Guest guest Posted March 27, 2001 Report Share Posted March 27, 2001 This is a text I am forwarding. It too political for my taste, but I found something interesting in it that you may also want to read. It is about varnasrama. I took it from the middle part of Rocana's text and pasted it here for first reading. Akhiles "[...] I hold the opinion that for Vedic Varna and Asrama to be overtly applied in this "desa-käla-pätra" (time, place, circumstance) is premature and fanciful. Western civilization has waged a class war on what they perceive as the "caste system" for hundreds of years. To include Varnasrama language in a legal document would be a public relations mistake. Lord Caitanya was a rebel against caste designations. He distributed love of God freely without discrimination. The strict Varnasrama rules would not exclude all us Kaliyuga westerners born into and conditioned by a melechas culture. Varnasrama, by definition, demands that there be arranged marriages, forbidden inter-caste marriages, highly qualified Brahmans to discern which Varna a child belongs to and, more difficult still, a self sufficient community -- all of which we may not even dream of happening for many generations. Instead of attempting to falsely institute Varnasrama, we might instead take the sociology and philosophy found in sastra and practically apply it in order to obtain successful, tangible collective results. When a global institution interfaces with any modern country, it recognizes that only certain institutional models can be considered as legal options. Adopting such a bona fide system may help us to regain our lost public image. We must embark on projecting a squeaky clean image, which requires, among other things, full disclosure. We should adopt this posture with the mature conviction that it's the road to the long term results we are all hankering for.[...] ---------- Forwarded message ---------- "Rocana dasa" <rocana (AT) harekrsna (DOT) com> GBC Restructure <GBC.Restructure (AT) pamho (DOT) net>, Dear Exalted Assembly, Please accept my humble obeisances. All glories to Srila Prabhupada. While I haven't been actively involved in the "institution" for many years, I have focused on observing, analyzing, and commenting upon my own past experiences within the Hare Krsna movement. My focus has included the philosophical and sociological issues manifesting as time reveals the strengths and weaknesses of the mission I once identified with. For whatever reason, I have been invited by Sri Rama dasa to contribute to this discussion. Before you read on, I want to make clear that I am not a voice "out of the institutional box". While I don't represent an identifiable 'outside' group, there are some who agree with my opinions. I'm not certain that anyone directly involved in the GBC reform group is interested in my line of thinking. I'm admittedly oblivious to the up-to-date political reality within the ISKCON power structure. Consequently, my contribution may be "too-far-out-there" for the pragmatic change-from within types. If we have learned anything from Srila Prabhupada and the past Acaryas we should have realized that all actions and their concomitant results are firmly and ultimately rooted in a particular philosophical conclusion. With that in mind, I suggest we stop focusing on rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic and begin identifying and discussing the philosophical discrepancies which have gradually manifested in what is now being described as a "crisis of faith" in not only the GBC, but in some individuals the entire mission. I suggest we make a conscientious effort to come to philosophical conclusions on topics like the following: If Srila Prabhupada is commonly accepted as a Shaktavesa Avatara, how does that designation affect our view of Srila Prabhupada's pastimes particularly during the ISKCON lila period. Is it proper or helpful to try and reproduce the mood, atmosphere and administrative model that was in place during that period (1966-77)? Do the philosophical inferences contained within Satsvarupa Swami's Prabhupada Lilamrita properly distinguish our Acarya as a Shaktavesa Avatar? Is Srila Prabhupada the last member of a successive series of Shaktavesa Avataras [bhaktivinode, Bhaktisiddanta] divinely manifesting to fulfill the prediction of Lord Caitanya Mahaprabhu, namely that His message will be broadcast throughout the planet. By presenting these questions for consideration, I am suggesting that an in-depth discussion, with the aim of proper and official philosophical clarification concerning Srila Prabhupada's birth, pastimes, devotional service/mission, ISKCON lila -- in relation to spiritual designations such as Shaktavesa and Maha-bhagavata -- is paramount in order to now accurately apply the principle of adjustment according to time, place and circumstance. The GBC reform committee has been debating the philosophical definition of the prescribed duties of modern-day sannyasis within the context of a smoothly functioning Vaisnava community. I would like to propose discussion on the following: The fundamental issue to be resolved is the historical fact that Srila Prabhupada did, during his "ISKCON lila period, appoint sannyasis to his GBC body. Fundamental Issues My comments: Fact: Srila Prabhupada initially defined and instituted a GBC which was much different than the one that evolved prior his departure. Fact: After 1978, the GBC structure as we observe it today existed only as a facade for the use of the zonal acarya members. Fact: The 1985-86 GBC/Guru reform movement resurrected a structure that was supposedly a consensual, collective historical conception of