第６章

Śrīla Prabhupāda: The other day I was reading the paper, Moscow News. There was a Communist congress, and the President declared, “We are ready to take others’ experience to improve.” So I think the Vedic concept of socialism or communism will much improve the idea of communism. For example, in a socialistic state the idea is that no one should starve; everyone must have his food. Similarly, in the Vedic concept of gṛhastha [householder] life it is recommended that a householder see that even a lizard or a snake living in his house should not starve. Even these lower creatures should be given food, and certainly all humans should. It is recommended that the gṛhastha, before taking his lunch, should stand on the road and declare, “If anyone is still hungry, please come! Food is ready!” If there is no response, then the proprietor of the household takes his lunch. Modern society takes the people as a whole as the proprietor of a certain state, but the Vedic conception is īśāvāsyam idaṁ sarvam – everything is owned by īśa, the supreme controller. Tena tyaktena bhuñjīthāḥ – you may enjoy what is allotted to you by Him. Mā gṛdhaḥ kasya svid dhanam: but do not encroach upon others’ property. This is the Īśopaniṣad – Veda. The same idea is explained in the different Purāṇas. There are many good concepts in the Vedic literature about communism. So I thought that these ideas should be distributed to your most thoughtful men. Therefore I was anxious to speak.

Prof. Kotovsky: It is interesting that here in our country there is now great interest in the history of old, old thought. From this point of view, our Institute translated into Russian and published many literary monuments of great Indian culture. You will be interested to discover that we published some of the Purāṇas and parts of the Rāmāyaṇa. There are volumes in Russian of Mahābhārata and also a second edition of Mahābhārata, translated in full. We have also published the full translation of Manu-smṛti with Sanskrit commentaries. Interest in these publications was so great that they sold out in a week. They are now completely out of stock. It was impossible to get them in the book market after a month. There is great interest among reading people here in Moscow and the U.S.S.R. toward ancient Vedic culture, and from this point of view we published many such books.

Śrīla Prabhupāda: Among these Purāṇas, the Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam is called the Mahā-purāṇa.

Prof. Kotovsky: Mahā-purāṇa.

Śrīla Prabhupāda: Yes. We have translated the full text – first we present the original Sanskrit text, its transliteration, the English equivalent for each word, then the translation, and then a purport, or explanation of the verse. In this way, there are eighteen thousand verses in Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam. We are translating everything literally. You can see. Each and every verse is being done like that for the whole Bhāgavata Purāṇa. The opinion of the ācāryas, the great saintly sages who are the preachers of the Bhāgavata philosophy, is nigama-kalpa-taror galitaṁ phalam: this is the ripened fruit of the Vedic desire tree [Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam 1.1.3]. It is accepted by all the Indian scholars, and Lord Caitanya especially preached this Bhāgavatam. So we have the complete Bhāgavatam in its English translation. If you want to see it, I can show you.

Prof. Kotovsky: It seems to me that in the Moscow and Leningrad libraries we have nearly all the major texts of ancient Indian culture, beginning from the Vedas, the original texts in Sanskrit. For instance, in the Leningrad branch of our Institute there are six or eight editions of Manu-smṛti. This Institute was founded in Imperial Russia in Leningrad, so in Leningrad we now have a branch of our Institute dealing mainly with the history of Asiatic culture. You will find here an account of what is being translated and what studies are being done on the history of Indian religion and also the state of Indian religion, Hinduism, in Hindu India today.

Śrīla Prabhupāda: Hinduism is a very complex topic.

Prof. Kotovsky: Oh, yes. [They laugh.] Really, to my understanding, it is not a religion, from the European point of view; it is a way of life – religion, philosophy, a way of life, whatever you want

Śrīla Prabhupāda: This word “Hindu” is not a Sanskrit word. It was given by the Muhammadans. You know that there is a river, Indus, which in Sanskrit is called Sindhu. The Muhammadans pronounce s as h. Instead of Sindhu, they made it Hindu. So “Hindu” is a term that is not found in the Sanskrit dictionary, but it has come into use. But the real cultural institution is called varṇāśrama. There are four varṇas [social divisions] – brāhmaṇa, kṣatriya, vaiśya, and śūdra – and four āśramas [spiritual divisions] – brahmacārī, gṛhastha, vānaprastha, and sannyāsa. According to the Vedic concept of life, unless people take to this system or institution of four varṇas and four āśramas, actually they do not become civilized human beings. One has to take this process of four divisions of social orders and four divisions of spiritual orders; that is called varṇāśrama. India’s culture is based on this age-old Vedic system.

