Moral Thesis - The Control of ISKCON is at stake.

[Guest guest]

Dear Krishna Dharma Prabhu and others, please accept my humble

obeisances. All glories to ISKCON Founder Acharya Srila Prabhupada.

 

This is a reply to Krishna Dharma Prabhu's query as to why the gay

monogamy issue is cause for concern to some devotees.

 

Krishna Dharma (das) (London - UK) wrote:

 

>>I am not at all favorable to permitting so called gay marriage or union in

>>ISKCON, and can not understand how any Prabhupada follower can rationilize

>>it.

>>

>>

>

>I have not been following this discussion so I am a little curious as to how

>this could happen "in ISKCON". Plainly there is a perception that the

>society's standards are being threatened, but I am not sure how. Is it that

>there is a call for the ISKCON leadership to make some kind of policy

>statement, perhaps saying that same sex relationships are acceptable?

>

>Obviously everyone is free to do (and say) whatever they choose, this is the

>nature of free will, and there is nothing ISKCON can do about that.

>However, when a person desires to occupy a post within the society, then

>their personal standards and possibly also their philosophical orientation

>will become an issue and may be an impediment. Also if they wish to be

>initiated the same question will arise. And if someone's behaviour is

>unacceptable then they may be banned from ISKCON premises. But all this is

>usually decided on a case by case basis, with the relevant authorities using

>their discretion and judgment, and there are many reasons other than

>homosexuality that may influence their decision. Could anyone clarify why in

>practical terms this particular issue is of such concern?

>

>

>

 

The issue is not one of who we accept for initiation nor one of who we

allow in positions of authority. Rather, it is about how we understand

our parampara's siddhantas, as found in shastra and the teachings of our

previous acharyas. In some respects the "gay monogamy" controvery has

the appearance of concern for the behavioral qualifications and

philosophical views of candidates for initiation and spiritual

leadership, because our shastras and our acharyas have said much about

behavior and society. But what if we change the way we understand

shastra and our acharyas? Since our notions of qualification primarily

come from these sources, changing the way we understand them could also

change our understanding of who is and who is not qualified. As the

histories of other religious organizations have shown, what religious

people today consider abhorrant behavior can tomorrow be thought of as

something harmless or even religious. How this about-face in

understanding can take place within a religion is the real issue here.

Epistemological and hermaneutical.issues therefore lie at the heart of

the gay monogamy / gay marriage controversy.

 

The prominent epistemological issue facing ISKCON now is that devotees

seem to be more and more relying on epirical science to understand the

human condition when before devotees used to rely more (if not

exclusively) on shastra and the acharyas. Among devotees the

populartity of the Vaishnava Life Skills / Personal Transformation

Seminars, which rely heavily on psychological theory and technique, and

the proliferation of the social sciences in other, official areas of

ISKCON such as education, show that devotees are increasingly adopting

empiricism as a means to better understand themselves and others.

Whether or not you believe this is a good thing or a bad thing is not

the point here. What is important to know here is that as a society

ISKCON is now relying more on empirical disciplines than it did before

and that this can potentially transform our understanding of

qualification with regard to membership and leadership.

 

The prominent hermaneutical issue facing ISKCON is how we understand

shastra and Srila Prabhupad within the context of the parampara. A

change in how we interpret shastra and Srila Prabhupada's exegisis of

shastra and of the purvacharyas can potentially change the way we

evaluate someone's fitness for initiation or for spiritual leadership.

Changing the way shastra is interpreted can rescue a corrupted system,

but change can can also destroy an uncorrupted system, making it into

something sahajiya.

 

What makes the epistemological and hermaneutical issues so hotly

contested at this time is their context: the social problems of a

significant number of ISKCON's members and how to fix them. The widely

lamented difficulties shared by many of ISKCON's members drives the need

for progressive theologizing, creative hermaneutics, and defense of the

ways we fomererly understood shastra and the previous acharyas.

Consequently, ISKCON's members are being polarized into what can be

loosely described as liberal and conservative socio-religious groups.

Although these terms are borrowed from ISKCON's Western host culture,

the terms to some extent accurately describe how people think about

social issues and how they react to them. That our social issues are

tightly bound with the social prescriptions and proscriptions of shastra

and of our acharyas makes this a hotly contested religious as well.

 

What are the stakes? The minds of younger devotees and control of

ISKCON. A principle good in any society is whatever the leaders do and

say, their subordinates generally embrace--yad yad acarati shreshtas.