the pre-1977 GBC. Fact: The most important ingredient in the pre-1977 GBC -- namely Srila Prabhupada -- wasn't personally overseeing the global management team. Fact: The exclusive members of the ex-zonals "collective will" still prevailed within the newly renovated post-'86 GBC administrative body. Fact: From 1986 onward, the ex-zonal acarya power base gradually waned as, one by one, most of the large hereditary "shareholders" disgracefully disappeared or redefined their commitments and priorities towards the GBC. Why do I find these issues relevant? Because when taken in context, they indicate that: 1) a new worldwide administrative organization flying the banner of GBC should be re-defined based on the principle that after the over-haul, it "works" for the majority of it's dedicated members. The manner in which the pre-1977 "Acarya-overseen" GBC model operated isn't necessarily the correct template for today's ISKCON. 2) Srila Prabhupada's underlying management strategy was: if it works and gets the desired results, then adopt it. If it continues to work, don't tamper with it. 3) During Srila Prabhupada's ISKCON period, the immediate and important results were directly related to Srila Prabhupada's (the Avatar's) personal service to the overall 500 yrs old mission of Lord Caitanya . The primary focus of His ISKCON Lila period was obviously writing, publishing and distributing the Message of Lord Caitanya Mahaprabhu worldwide. I think that several other questions must also be considered: The exalted nature of the Maha-bhagavata category of service is allocated only to very advanced "pure devotees", primarily on the level of Shaktavesa. Is our individual, institutional or collective service in any way comparable to that of Srila Prabhupada and the other two previous Acaryas? Is it a sign of humility, respect and perception of reality that we approach the task of organizing our society without trying to imitate or replace (at the same time not improperly idolizing) Srila Prabhupada? Ask yourself this: was the smooth functioning of the pre-'77 GBC much of a priority in Srila Prabhupada's scheme of things? Did it function very smoothly or as intended? Beyond the downsides, there was an acceptable level of cooperation within the GBC that netted positive results, especially in the book department. Governing Models Srila Prabhupada prayed to Krsna, long before He arrived in the USA, for the kind of results that manifested from the cooperative preaching efforts of his many diverse disciples. He tried working with his Godbrothers but had no good results, primarily because they had divided into separate, disputing camps. Srila Prabhupada, recognizing the likelihood of that phenomenon repeating itself after His departure, instructed His followers to work cooperatively. That didn't happen. We are now, after 25 years, trying to make ISKCON "work" as hoped. With all the experience and collective intelligence we can muster, you would assume we could work out a governing formula that takes us toward our desired goal. We have the benefit of many successful examples of "Kali Yuga" forms of governing that work to an amazing degree. Look at the USA and parliamentary systems. Why not borrow from such successful examples? Or better still, use our God given intelligence and collective common sense to incorporate some practical and immediate applications of Varnasrama to already existing, proven managerial structures. I hold the opinion that for Vedic Varna and Asrama to be overtly applied in this "desa-käla-pätra" (time, place, circumstance) is premature and fanciful. Western civilization has waged a class war on what they perceive as the "caste system" for hundreds of years. To include Varnasrama language in a legal document would be a public relations mistake. Lord Caitanya was a rebel against caste designations. He distributed love of God freely without discrimination. The strict Varnasrama rules would not exclude all us Kaliyuga westerners born into and conditioned by a melechas culture. Varnasrama, by definition, demands that there be arranged marriages, forbidden inter-caste marriages, highly qualified Brahmans to discern which Varna a child belongs to and, more difficult still, a self sufficient community -- all of which we may not even dream of happening for many generations. Instead of attempting to falsely institute Varnasrama, we might instead take the sociology and philosophy found in sastra and practically apply it in order to obtain successful, tangible collective results. When a global institution interfaces with any modern country, it recognizes that only certain institutional models can be considered as legal options. Adopting such a bona fide system may help us to regain our lost public image. We must embark on projecting a squeaky clean image, which requires, among other things, full disclosure. We should adopt this posture with the mature conviction that it's the road to the long term results we are all hankering for. If we don't adopt this attitude and direction, then we have to concede to tradition -- namely, that each Guru has his independent asramas staffed with unquestioning followers. We all have to admit that there are many so-called ISKCON centers which are nothing more than someone's (Guru/GBC's) private exclusive project flying the flag of convenience (ISKCON)... so long as it benefits the personal goals of the leader. These individual centers not only adopt very different administrative models, but more importantly, are also centered around different philosophical opinions on many contentious issues. There is a wide range, and many shades in between. Pressing For Institutional Change When