Prof. Kotovsky: Varṇāśrama.

Śrīla Prabhupāda: Varṇāśrama. And in the Bhagavad-gītā – perhaps you have read the Bhagavad-gītā?

Prof. Kotovsky: Yes.

Śrīla Prabhupāda: There, in the Bhagavad-gītā [4.13], is the statement cātur-varṇyaṁ mayā sṛṣṭam: this system was created by Viṣṇu [God]. So since varṇāśrama is a creation of the Supreme, it cannot be changed. It is prevalent everywhere. It is like the sun. The sun is a creation of the Supreme. The sunshine is there in America, in Russia, and in India – everywhere. Similarly, this varṇāśrama system is prevalent everywhere in some form or another. Take, for example, the brāhmaṇas, the most intelligent class of men. They are the brains of the society. The kṣatriyas are the administrative class; then the vaiśyas are the productive class, and the śūdras are the worker class. These four classes of men are prevalent everywhere under different names. Because it is created by the original creator, so it is prevalent everywhere, varṇāśrama-dharma.

Prof. Kotovsky: It is interesting that in the opinion of some European and old Russian scholars, this varṇāśrama system is a later creation, and if you would read the old texts of Vedic literature, you would find a much more simple and agrarian society. It is the opinion of these scholars that the varṇāśrama system was introduced in Indian society in the late age of the Vedic era but not from the beginning. And if you would analyze the old texts, you would find that in the old classical India it was not so prevalent.

Śrīla Prabhupāda: As far as we are concerned, it is mentioned in the Bhagavad-gītā. Cātur-varṇyaṁ mayā sṛṣṭam. The Bhagavad-gītā was spoken five thousand years ago, and in the Bhagavad-gītā it is said, “This system of the Bhagavad-gītā was spoken by Me to the sun-god.” So if you take an estimation of that period, it comes to forty million years ago. Can the European scholars trace back history five thousand years? Can they go back forty million years? We have evidence that this varṇāśrama system has been current at least five thousand years. The varṇāśrama system is also mentioned in the Viṣṇu Purāṇa [3.8.9]. Varṇāśramācāravatā puruṣeṇa paraḥ pumān. That is stated in the Viṣṇu Purāṇa. Varṇāśrama-dharma is not a phenomenon of a historical period calculated in the modern age. It is natural. In the Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam the comparison is given that just as in the body there are four divisions – the brain division, the arms division, the belly division, and the leg division – so by nature’s way these four divisions are existing in the social body. There exists a class of men who are considered the brain, a class of men who are considered the arms of the state, a class of men who are called the productive class, and so on. There is no need of tracing history; it is naturally existing from the day of creation.

Prof. Kotovsky: You have said that in any society there are four divisions, but they are not so easy to distinguish. For instance, one can group together different social classes and professional groups into four divisions in any society; there is no difficulty. The only difficulty is, for instance, in the socialistic society – in our country and other socialist societies – how you can distinguish the productive group from the workers.

Śrīla Prabhupāda: For example, we belong to the intellectual class of men. This is a division.

Prof. Kotovsky: Intelligent class, brāhmaṇas. And you can also put together all the intelligentsia in that department.

Śrīla Prabhupāda: Yes.

Prof. Kotovsky: And then the administrative class.

Śrīla Prabhupāda: Yes.

Prof. Kotovsky: But who are the vaiśyas and śūdras? That is the difficulty. Because all others are workers – factory workers, collective farm workers, and so on. So from this point of view there is a great distinction, in my opinion, between socialist society and all societies preceding socialism, because in modern Western society you can group all social and professional classes in these particular class divisions – brāhmaṇas, kṣatriyas, vaiśyas, and śūdras: intellectuals, productive class, owners of the productive system (factory owners, for instance), and menial workers. But here you have no vaiśyas because you have administrative staffs in factories, and you can call them kṣatriyas, and then there are the śūdras, the workers themselves, but no intermediate class.