In the case of a leader like Srila Prabhupada, this principle is of

obvious benefit. Conversely, in the wrong hands it can be

detrimental. A senior devotee once remarked that until enough zonal

gurus fell down, the majority of devotees went along with Zonal

Acharyaism. At that time only a handful of devotees tried to resist

it. The younger devotees who adopt the views and ways of of the

leadership will be the ones groomed for future leadership positions.

Because of this, over time organizations tend to create a homogeneity of

views among their elite members. Today's young apparatchik is

tomorrow's fearless leader. In the long term, over two to three

generations of leaders, the current heterogeny of social opinion that

pervades ISKCON's top leadership (and which may sometimes be cause for

their indecision) will gradually disappear, with one or another group's

socio-religious views coming to silently define who may join them.

 

The top intellectuals in each group vying for ISKCON's ideological and

theloigical allegiance will determine which socio-religious views come

to predominate ISKCON. Whichever group wins controlls ISKCON. The GBC

is *not* a player in this conflict, rather its role will be that of an

instrument to solidify the political position of whichever group comes

out on top. The reason the GBC is not a player is because it has over

the years largely defined itself as a managerial body, not an

intellectual body. In 1998, in a theological paper on the issue of

gurus and initiations in ISKCON commissioned by the GBC, Gaura Keshava

Prabhu wrote:

 

"This paper is the only official paper on this subject [of gurus and

initiations] authorized by the GBC since the disappearance of Srila

Prabhupada. There have been many GBC resolutions concerning this topic

since that time, none of them were accompanied by an officially

authorized paper explaining the philosophy be-hind those resolutions.

Although many in our movement profess to understand these subjects well,

there has not been a paper since 1978 authorized by the GBC, that the

ordinary member of ISKCON can read and explain to others the GBC

position on the guru and initiation in ISKCON. There have been many

papers by different Pandits, but none of them have been authorized by

the GBC. As a result there is large amount of inconclusive literature on

these topics. Variously accepted by some members of ISKCON and rejected

by others. The GBC should be heavily criticized for this. Their duty is

not to legislate and re-legislate every year without explanation. If the

GBC do not take up the task of explaining philosophically their

resolutions to the rest of the society then they have failed." (Gaura

Keshava. 1998: Guru Ashraya. A Report to the GBC on Guru Issues)

 

This aspect of the GBC in legislating without explanation has not

appreciably changed in the years since Guru Ashraya was written, and it

is this characteristic that will keep the GBC on the sidelines as a

spectator (or as a prize). Brahmanas are the heads of society because

they guide all the other members in their activities. Brahmanas have

the knowledge that people need, and the rest of society implicitly

recognizes the supreme position of the brahmanas because of their

qualifications. Brahmanas by nature are teachers, at least those among

brahmanas who are most revered by the rest of society. For this reason

the GBC along with the rest of ISKCON will look to the intellectuals,

brahmanas, in one of these groups for guidance. Hence, whichever group

of brahminical intellectuals can win the minds of the rest of ISKCON (up

to and including the GBC body) will control ISKCON. Even if they keep

their official titles, the GBC will no longer be the ultimate authority

for ISKCON, at least not the ultimate spiritual authority for ISKCON.

It is not that this might happen, it is already happening due to the

GBC's definining itself as an administrative body and not an

intellectual body.

 

Gay monogamy / marriage is an issue because it is directly about how we

understand shastra and our acharyas, and the outcome of this controversy

will determine who will control ISKCON pretty much for the rest of its

functional existence. The outcome of this controversy is largely

outside of the GBC's control, which means ISKCON's ultimate managerial

authority now has little say in ISKCON's future.

 

For further information on this topic, I would advise anyone to read

Chakra's (http://chakra.org) third-gender section and Hare Krishna

Cultural Journal (http://siddhanta.com) - particularly any article since

the beginning of December 2004. These two sites will give you a pretty

good idea of which side is which, what their positions are, and who is

on what side.

 

Your servant, Krishna-kirti das (HDG)

 

p.s. This will be posted later at Hare Krishna Cultural Journal (

http://siddhanta.com )

 

$4.95/mo. National Dialup, Anti-Spam, Anti-Virus, 5mb personal web space. 5x

faster dialup for only $9.95/mo. No contracts, No fees, No Kidding! See

http://www.All2Easy.net for more details!

[Guest guest]

http://spaces.msn.com/members/4christ/

 

Look at this msn space I came across by chance (or maybe not), and I have

seen similar things by Christians before, despite what we may say, they

kill and eat meat etc, this guy has a firm grip on the issue, while what I

have seen in this and other debates, it gets a bit out of focus, and I am

pretty tired of it, over intelligence??

[Guest guest]

I would give this exchange between Krishna Dharma and Krishna Kirti Prabhus

the title, "Perfect question, perfect answer".

