Vote #1

[Guest guest]

> 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? 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?

 

Tough it might be not so easy on the first look, still it may

be necessarily to try to make some separation between strict

spiritual functions/activities and those that aren't. In my

understanding, it is a big mistake to keep acting under a false

premise that everything in ISCKON is spiritual, based only on the

definition of this institution as spiritual as well as on the

philosophical siddhanta how we all are supposed to be acting for

the Lord's satisfaction.

 

I don's see why there is a need for some puzzles of a kind.

The division of duties/activities/responsibilities according

to the basic principles of VAD gives the answer on such and

similar questions that are robbing ISCKON and its members from

the vital energy to proceed further. The time to stop self deluding

ourselves with our so-called high spirituality/transcendence (the

"rest" of the world seems not to care that much anyway what do we

think about ourselves) has passed long ago. Still, better ever than

never.

 

To me it seems like all of these unresolved social/managerial

issues unavoidably lead to one big "stone block" that lays right

in midst of every crossing, and it appears to be so huge and massive

that it can't be moved aside... But it could well be the stepping

stone that is meant to be there to enable us to get over many

pitholes that are spread in front on the path...

 

 

 

- mnd

[Guest guest]

I think there is no choice but to have a group with responsibility for

settling theological disputes. My cautions would be:

 

1) Every effort must be made to see that the group responsible for these

matters has no conflict of interest. When we, as we have done in the past,

decide theological questions with an eye to managerial considerations,

everything becomes spoiled. Doctrine should never become the servant of

practicality.

 

2) Experience has demonstrated that a group's determinations is not

necessarily equivalent to truth. Therefore, such decisions should never be

considered written in stone.

 

Your servant,

Sri Rama das

 

[srirama.acbsp (AT) pamho (DOT) net], or

[sriramadas (AT) home (DOT) com] < Please note new address.

[http://www.krishnagalleria.com]

 

 

|

|Krishna.Dharma (AT) pamho (DOT) net [Krishna.Dharma (AT) pamho (DOT) net]

|Sunday, September 10, 2000 11:22 AM

|GBC Unmoderated; Pancaratna ACBSP

|Cc: Bhaktarupa (das) ACBSP (Bhubaneswara - IN)

|RE: Vote #1

|

|

|> 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

|

[Guest guest]

> If you say so.

>

> What I see here is that you insist on discussing this in an adversarial

> manner. Anyone who doesn't accept wholesale your suggestions is put on the

> defensive. My approach is intended as more invitational than adversarial.

> I objected to this tone inyour "debate" with Adridharan. You satisfied me

> by explaining that he's out to destroy ISKCON. I'm not. I'm trying to open

> the discussion up, and I'd like to point out that several devotees have

> written to thank me. If we, as vaishnavas, whose charge is to establish a

> competitionless society with God at the center, cannot find a less

> adversarial way to discuss these things, I simply have no interest in

> participating, because it indicates a continuation of the same old

> mindset. If your interest is to prevail in every discussion because you

> think better than anyone else, I hereby issue a certificate that you win.

> If your interest is to explore how we can actually reform and revitalize

> ISKCON, I'm there with you. I'll see your desire in the way you argue (and

> please note that argument does not necessarily mean contention).

>

> Your servant,

> Babhru das

 

Well said, and please note that is not my intention to come accross as

adversarial. However, in debating it is inevitable that one's person's style

and tone will differ from another. I'm sorry if I can't do it in a way that

is more pleasing to you. I do however trust you in that you want to

genuinely help ISKCON, and I'm sure that you trust me for the same reason

too. The important thing is to refute points which one feels are not

correct. That is the main point. The style is also important, but not as

important. It is not improper for a sadhu to have an adversarial style in

certain circumstances, like with the ritviks. Maybe I can't snap out of the

particular mode I was in with Adri, as you've suggested. You are a gentle

Vaisnava and so I apologise if I come accross as too adverarial in our

interesting discussions. Thank you for pointing this out. I'll definitely

try to get the same points accross in a less more adversarial way.

 

Hope you are well. Hare Krishna.