Śrīla Prabhupāda: That is stated. Kalau śūdra-sambhavaḥ. In this age practically all men are śūdras. But if there are simply śūdras, the social order will be disturbed. In spite of your state of śūdras, the brāhmaṇa is found here, and that is necessary. If you do not divide the social order in such a way, there will be chaos. That is the scientific estimation of the Vedas. You may belong to the śūdra class, but to maintain social order you have to train some of the śūdras to become brāhmaṇas. Society cannot depend on śūdras. Nor can you depend on the brāhmaṇas. To fulfill the necessities of your body, there must be a brain, arms, a stomach, and legs. The legs, the brain, and the arms are all required for cooperation to fulfill the mission of the whole body. So in any society you can see that unless there are these four divisions, there will be chaos. It will not work properly. It will be māyā, and there will be disturbances. The brain must be there, but at the present moment there is a scarcity of brains. I am not talking of your state or my state; I am taking the world as a whole. Formerly the Indian administration was a monarchy. For example, Mahārāja Parīkṣit was a kṣatriya king. Just before his death, he renounced his royal order. He came to the forest to hear about self-realization. If you want to maintain the peace and prosperity of the whole world society, you must create a very intelligent class of men, a class of men expert in administration, a class of men expert in production, and a class of men to work. That is required; you cannot avoid it. That is the Vedic conception, mukha-bāhūru-pāda-jāḥ [Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam 11.17.13]. Mukha means “the face,” bāhu means “the arms,” ūru means “the waist,” and pāda, “the legs.” Whether you take this state or that state, unless there is a smooth, systematic establishment of these four orders of life, the state or society will not run very smoothly.

Prof. Kotovsky: Generally it seems to me that this whole varṇāśrama system to some extent created a natural division of labor in the ancient society. But now division of labor among people in any society is much more complicated and sophisticated. So it is very confusing to group them into four classes.

Śrīla Prabhupāda: Confusion has come to exist because in India, at a later day, the son of a brāhmaṇa, without having the brahminical qualifications, claimed to be a brāhmaṇa; and others, out of superstition or a traditional way, accepted him as a brāhmaṇa. Therefore the Indian social order was disrupted. But in our Kṛṣṇa consciousness movement we are training brāhmaṇas everywhere, because the world needs the brain of a brāhmaṇa. Although Mahārāja Parīkṣit was a monarch, he had a body of brāhmaṇas and learned sages to consult, an advisory body. It is not that the monarchs were independent. In history it is found that if some of the monarchs were not in order, they were dethroned by the brahminical advisory council. Although the brāhmaṇas did not take part in politics, they would advise the monarch how to execute the royal function. This is not too far in the past. How long ago was Aśoka?

Prof. Kotovsky: That would be equal to what we call, in our terminology, ancient and medieval India.

Śrīla Prabhupāda: Yes.

Prof. Kotovsky: In old and feudal India – you are right – it was very open, and the major part of the high administrative staff in the legislative department were brāhmaṇas. Even in the Mogul era there were brāhmaṇas to advise the Muslim emperors and administrators.

Śrīla Prabhupāda: That is a fact – the brāhmaṇas were accepted. They formed the advisory committee of the king. For example, Candragupta, the Hindu king, was in the age of Alexander the Great. Just before Candragupta, Alexander the Great went from Greece into India and conquered a portion. When Candragupta became emperor, he had Cāṇakya as his prime minister. Perhaps you have heard this name Cāṇakya?

Prof. Kotovsky: Yes.

Śrīla Prabhupāda: Yes, he was a great brāhmaṇa politician, and it is by his name that the quarter of New Delhi where all the foreign embassies are grouped together is called Cāṇakya Purī. Cāṇakya Paṇḍita was a great politician and brāhmaṇa. He was vastly learned. His moral instructions are still valuable. In India, schoolchildren are taught Cāṇakya Paṇḍita’s instructions. Although he was the prime minister, Cāṇakya Paṇḍita maintained his brāhmaṇa spirit; he did not accept any salary. If a brāhmaṇa accepts a salary, it is understood that he has become a dog. That is stated in the Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam. He can advise, but he cannot accept employment. So Cāṇakya Paṇḍita was living in a cottage, but he was actually the prime minister. This brahminical culture and the brahminical brain is the standard of Vedic civilization. The Manu-smṛti is an example of the standard of brahminical culture. You cannot trace out from history when the Manu-smṛti was written, but it is considered so perfect that it is the Hindu law. There is no need for the legislature to pass a new law daily to adjust social order. The law given by Manu is so perfect that it can be applicable for all time. It is stated in Sanskrit to be tri-kālādau, which means “good for the past, present, and future.”