 

Thanks to KK for neatly encapsulating all the pertinent factors that

surround this issue and for outlining the potential outcomes.

YS PD

 

 

 

> Dear Krishna Dharma Prabhu and others, please accept my humble

> obeisances. All glories to ISKCON Founder Acharya Srila Prabhupada.

>

> This is a reply to Krishna Dharma Prabhu's query as to why the gay

> monogamy issue is cause for concern to some devotees.

>

> Krishna Dharma (das) (London - UK) wrote:

>

> >>I am not at all favorable to permitting so called gay marriage or union

> >>in ISKCON, and can not understand how any Prabhupada follower can

> >>rationilize it.

> >>

> >>

> >

> >I have not been following this discussion so I am a little curious as to

> >how this could happen "in ISKCON". Plainly there is a perception that

> >the society's standards are being threatened, but I am not sure how. Is

> >it that there is a call for the ISKCON leadership to make some kind of

> >policy statement, perhaps saying that same sex relationships are

> >acceptable?

> >

> >Obviously everyone is free to do (and say) whatever they choose, this is

> >the nature of free will, and there is nothing ISKCON can do about that.

> >However, when a person desires to occupy a post within the society, then

> >their personal standards and possibly also their philosophical

> >orientation will become an issue and may be an impediment. Also if they

> >wish to be initiated the same question will arise. And if someone's

> >behaviour is unacceptable then they may be banned from ISKCON premises.

> >But all this is usually decided on a case by case basis, with the

> >relevant authorities using their discretion and judgment, and there are

> >many reasons other than homosexuality that may influence their decision.

> >Could anyone clarify why in practical terms this particular issue is of

> >such concern?

> >

> >

> >

>

> The issue is not one of who we accept for initiation nor one of who we

> allow in positions of authority. Rather, it is about how we understand

> our parampara's siddhantas, as found in shastra and the teachings of our

> previous acharyas. In some respects the "gay monogamy" controvery has

> the appearance of concern for the behavioral qualifications and

> philosophical views of candidates for initiation and spiritual

> leadership, because our shastras and our acharyas have said much about

> behavior and society. But what if we change the way we understand

> shastra and our acharyas? Since our notions of qualification primarily

> come from these sources, changing the way we understand them could also

> change our understanding of who is and who is not qualified. As the

> histories of other religious organizations have shown, what religious

> people today consider abhorrant behavior can tomorrow be thought of as

> something harmless or even religious. How this about-face in

> understanding can take place within a religion is the real issue here.

> Epistemological and hermaneutical.issues therefore lie at the heart of

> the gay monogamy / gay marriage controversy.

>

> The prominent epistemological issue facing ISKCON now is that devotees

> seem to be more and more relying on epirical science to understand the

> human condition when before devotees used to rely more (if not

> exclusively) on shastra and the acharyas. Among devotees the

> populartity of the Vaishnava Life Skills / Personal Transformation

> Seminars, which rely heavily on psychological theory and technique, and

> the proliferation of the social sciences in other, official areas of

> ISKCON such as education, show that devotees are increasingly adopting

> empiricism as a means to better understand themselves and others.

> Whether or not you believe this is a good thing or a bad thing is not

> the point here. What is important to know here is that as a society

> ISKCON is now relying more on empirical disciplines than it did before

> and that this can potentially transform our understanding of

> qualification with regard to membership and leadership.

>

> The prominent hermaneutical issue facing ISKCON is how we understand

> shastra and Srila Prabhupad within the context of the parampara. A

> change in how we interpret shastra and Srila Prabhupada's exegisis of

> shastra and of the purvacharyas can potentially change the way we

> evaluate someone's fitness for initiation or for spiritual leadership.

> Changing the way shastra is interpreted can rescue a corrupted system,

> but change can can also destroy an uncorrupted system, making it into

> something sahajiya.

>

> What makes the epistemological and hermaneutical issues so hotly

> contested at this time is their context: the social problems of a

> significant number of ISKCON's members and how to fix them. The widely

> lamented difficulties shared by many of ISKCON's members drives the need

> for progressive theologizing, creative hermaneutics, and defense of the

> ways we fomererly understood shastra and the previous acharyas.

> Consequently, ISKCON's members are being polarized into what can be

> loosely described as liberal and conservative socio-religious groups.

> Although these terms are borrowed from ISKCON's Western host culture,

> the terms to some extent accurately describe how people think about

> social issues and how they react to them. That our social issues are

> tightly bound with the social prescriptions and proscriptions of shastra

> and of our acharyas makes this a hotly contested religious as well.

>

> What are the stakes? The minds of younger devotees and control of

> ISKCON. A principle good in any society is whatever the leaders do and

> say, their subordinates generally embrace--yad yad acarati shreshtas.

> In the case of a leader like Srila Prabhupada, this principle is of

> obvious benefit. Conversely, in the wrong hands it can be

> detrimental. A senior devotee once remarked that until enough zonal

> gurus fell down, the majority of devotees went along with Zonal

> Acharyaism. At that time only a handful of devotees tried to resist

> it. The younger devotees who adopt the views and ways of of the

> leadership will be the ones groomed for future leadership positions.

> Because of this, over time organizations tend to create a homogeneity of

> views among their elite members. Today's young apparatchik is

> tomorrow's fearless leader. In the long term, over two to three

> generations of leaders, the current heterogeny of social opinion that

> pervades ISKCON's top leadership (and which may sometimes be cause for

> their indecision) will gradually disappear, with one or another group's

> socio-religious views coming to silently define who may join them.

>

> The top intellectuals in each group vying for ISKCON's ideological and

> theloigical allegiance will determine which socio-religious views come

> to predominate ISKCON. Whichever group wins controlls ISKCON. The GBC

> is *not* a player in this conflict, rather its role will be that of an

> instrument to solidify the political position of whichever group comes

> out on top. The reason the GBC is not a player is because it has over

> the years largely defined itself as a managerial body, not an

> intellectual body. In 1998, in a theological paper on the issue of

> gurus and initiations in ISKCON commissioned by the GBC, Gaura Keshava

> Prabhu wrote:

>

> "This paper is the only official paper on this subject [of gurus and

> initiations] authorized by the GBC since the disappearance of Srila

> Prabhupada. There have been many GBC resolutions concerning this topic

> since that time, none of them were accompanied by an officially

> authorized paper explaining the philosophy be-hind those resolutions.

> Although many in our movement profess to understand these subjects well,

> there has not been a paper since 1978 authorized by the GBC, that the

> ordinary member of ISKCON can read and explain to others the GBC

> position on the guru and initiation in ISKCON. There have been many

> papers by different Pandits, but none of them have been authorized by

> the GBC. As a result there is large amount of inconclusive literature on

> these topics. Variously accepted by some members of ISKCON and rejected

> by others. The GBC should be heavily criticized for this. Their duty is

> not to legislate and re-legislate every year without explanation. If the

> GBC do not take up the task of explaining philosophically their

> resolutions to the rest of the society then they have failed." (Gaura

> Keshava. 1998: Guru Ashraya. A Report to the GBC on Guru Issues)

>

> This aspect of the GBC in legislating without explanation has not

> appreciably changed in the years since Guru Ashraya was written, and it

> is this characteristic that will keep the GBC on the sidelines as a

> spectator (or as a prize). Brahmanas are the heads of society because

> they guide all the other members in their activities. Brahmanas have

> the knowledge that people need, and the rest of society implicitly

> recognizes the supreme position of the brahmanas because of their

> qualifications. Brahmanas by nature are teachers, at least those among

> brahmanas who are most revered by the rest of society. For this reason

> the GBC along with the rest of ISKCON will look to the intellectuals,

> brahmanas, in one of these groups for guidance. Hence, whichever group

> of brahminical intellectuals can win the minds of the rest of ISKCON (up

> to and including the GBC body) will control ISKCON. Even if they keep

> their official titles, the GBC will no longer be the ultimate authority

> for ISKCON, at least not the ultimate spiritual authority for ISKCON.

> It is not that this might happen, it is already happening due to the

> GBC's definining itself as an administrative body and not an

> intellectual body.

>

> Gay monogamy / marriage is an issue because it is directly about how we

> understand shastra and our acharyas, and the outcome of this controversy

> will determine who will control ISKCON pretty much for the rest of its

> functional existence. The outcome of this controversy is largely

> outside of the GBC's control, which means ISKCON's ultimate managerial

> authority now has little say in ISKCON's future.

>

> For further information on this topic, I would advise anyone to read

> Chakra's (http://chakra.org) third-gender section and Hare Krishna

> Cultural Journal (http://siddhanta.com) - particularly any article since

> the beginning of December 2004. These two sites will give you a pretty

> good idea of which side is which, what their positions are, and who is

> on what side.

>

> Your servant, Krishna-kirti das (HDG)

>

> p.s. This will be posted later at Hare Krishna Cultural Journal (

> http://siddhanta.com )

>

> $4.95/mo. National Dialup, Anti-Spam, Anti-Virus, 5mb personal web space.

> 5x faster dialup for only $9.95/mo. No contracts, No fees, No Kidding! See

> http://www.All2Easy.net for more details!