 

ys

 

ada

[Guest guest]

> I think there is no choice but to have a group with responsibility for

> settling theological disputes. My cautions would be:

>

> 1) Every effort must be made to see that the group responsible for

> these matters has no conflict of interest. When we, as we have done in the

> past, decide theological questions with an eye to managerial

> considerations, everything becomes spoiled. Doctrine should never become

> the servant of practicality.

>

> 2) Experience has demonstrated that a group's determinations is not

> necessarily equivalent to truth. Therefore, such decisions should never be

> considered written in stone.

>

> Your servant,

> Sri Rama das

 

 

Absolutely. I agree entirely. But have such a body we must. Whether we

call them the GBC or HBC or ZBC or whatever. But this body will be our

highest spiritual authority, indeed the ultimate ISKCON authority in all

areas, as even our management must be guided by solid spiritual principles.

 

One small point to add: It may well be that a particular determination is

debatable, and, as you say, not necessarily 'equivalent to truth'. But for

the greater good, and the preservation of ISKCON's integrity, our members

should agree to abide by such determinations until they are changed, IMHO.

As Prabhupada says, "...the principle of following the authorized direction

is always good for the performer."

 

ys

KDd

[Guest guest]

|

|Krishna.Dharma (AT) pamho (DOT) net [Krishna.Dharma (AT) pamho (DOT) net]

|

|As Prabhupada says, "...the principle of following the authorized direction

|is always good for the performer."

 

Could you elaborate on the context of this statement? I definitely

followed this principle in the first years of my ISKCON life and, as a

result, I seemed to make a lot of advancement -- even when those providing

the authorized direction were often very much less than ideal. However, I

also picked up many anarthas and damage to my character that took decades to

become free of. And it was definitely not a case of becoming bound by

reactions because I was doing those actions in state of selfish motivation.

I was contaminated by the nature of the actions themselves. There is no

doubt in my mind, I should have refused to do some things I was asked to do

by my "authority."

 

Later, I felt that I'd been brainwashed by the concept of perfection

through following authority and came to regret many things I'd done under

the umbrella of that principle. Now I would never consider following an

instruction that I felt wasn't to the benefit of (or at least not harmful

to) all concerned. So where does that put me in relation to the statement

above by Srila Prabhupada?

 

Now, I could solve this quandary by designating the actions under

question as "non-authorized direction" on the basis of it not complying with

sadhu, sastra and guru. After a quarter century, my knowledge of those

confirming sources is sufficient to make me now personally comfortable

deciding what is "authorized direction." However, what is a young devotee to

do when there hasn't been enough experience to be able to judge according to

sadhu, sastra and guru? Should one fall back on whatever sense of right and

wrong one had before coming to Krishna consciousness? Or speculate on what

might be considered authorized if one had better knowledge of the standards?

Or follow direction, more or less blindly?

 

Your servant,

Sri Rama das

 

[srirama.acbsp (AT) pamho (DOT) net], or

[sriramadas (AT) home (DOT) com] < Please note new address.

[http://www.krishnagalleria.com]

[Guest guest]

Dear Sri Rama prabhu,

 

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

you for raising these mature and pertinent points. What I am understanding

from you is that, while the principle of following authorized direction is

good, one needs to be cautious. Sometimes the so called authority is not so

authorized, inasmuch as he is giving bogus instructions not based on guru,

sadhu and sastra. Younger devotees, who lack sufficient knowledge, are

especially vulnerable. From your own experience you know that we can

sometimes be misled, and even though we are sincerely trying to serve

Krishna we may end up damaging our spiritual lives, much in the way of the

blind leading the blind and all of them falling in the ditch. You wonder

then how we can protect inexperienced devotees, and at the same time

preserve the principle of following authority.

 

In response I have to say that I can fully empathise with you. I too was

that soldier. Looking back on some of the things I was asked to do I can

now understand that they were not so authorized. Maybe as a result I

suffered, although I do try to console myself that things would have been

much worse if I had not been a devotee. But I do accept your point. We

cannot just expect someone without sufficient knowledge to blindly follow an

authority. However, I don't think this is what Srila Prabhupada was

teaching at all. As I understand it he only expected us to follow - even

blindly - once we had first of all made an intelligent decision based on

knowledge that the authority we are following really is authorized. In

other words, the first responsibility we have to new devotees is not to

issue orders to them, but to educate them in spiritual principles. Bring

them to the point of being 'independently thoughtful', as Srila Prabhupada

instructed, so that they will know what is right and wrong for themselves.