Prof. Kotovsky: I am sorry to interrupt you, but to my knowledge all of Indian society in the second half of the eighteenth century was, by order of the British administration, under a law divergent from Hindu law. There was a lot of change. The actual Hindu law that was used by the Hindus was quite different from the original Manu-smṛti.

Śrīla Prabhupāda: They have now made changes. Even our late Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru introduced his own Hindu code. He introduced the right of divorce in marriage, but this was not in the Manu-saṁhitā. There are so many things they have changed, but before this modern age the whole human society was governed by the Manu-smṛti. Strictly speaking, modern Hindus are not strictly following the Hindu scriptures.

But our point is not to try to bring back the old type of Hindu society. That is impossible. Our idea is to take the best ideas from the original idea. For example, in the Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam there is a description of the communist idea. It is described to Mahārāja Yudhiṣṭhira. If there is something good, a good experience, why shouldn’t you adopt it? That is our point of view. Besides that, modern civilization is missing one all-important point – the aim of human life. Scientifically, the aim of human life is self-realization, ātma-tattva. It is said that unless the members of human society come to the point of self-realization, they are defeated in whatever they do. Actually it is happening in modern society, despite all economic advancement and other advancement: instead of keeping peace and tranquillity, they are fighting – individually, socially, politically, and nationally. If we think about it in a cool-headed way, we can see that in spite of much improvement in many branches of knowledge, we are keeping the same mentality that is visible in the lower animal society. Our conclusion, according to the Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam, is that this human body is not meant for working hard for sense gratification. But people do not know anything beyond that. They do not know about the next life. There is no scientific department of knowledge to study what happens after this body is finished. That is a great department of knowledge.

In the Bhagavad-gītā [2.13] it is said, dehino ’smin yathā dehe. Deha means “this body.” Dehinaḥ means “the one who owns this body.” Dehino ’smin yathā dehe kaumāraṁ yauvanaṁ jarā. The dehī, the owner of the body, is within, and the body is changing from one form to another. The child has a certain type of body that changes to another type when he is older. But the owner of the body still exists throughout. Similarly, when this body is completely changed, we accept another body. People do not understand this. We are accepting different bodies, even in this life, from babyhood to childhood to boyhood to youth. That is a fact – everyone knows it. I was a child, but that childhood body is no more. I have a different body now. What is the difficulty in understanding that when this body will be no more, then I will have to accept another body? It is a great science.

Prof. Kotovsky: As you know, there are two quite opposite approaches to this problem. The approach is slightly different according to different religions, but at the same time, any religion recognizes and searches for the change-of-place experience, or transmigration of spirit. In Christian religion, in Judaism, in …

Śrīla Prabhupāda: I am not talking religions with you. I am talking science and philosophy. One religion may accept one way; that is not our concern. We are concerned with the point that if the owner of the body is permanent in spite of different changes of body, there should be no difficulty in understanding that when this body changes entirely, the owner of the body will have another body.

Prof. Kotovsky: Another approach is that there is no separation. There are no two phenomena – the body and the owner of the body are the same.

Śrīla Prabhupāda: [emphatically] No.

Prof. Kotovsky: When the body dies, the owner also dies.

Śrīla Prabhupāda: No, no. But why is there no department of knowledge in the university to study this fact scientifically? That is my proposition – they are lacking. It may be as you say or it may be as I say, but there must be a department of knowledge to study this. Recently a cardiologist in Toronto, a doctor, has accepted that there is a soul. I had some correspondence with him, and he strongly believes that there is a soul. So there is another point of view, but our process is to accept knowledge from authority. We have Kṛṣṇa’s statement on this subject, and He is authoritative. Kṛṣṇa is accepted as the authority by all the ācāryas. The Bhagavad-gītā is accepted by scholarly and philosophical circles all over the world. Kṛṣṇa says: