in your convictions. Of course if you become a disciple of someone, for example Srila Prabhupada, you loose some of these rights in principle, but that is voluntary, out of love. Basically you can exercise these rights in the broad framework of Vaisnava theology.

Personally Id replace the word right with choice. And choice means responsibility. When others misunderstand our actions, it may create a bad atmosphere and mental aparadhas.

[quote][cite] VEDA:[/cite]Personally Id replace the word right with choice. And choice means responsibility.[/quote]

The notion of "choice" entails the notion of "right". Would you say that the notion of "right" does not entail the notion of "responsibility"?
[br][br]

[quote]When others misunderstand our actions, it may create a bad atmosphere and mental aparadhas.[/quote]

Could say a bit more in relation to what you mean this - perhaps to right no. 3 on the above list?

[quote][cite] vrindavan:[/cite]As our consciousnmess elevates we think more selflessly than selfishly rising to goodness, more concerned about our responsibilities to others than our rights[/quote]

Assertive rights (in their various formulations) were developed as a counteractive measure to some characteristically non-assertive beliefs and behaviors. Below is an example of them:

* * *

1. You should not make independent judgments about yourself and your actions. You must be judged by external rules, procedures, and authority wiser and greater than yourself.

2. You should explain your reasons for your behavior to other people since you are responsible to them for your actions. You should justify your actions to them.

3. You have an obligation to things and institutions greater than yourself which groups of other people have set up to conduct the business of living. You should sacrifice your own values to keep these systems from falling apart. If these systems do not always work effectively, you should bend or change, not the system. If any problems occur in dealing with the system, they are your problems and not the responsibility of the system.

4. You should not change your mind after you have committed yourself. If you change your mind, something is wrong. You should justify your new choice or admit that you were in error. If you are in error, you have shown that you are irresponsible, likely to be wrong again, cause problems. Therefore you are not capable of making decisions by yourself.

5. You must not make errors. Errors are wrong and cause problems to other people. If you make errors, you should feel guilty. You are likely to make more errors and problems and therefore you cannot cope properly or make proper decisions. Other people should control your behavior and decisions so you will not cause problems; in this way you can make up for the wrong you have done to them.

6. You should have answers to any question about the possible consequences of your actions, because if you dont have answers, you are unaware of the problems you will cause other people and therefore you are irresponsible and must be controlled.

7. You must have the goodwill of people you relate to or they can prevent you from doing anything. You need the cooperation of other people to survive. It is very important that people like you.

8. You must follow logic because it makes better judgments than any of us can make.

9. You must anticipate and be sensitive to the needs of other people if we are all to live together without discord. You are expected to understand what these needs are without causing problems by making other people spell out their needs to you. If you do not understand without being constantly told what other people want, you are not capable of living in harmony with others and are irresponsible or ignorant.

10. Because of your human condition, you are base and have many flaws. You must try to make up for this humanness by striving to improve until you are perfect in all things. Being human, you will probably fail in this obligation, but you still must want to improve. If someone else points out how you can improve yourself, you are really obliged to follow his direction. If you do not, you are corrupt, lazy, degenerate, and worthless, and therefore unworthy of respect from anyone, including yourself.

From: Manuel J. Smith: When I say no, I feel guilty. How to cope using the skills of Systematic Assertive Therapy. Bantam Books, 1975. 41-69.

* * *

> The notion of "choice" entails the notion of "right". Would you say that the notion of "right" does not entail the notion of "responsibility"?

Afaik, the idea of right is a modern one, established by humanism. Traditional law codes have duties (dharma).

Manu 2.103
na tishthati tu yah purvam naupaste yashca pashcimam |
sa shudravad bahishkaryah sarvasmad dvijakarmanah ||

But he who does not (worship) standing in the morning, nor sitting in the evening, shall be excluded, just like a Sudra, from all the duties and rights of an Aryan. (Buehler)

Dr. Patel: Thats right. We have got a dvija, dvija-karma kriya. Dvija-karma-kriya? What do you call it?
Prabhupada: Samskara. (mw, 24 Nov 1975, Bombay)

Rights is Buehlers invention.

>> When others misunderstand our actions, it may create a bad atmosphere and mental aparadhas.

> Could say a bit more in relation to what you mean this - perhaps to right no. 3 on the above list?

If others are lets say your team colleagues, then doing so endangers your cooperation since youll be considered unpredictable.

The assertive approach is good in case of persons who want to make us subject to them in some strange way.

So its desa, kala, patra thing.

Ive always had trouble trying to understand where the western concept of rights fits in the Vedic paradigm, especially considering that the Western paradigm or belief system does not encompass karma. For example, we often hear I have a right to be treated with respect, or I have a right to education, or I have a right to be treated fairly, and things like that. However you may have performed actions in previous lives which by their consequence deny you those things in this life.

Take for example, point 9 by Baker (I have the right to have positive, satisfying relationships...) - lets say in a previous life you were a dedicated selfish manipulative rascal who took advantage of people. The reactions to your actions in that life will almost certainly deny you any chance at satisfying relationships in this life. Instead, you will likely be subjected to manipulation and deceit. In such a case, the idea of having a right to satisfying relationships has no foundation.

If we really did have some kind of absolute inalienable right to education, or fair treatment, or respect etc etc, then it stands to reason that we would always have them, i.e we would always be treated properly, have proper relationships etc etc. But that is not the reality of our lives. This says to me that the concept of absolute inalienable rights is not correct. It does not encompass the broader picture of your existence.

In the literature on assertiveness, the context for understanding those rights is that they were developed in order to help people get out of abusive situations.

So for example, for "I have the right to have positive, satisfying relationships" the context would be "... and therefore I do not have to unduly endure bad relationships and abuse, but can instead work on improving the relationships I am in or find new ones."
Consider the example of the battered wife who believes she has no right to have "positive, satisfying relationships", and then on the grounds of such reasoning, stays with her abusive husband.

I also think one must believe that it is ones absolute inalienable right to work on ones relationship with God; that one needs to feel oneself entitled to pursue this relationship. Because society at large, members of other traditions, and even those who are nominally on the same path as we will often interfere and will try to convince us that we do not have such a right, but that instead we have to do as someone else tells us (whom we have not voluntarily accepted as an authority over ourselves).

[quote][cite] deena:[/cite]This says to me that the concept of absolute inalienable rights is not correct. It does not encompass the broader picture of your existence.[/quote]

I think it really depends on what is seen as the context of those rights, and how the right is formulated.
I know an old teacher who tells his students "You have the right to do your homework." Probably a peculiar formulation, but for people who feel pulled in a number of directions, who feel obligated to go by this pull, such a formulation of rights can be a useful concept.

Compare also:

BG 2.47: You have a right to perform your prescribed duty, but you are not entitled to the fruits of action.

SB 1.17.10-11, pp: Any living being who takes birth in a state has the primary right to live under the protection of the king.

NoI 2, pp: The wealth of the world should be used for the welfare of all living entities, for that is the plan of Mother Nature. Everyone has the right to live by utilizing the wealth of the Lord. When people learn the art of scientifically utilizing the Lords property, they will no longer encroach upon one anothers rights. Then an ideal society can be formed.

SB 4.21.27, pp: A father wants all of his children to become happy under his direction. Similarly, God, or Krishna, the Supreme Personality of Godhead, has the right to see that all living entities are happy.

SB 10.90.50, pp: The process of devotional service begins with hearing topics about the Supreme Lord. When one has heard these topics properly, he can then proceed to chant them for others benefit and reflect on their significance. This leads to faithful adherence to the principles of devotional service, which culminates in absolute faith in Lord Kruc0u803 su803 nu803 a. Such perfect faith gives one the right to enter the Lords intimate service and, in due course of time, return to ones eternal, spiritual life in one of the Lords personal domains.

Actually I see no conflict with the list of rights and the Vaisnava Philosophy, back in the 70s I had to raise these types of rights and assert them to family and friends so they realized I had the right to be a Hare Krishna.

As far as Rights vs Choice are concerned, firstly you must have the right before you can make a choice. In some countries you are denied certain fundamental rights so there is no question of being able to make the choice. Once the assertive rights are upheld for all then an individual can make the choice.

These rights are the fundamental requirements of all human beings and once a human realizes and asserts these rights and if they are fortunate enough to choose the path of Bhakti they will discover deeper aspects to these statements like who is the "I" in "I have a right". One of the most fundamental truths in the Vedas is challenging the common notion of I and mine and false identification of the body as the self.

