What is ISKCON? - Incompatibility with ISKCON

[Guest guest]

Dear Prabhu.

Please accept my humble obeisances. All glories to Srila Prabhupada.

>

> On Dec 13, 2005, at 3:45 PM, Giri-nayaka (das) BVS (Ljubljana - SLO)

> wrote:

>

> > "What is ISKCON?"

>

> There probably are as many answers to this question as there are

> devotees. Even if there were a consensus on this what would be the

> point? Personally I don't feel that this is a useful question. If a

> handful of people accept a consensus view then what is the position

> of everyone else?

 

This is a strong point, if a handful of people accept consensus, what is the

position of others? This is exactly what I'm asking myself. Because, if

there is no consensus on most subject matters, then everybody is free to do

whatever they like. But where is then cooperation. And how can we claim

understanding od Srila Prabhupada, if there are always two diametrically

opposite opinions on each matter? How do you view this? Can everybody have

his own opinion on things, but still claim, that he understands Srila

Prabhupada? Lets take example of frivolous sports. Can somebody say, that

sports are maya, and another one, that sports are useful and all devotees

should practice them? Can this both opinons be considered as proper

understanding od Srila Prabhupada's instructions? Are this both opinions

ISKCON, as it is supposed to be?

 

> of. People will always rationalize their own interpretations of the

> doctrines. When those interpretations become very divergent then that

> leads to splits like Catholic versus Protestant or ISKCON Rtvik

> versus ISKCON Non-Rtvik, etc.

 

But this splitting is disturbing, because splits in the west are propelled

by westernization. If splits are based on traditional vs. westernized, then

with each split, doctrine looses its traditional minority. Therefore each

split forces majority even more into liberal ideas, because traditionalist

members split themselves to separate fraction.

 

Besides I cannot recall Srila Prabhupada mentioning any kind of splitting. I

have personally wittnessed GBC member promoting there ideas of splitting

ISKCON as the most probable future solution. Is this normal? I really cannot

say what to think about this. On one side, I beleive, that ISKCON should be

kept unified, according to Srila Prabhupada's instructions, but progress

shows some other directions for ISKCON. Are there any propositions made by

GBC regarding ISKCON further splitting itself? What is the working model for

future ISKCON? What is the vision for ISKCON? If I recall, one recent idea

was, that ISKCON embraces all other vaisnava groups under one, single

collective GBC managment. What about this trend of splitting, which came to

my attention already on several independent occasions. Can somebody

elaborate on this a bit, please?

 

>

> The short answer to your question is very simple. ISKCON is whatever

> the GBC say it is. Since Srila Prabhupada left them as the ultimate

> managing authority of ISKCON in his will. That does not mean that

> they are always right. However you have got to start somewhere. If

> one does not like an interpretation or resolution then one can either

> try to change it, ignore it, or live separately.

 

Yes, I think it must be like this, that ISKCON is whatever GBC says it is.

In the end, somebody must decide what ISKCON stands for. They may not be

always right, but still it is the duty of ISKCON members to follow. Thus GBC

will be forced to adjust their laws. Like in the state, government may not

be always right, but still everybody is expected to follow, otherwise they

are to be punished. (Like in england, they drive on left. Everybody knows,

it is stupid, and causes just confusion for the world, but still everybody

must follow it, otherwise he is punished.)

 

There is a good chance, that if all ISKCON is forced to follow GBC laws,

that the laws will be adjusted as needed. And, in the end, it is not that

laws put much limitation on ordinary follower. They just repress those, who

try to invent their own things. Most devotees would just continue serving

hapilly, not noticing anything. But inventors, they would feel something,

and thats needed.

 

>

> The real important question is "How to attain the goal of life?". I

> do not believe for a moment that ISKCON has a monopoly on the answer

> to this question. Even Srila Prabhupada's teachings (following Srila

> Bhaktisiddhanta and Baladeva Vidyabhusana) state that there are four

> bonafide Vaisnava sampradayas in Kali Yuga. Just now I was in

> Vrndavan and I saw Western Vaisnavas of all different sampradayas. Of

> course none of them would have come to those groups without first

> coming into contact with Srila Prabhupada's movement ISKCON and that

> is the greatness of ISKCON and Srila Prabhupada.

 

True, GBC cannot have monopoly over "How to attain the goal of life!" But it

can have monopoly over what is provided in ISKCON as a means to attain this

goal. GBC can decide, what is the bonafade ISKCON way of spreading KC, what

in not bonafade, and what is bridge. And then GBC can execute measures, so

that everybody follows their decisions. And if somebody doesn't like it, he

is free to move to other vaisnava groups. But in attempt of ISKCON trying to

embrace all vaisnavas of the world, it is loosing its own definition, and

moves towards decentralized model of local acarya leadership, which is

against the principles of GBC itself. Am I correct, or am I missing

something?

 

>

> > I know that ISKCON is officially identified with Srila Prabhupada.

>

> Srila Prabhupada is the founder acharya of ISKCON, so naturally one

> would expect ISKCON doctrine to strictly follow the teachings of

> Srila Prabhupada. However the problem is that one is able to make

> quite good arguments for different interpretations of Srila

> Prabhupada's teachings that differ widely in their application.

 

What would be solution in such situation. To forcefully legislate things? Or

to leave it move in its own way, hoping for the best. I think it would be

nice, if at least some legislation was there. It should start from the top,

downwards. Surely all GBCs should preach in a unified way. This is a must.

Then unification may expand downwards to as far as required. It could go

down all the way to local leaders. Thus ISKCON would be able to provide at

least unified leadership. Everything needs not be legislated, but at least

leadership must be defined. And it cannot be, that one GBC member speaks

differently from another. This is just too confusing.

 

 

> No, I do not agree that "more and more devotees disagreeing" means

> that ISKCON is diverging from Srila Prabhupada's teachings that is

> not a proper analysis. Neither ISKCON nor any spiritual movement's

> doctrines are decided by popular vote or democracy. So even if more

> and more people believe one way it does not make their belief truth.

> Neither on the other hand does the belief of a handful (the GBC and

> leaders) of devotees make that truth. Truth is based on pramana or

> proof. Vaisnavas accept three pramanas, pratyaksha, anumana and

> sabda. So in order to determine the truth or falsity of something one

> has to judge it by the pramanas acceptable to that particular group

> or sampradaya.

 

You are right, disagreement needs not be directly connected to diverging

from Srila Prabhupada Teachings. As you say, to determine truth or falsity,

one has following at his disposal: Pratyaksa, direct sense perception, and

sabda-pramana, evidence from the Vedic statement, and anumana, aitihya,

historical or hypothesis. But such determination is aready working at

present. But still there are different opinions. What if one cannot come to

some conclusion based on above pramanas? Is he to understand that he needs

to put even more energy into that specific matter, or is he to give it up as

unresolved?

 

>

> > My question is also, if there are any devotees at all in ISKCON,

> > who 100%

> > accept everything that is modern ISKCON standing for.

>

> What exactly do you mean by this statement? Obviously you have some

> specific problems in mind so why not just say what they are and get

> them out in the open. Then after stating your objections please show

> why you feel these things are unacceptable. But before any meaningful

> discussion can occur the first step is to state what is accepted

> pramana or proof for the discussion. Otherwise you will not come to

> any conclusion.

 

By this statement I mean, that I have hard time finding one, single

spiritually connected social matter, where I can say, that everybody agrees.

And I'm wondering if anybody else perceives similar situation. We may 100%

agree, that Srila Prabhupada is Founder-acarya for ISKCON. But already in

definition of what that practically means, there is disagreement. And then

everything else follows in similar way.

 

Regarding specific problems, I mentioned several times the intentions to

adjust Srila Prabhupada's books for wider public. Things like changing

sentences with stronger words, erasing things which some may consider

offensive.... And this problem seems to be connected with increase of

western values in ISKCON, which is fueled by increase of "bridge" methods

becoming part of ISKCON culture. Adjustments of teachings seem to be just

the top of iceberg. Westernization and bridge preaching seem to be tightly

connected, one fueling the other, moving faster and faster. Adjustment of

doctrine usually comes as the last stage before colapse.

 

Now, to show that adjustment of books is unacceptable, may not be needed at

all. Most devotees consider this to be way off. It is considered just too

heretic. Anyway, I can elaborate on this, if needed. Or we can start another

disccussion thread for it.

 

Now, what is the proof for my statements to be correct? I think it is most

obvious, that Srila Prabhupada's books are not to be touched, just because

we feel that we can make them better. Srila Prabhupada gave what he had, and

it is for us to accept it as it is, not to accept it as good basis, on which

we can build our own ideas. Is there need to elaborate more on this? Is this

pramana sufficent?

 

Now, the question is, what to do with local leaders, who promote such

innovative ideas of changing Srila Prabhupada's books, or ideas, that if

Srila Prabhupada was here today, he would speak differently? Can they be

corrected? Can they be sanctioned? Can they be thrown out of ISKCON for

their speculations? What are the means of small, local devotees to fight

against this?

 

Thank you

 

your servant Giri-nayaka das