On Loyalty

[Guest guest]

In the early 1980's, when many Srila Prabhupada disciples started to leave

ISKCON, the acarya-GBC explanation was that they were unchaste to Srila

Prabhupada. The truth of the matter is that they were unchaste to

undeserving leaders who were turning life within ISKCON into hell for many.

Time has confirmed this and the exodus hasn't ended..

 

YS RK Mex

[Guest guest]

>Loyalty to an institution's leadership must be earned, as Madhava Ghosh,

>says, must be earned. I would add that it must be constantly earned, and

>that it will only be earned by the leaders' humility and selfless

>dedication to maintaining Srila Prabhupada's spirit in ISKCON.

>

> The leaders are seriously mistaken both when they take our support for

granted and when they dismiss us when all their rhetoric fails to persuade us

of their infallibility.

>Babhru das

 

The irony about mandating loyalty, especially in an association whose success

is based upon *voluntary* participation, is that it's counter-productive. We

lose attraction for and no longer want to be part of a group when we don't

feel good about it. What to speak of those persons who have already been

alienated and shut out because of the group's authoritarian and exclusive

policies.

 

Where is the question of even "demanding loyalty," unless the society is on

the verge of some major catastrophy -- facing some sinister external threat,

civil war or monstrous conspiracy? In such a situation where every able-bodied

person is called into duty and when the "house cannot remain divided against

itself," we can understand the demand for loyalty. Even at that, loyalty

cannot be taken for granted.

 

For instance, I just came across one book in the library, "Posters That Won

the War," referring to the propaganda campaign during WWII in the USA. Even

with such an obvious evil as Hitler, "loyalty" was not completely taken for

granted.

 

Conversely, in the 1960's media exposure alerted the public to the anomalies

of the Vietnam war and so much shocked and disheartened even loyal Americans

that the resultant public outcry forced the administration to abandon its war

effort. In the case of Vietnam, did Americans lose their "loyalty" or were

they reacting appropriately to an unjust war? (There was a book about that

too, "The War At Home.")

 

As Prabhupada has so nicely phrased it, a leader must *command* respect,

not *demand* it. Likewise for LOYALTY. LOYALTY is what any gentle person

feels for a respectable and worthy cause from which he benefits and thereby

feels obligated to.

 

The ISKCON society seems to be facing some major catastrophies and monstrous

conspiracies (class-action court cases, rtvikism, etc.) but the irony (again)

is that these apparent crises are self-created by ISKCON's own leadership. As

one devotee astutely queried, would the rtivik heresy even be an issue if our

most prominent leaders had not repeatedly disappointed us, if not falling away

from Krsna consciousness as well? Trust can be betrayed only so many times

before the call for "loyalty" simply falls upon deaf ears.

 

This is the "sad" truth I was referring to.

 

> > loyalty has to be earned, not demanded. (Madhava Ghosh)

 

Amen. May it be so! (Sincerely.)

 

It is the nature of the living being to subordinate oneself to someone who is

older and wiser than ourselves. We spontaneously want to offer our respects to

some respectable authority. BUT... "Once burnt, twice shy."

ISKCON leaders can no longer afford to take the loyalty of its membership for

granted. Riding on the waves of Prabhupada's reflected *krpa* (mercy), they

could somehow get away with for some time -- that is, until they made a

travesty of it. Now, ISKCON leaders have to make it their business to earn

back the loyalty they have all but lost and bring us from the point of despair

to renewed hope.

 

Otherwise, our sights must inevitably head *elsewhere.*

It is only natural: It is the *nature* of the living being to subordinate

oneself to someone who is older and wiser than ourselves.

 

I hope I have made my own position clearer anyway.

 

Aspiring to serve the Vaisnavas,

 

Srila dasa

[Guest guest]

>

> Where is the question of even "demanding loyalty," unless the society is on

> the verge of some major catastrophy -- facing some sinister external threat,

> civil war or monstrous conspiracy? In such a situation where every

able-bodied

> person is called into duty and when the "house cannot remain divided against

> itself," we can understand the demand for loyalty. Even at that, loyalty

> cannot be taken for granted.

 

Which is some insight into how Kirtananada lasted so long. From the moment of

the FBI raid in jan 1987, the necessity to remain "loyal" against the attack

of

the Federal government, which had it been successful would have utterly

destroyed

New Vrindaban, with all cows inevitably being sent to slaughter, was

paramont.

This seige mentality persisted for almost 5 years. Those wondering why some

devotees stayed loyal to Kirtananada during that time need to understand that

background event. He was a part of the whole package of NV.

 

It was after that had some resolution that it was possible to make moves

towards

getting him removed.

 

>