Vote #1

[Guest guest]

Dear Krishna Dharma Prabhu, PAMHO. AGTSP!

 

Pancaratna Prabhu wrote:

 

> > Just wanted to make a quick comment that the question of whether

> > "ultimate" management authority is necessarily "ultimate" spiritual

> > authority in ISKCON is very much open for debate. I, for one, am not at

> > all convinced that the GBC should be seen as ISKCON's ultimate spiritual

> > authority. What about simply "guru,sadhu and sastra" ?

 

Your response:

 

> Interesting. Who then would you see as the ultimate spiritual authority

> for ISKCON? Of course, it is Srila Prabhupada, but who do we accept as

> the final arbiter of Prabhupada's instructions now?

 

We should all have firm faith that Srila Prabhupada is still the final

arbiter, and provided we have that faith certainly he will make everything

very clear to us. But HOW he makes everything clear is not subject to our

preconceived notions. Somehow he will do it. The way he chooses to appear to

you may be different from the way he chooses to appear to someone else. And

if I am a crooked fellow then I will certainly misunderstand his clear

directions no matter how much I claim to be his big follower.

 

Thus in answer to your question, the ultimate spiritual authority for you is

wherever Srila Prabhupada chooses to manifest to you. And this is nothing

but guru, sadhu, sastra.

 

> Can we separate spiritual and managerial functions in a spiritual

> movement? How would you define managerial instructions as opposed to

> spiritual instructions in terms of ISKCON's operation?

 

If someone or some body is your spiritual authority then the instructions

will have the weight of the order of guru-sadhu-sastra -- they must be

followed unquestioningly. If someone or some body is your managerial

authority in a spiritual institution, then those instructions must also be

followed, but you have the duty to confirm them by the multiple tests of

guru-sadhu-sastra. If the instructions don't pass the tests then you are not

obligated to follow.

 

> My understanding

> is that we are working under the Lord's spiritual energy as long as we are

> serving Him. That everything which is done in Krishna's service is

> spiritualised -- as per Bg 4.24. Is ISKCON's whole purpose, i.e. all our

> activities, not meant to satisfy the Lord, and therefore spiritual?

 

Yes, certainly. Still, we must accept that there are many ways to satisfy

the Lord. As an institution ISKCON cannot accomodate all such possible ways.

Naturally there must be a restriction, otherwise there will be anarchy.

Managers are required to decide what can go on inside the institution for

the best program to achieve the specific purposes of the institution. Call

this spiritual management if you like, but it is management nonetheless. And

an ultimate managerial authority is necessary for this.

 

> I am not sure what you mean by guru, sadhu and sastra in this context. Do

> you see this as being incorporated within ISKCON's constitution (that is,

> when we finally get one together)?

 

There should definitely be a statement in the ISKCON constitution that all

individual ISKCON members should be guided by guru-sadhu-sastra. But it is

primarily an individual thing. If ISKCON managers as individuals are guided

in their managerial work by guru-sadhu-sastra then they will manage properly

and then you might want to say that ISKCON is being guided by

guru-sadhu-sastra. But the term doesn't fit very well when applied to a

partially amorphous entity such as ISKCON, as we can never guarantee that

EVERYTHING going on is being so guided.

 

Sorry if I have stuck my head in this discussion prematurely. I am not a

member of the conferences in question.

 

Your servant, Bhaktarupa Das

[Guest guest]

> If one reads the last two decades of GBC resolutions and position

> papers on philosophical and quasi-philosophical issues, one will form the

> opinion that ISKCON does not need it's own version of the doctrine of

> Papal Infallibility.

 

 

This is fair enough. I accept that Krishna and Srila Prabhupada can

manifest to an individual in a variety of ways, not necessarily through an

institutional authority. The manifestation of divine grace is a personal

affair between the Lord and the devotee.

 

Nevertheless, we are trying to run a spiritual organisation and inevitably

there will be differences of view, and indeed of interpretation of Srila

Prabhupada's instructions. What then do we want? Can we accept that ISKCON

comprises many different views and approaches to spiritual life? e.g. Is it

OK if some ISKCON representatives preach that the soul came from the

tatastha region and was never with Krishna in person, while others preach

something different? Or what if some ISKCON representatives decide in the

future that they want to give siddha pranali? Who will arbitrate and decide

what is right and wrong?

 

In other words, does the ISKCON organisation have a responsibility to

maintain a certain integrity, i.e. a consistency of philosophical

understanding and practices? If we want the latter then I feel we have to

accept a system which allows for a final settlement in areas of dispute or

uncertainty. I have always thought this was the duty of the GBC, but maybe

you can see an alternative.

 

Of course, nobody is obliged to accept the GBC view in their own spiritual

lives -- they may decide that Srila Prabhupada is appearing to them in some

other way, and maybe he is. We have already seen enough cases of this. But

if we want to represent ISKCON and preach under its umbrella then surely we

have to accept its institutional authority. It seems to me that without

this there will be chaos. Unless, that is, we have a view that ISKCON is

simply a federation of autonomous units with their own ethos and authority.

But what then is the binding principle by which ISKCON can be identified?

 

I'm still struggling to see how ISKCON can work as an organisation without

some kind of ultimate spiritual authority.

 

ys

KDd