advocating fundamental institutional change, one has to move forward with the full realization that the pressure you apply towards change could result in a split-up of the organization. This threat of probable break-up was the very axe that was held over the heads of the last band of reformers in 1985-86. It was made clear to the leading activists that if they went ahead with the purging plan, and if they didn't compromise with the concepts of the ex-zonal acaryas, then they would be historically held responsible for the break-up of "Srila Prabhupada's ISKCON". Many activists at the time strongly disagreed with the back-room compromise strategy that was adopted as a result of this threat. Consequently, many departed in disgust knowing that the compromisers were simply postponing the inevitable. Their prediction seems to have come true. Fifteen years later, there have been many small starts towards reform, with the most recent effort spearheaded by Sri Rama dasa and associates. The powerful personalities who presently occupy important ISKCON/GBC positions have grown accustomed to their august titles. It's safe to say that none of them are completely pure, so by definition they can't help but develop attachment to these institutional vestiges. Undoubtedly what will emerge is a rainbow of reasons, excuses and rationalizations poured forth in an attempt to maintain these external, temporary trappings. Most are convinced they deserve and even require these designations for their 'service', and they're well practiced at convincing others, especially disciples and followers. It isn't power that corrupts, but the fear of losing power. If this reform block gains enough voting power to finally put the entrenched sannyasi/Guru institutional leaders to the test, that's a good thing. Whether they relinquish their power for the good of the whole, or take the traditional path of least resistance by become a separate Guru/disciple matha, just as happened in the Gaudiya Matha, remains to be seen. There are many modern examples of this scenario already being enacted within ISKCON, but the GBC has been too divided, toothless or unwilling to call the question with local leaders: are you in ISKCON for your own personal convenience, or are you involved because you understand and are surrendered to the principle of 'united we stand, divided we fall' Even in the pre-'77 ISKCON era, when temples were isolated by geography or design, the temple leaders became attached to independence in their decision-making, and protective about the unique mood they created at the local level. In the later years of that era, the GBC seldom followed the "Acarya formula" of constantly traveling from temple to temple in their assigned zone insuring a collective identity. In post-samadhi ISKCON, the zones were instantly solidified and many of the zonal-acaryas went against Srila Prabhupada's principle of decentralization. They began running their zones like super-temple presidents. Many became the actual temple president of the most important temples in the zone, and the other temples became satellites". The local leaders were left to surrender to this 'divine' arrangement or be branded uncooperative and unsurrendered -- in which case they were given a one-way ticket to some other zonal-absolute's regime. For some, the only option was to leave ISKCON all together. In hindsight, 20 years later, most eventually ended up taking the latter option. For many years now, those who carved out their niche in ISKCON by acquiring the pre-requisite vestiges of power -- Guru, GBC, sannyasi, degreed scholar, etc. -- have been accustomed to running their "show" with unfettered authority. They have not worried about falling in line, or running afoul of the international GBC. There are a few taboo issues that the GBC has been anxious to act against, because there is potential for a negative impact on everyone's power base. These include Rtvik-ism, Gaudiya Matha affiliation, criticism of the GBC, and a few others. To suggest to these attached independent leaders that they must voluntarily divest themselves of certain powers, and more significantly, give these powers over to a group of what they see as 'bureaucratic householders' is going to be a challenge. Years of dysfunctional GBC activity has created an almost incurable attitude of 'you need us, we don't need you'. When a significant GBC resolution isn't accepted, and is ignored by one or more groups, then the question arises: what is more important - keeping the Society together, or obedience to the central GBC body? This question will challenge not only the leaders, but also their followers... who are sure to follow their hearts. In the face of serious reform, some leaders can be expected to succeed from ISKCON and escape GBC oversight. They will privatize and maintain control as the proprietors of their own little world. We can't undertake this venture of reform without expecting losses, and without having the firm conviction that this route is the only way for ISKCON to survive. We must fully realize that Srila Prabhupada would be pleased, primarily because the desired end results are that Krsna Consciousness is flourishing throughout the world. If Krsna wants it to happen, then He will remove the obstacles as long as those leading the charge are convinced and committed. The plan and path must be clear before marching off. A Bill of Rights and a Constitution should be composed so that those recruited know just what philosophy and administrative system they are pledging allegiance to. Rocana dasa March 13th 2001 ------ End of forwarded message ------- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.