I see no conflict at all infact in the context of Gaudiya Vaisnavism, these rights are actually important because without these rights there is no question of free and independent choice and without free and independent choice there is no question of love and devotion.

[quote][cite] ccd:[/cite]It is not in conflict if you are in full Krishna consciousness and is rather advanced in your convictions. Of course if you become a disciple of someone, for example Srila Prabhupada, you loose some of these rights in principle, but that is voluntary, out of love. Basically you can exercise these rights in the broad framework of Vaisnava theology.[/quote][br]

[quote][cite] VEDA:[/cite]The assertive approach is good in case of persons who want to make us subject to them in some strange way.[/quote]

I have wondered how to say this without coming across as too rude. But in short, my overwhelming impression is that once one approaches devotees, ones assertive rights are denied on principle. That as an outsider/newcomer, one is expected to be completely non-assertive and totally submissive to anyone at a devotee meeting, regardless of the issue at hand. Basically, that once one approaches devotees, the devotees "own" one and one is left to their mercy - and I mean this in the most negative sense.[br]
"Either youre our bitch, or you will never go back to Godhead."
[br][br]
Not all devotees are like that, of course, but I have seen that expectation/call for blind submission so often that I wonder whether it is perhaps the norm.

Weve discussed this before. Devotee association means a help, a support, an empowerment, priti laksanas, etc. Otherwise one associates at ones own risk.

There are several layers to this, there are literally a handful of sadhus (real Gaudiya Vaisnavas) on the planet, most of us will never get to meet the real sadhus and if we do it will be a very short glimpse. Which is very sad because to move onto higher stages of Bhakti you need real Sadhu Sanga.

So most devotees we meet are in a very junior or Kanistha stage, in most organisations for you to be accepted into the fold they want you to submit your free and assertive will (almost to the point of a lobotomy). Its is only at that point you are accepted as being a devotee. Iskcon has a huge history of this and to be fair its not just Iskcon. Most religious/spiritual organisations have a sub-culture that you must submit to (give up your free and independent rights) and often this sub-culture has nothing to do with the original teachings.

Its a very important point actually because when the assertive rights are taken away and not respected then abuses on many levels occur (subtle, mental and in the end gross and physical)

Its a human phenomena when we hoard together in groups we have the formal which applies to teachings, behaviour, chain of command, hierarchies etc etc. Then by way of our human nature we create the informal and often the informal sub culture is far more powerful, brutal, demanding, excessive, elusive, abusive and it so hard to eradicate because it is never formal or written down its a collective sub culture but it is usually at odds with the original teachings. The history of Iskcon has proven this.

This sub culture is usually driven by negative forces of greed, power, domination, wealth and for it to be successful in it own ends it must take away your assertive rights, use and abuse you and when in the end you discover what has happend and you wake up and realize your rights have been abused, the organization will spit you out faster than you can say Hare Krishna.

If you detect an environment is trying to erode your assertive rights they are probably anti spiritual. One should be able to inquire submissively and ask questions and maintain respect for the sadhus, but what real Sadhu would want you to lobotomize yourself and give up the very same principles that allowed you to break through your material way of thinking and approach the Sadhus in the first place?

[quote][cite] manasi_seva:[/cite]in most organisations for you to be accepted into the fold they want you to submit your free and assertive will (almost to the point of a lobotomy). Its is only at that point you are accepted as being a devotee. Iskcon has a huge history of this and to be fair its not just Iskcon. Most religious/spiritual organisations have a sub-culture that you must submit to (give up your free and independent rights) and often this sub-culture has nothing to do with the original teachings.[/quote]

Is seems to me like that as well.

The alvars of south india present a wonderful example of assertive warrior spiritual culture.However how many of us are indeed empowered like they were to defeat the government of the country....like nila alvar?
Within iskcons recent history, aggressive management has proved very successful in paying and creating wonderful temples especially.Which were extremely pleasing personally to Srila Prabhupada and he certainly took them as being extremely signifigannt and essential for iskcons prestige and spiritual authenticity..The wonderful example of gurukripa swami being blessed by Srila Prabhupada for offering millions of dollars for vrindavan krishna balarama construction is a wonderful example which springs to mind personally .Guru-kripa swami was adept at utilising everything in krishnas service.A wonderful example of an army regiminted service attitude that proved pleasing to guru and krishna.