 

Education and empowerment. In my view this should be ISKCON's paradigm.

But it seems to me that we have worked by a different and opposing paradigm,

namely control and legislation. Instead of teaching and training devotees

thoroughly so that they are empowered to make their own important decisions,

such as who to accept as an authority, we have made those decisions for

them, even formulating laws that effectively make those decisions, such as

our guru legislation.

 

If a devotee in our care does not know what is right and wrong then we have

a job to do - educate him. Not that we take their initial commitment and

turn it into blind faith based on no knowledge so we can exploit them to

build our dreams. In my view proper training has been all but completely

neglected. All the knowledge we need is right there in Prabhupada's books,

but how much time do we spend studying them from 'different lights', hearing

and chanting together, and systematically educating ourselves and others?

Surely that should be our main business.

 

In Bg 10.5 purport, Prabhupada says: "Asammoha, freedom from doubt and

delusion, can be achieved when one is not hesitant and when he understands

the transcendental philosophy. Slowly but surely he becomes free from

bewilderment. Nothing should be accepted blindly; everything should be

accepted with care and with caution."

 

And in the SB, 3.25.25, cited in the Gita 9.1. purport: "As a devotee hears

more and more about the Supreme Lord, he becomes enlightened. This hearing

process is recommended in the Srimad-Bhagavatam: "The messages of the

Supreme Personality of Godhead are full of potencies, and these potencies

can be realized if topics regarding the Supreme Godhead are discussed

amongst devotees." And further in that same purport: "Discussion of Krsna

is very potent, and if a fortunate person has such association and tries to

assimilate the knowledge, then he will surely make advancement toward

spiritual realization."

 

For me, then, it is this discussion and education that provides the solution

to the question of spiritual authority in ISKCON, even to how it will

manifest to our leadership. If our leaders take it as their first priority

to hear and chant together, deeply understanding Prabhupada's instructions,

then I am sure he will always be manifest. "If you want to know me, read my

books."

 

Here's another quote to end with, to back up my argument that education and

empowerment is better than control and legislation: (it's a good one for

the pro-varnashrama argument too)

 

"Simply enforcing laws and ordinances cannot make the citizens obedient and

lawful. That is impossible. Throughout the entire world there are so many

states, legislative assemblies and parliaments, but still the citizens are

rogues and thieves. Good citizenship, therefore, cannot be enforced; the

citizens must be trained. As there are schools and colleges to train

students to become chemical engineers, lawyers or specialists in many other

departments of knowledge, there must be schools and colleges to train

students to become brahmanas, ksatriyas, vaisyas, sudras, brahmacaris,

grhasthas, vanaprasthas and sannyasis."

SB 9.10.50

 

"Schools and colleges". Hello ISKCON, that's your cue.

 

Yhs

KDd

 

 

 

 

Sri Rama prabhu wrote:

 

 

> Could you elaborate on the context of this statement? I definitely

> followed this principle in the first years of my ISKCON life and, as a

> result, I seemed to make a lot of advancement -- even when those providing

> the authorized direction were often very much less than ideal. However, I

> also picked up many anarthas and damage to my character that took decades

> to become free of. And it was definitely not a case of becoming bound by

> reactions because I was doing those actions in state of selfish

> motivation. I was contaminated by the nature of the actions themselves.

> There is no doubt in my mind, I should have refused to do some things I

> was asked to do by my "authority."

>

> Later, I felt that I'd been brainwashed by the concept of perfection

> through following authority and came to regret many things I'd done under

> the umbrella of that principle. Now I would never consider following an

> instruction that I felt wasn't to the benefit of (or at least not harmful

> to) all concerned. So where does that put me in relation to the statement

> above by Srila Prabhupada?

>

> Now, I could solve this quandary by designating the actions under

> question as "non-authorized direction" on the basis of it not complying

> with sadhu, sastra and guru. After a quarter century, my knowledge of

> those confirming sources is sufficient to make me now personally

> comfortable deciding what is "authorized direction." However, what is a

> young devotee to do when there hasn't been enough experience to be able to

> judge according to sadhu, sastra and guru? Should one fall back on

> whatever sense of right and wrong one had before coming to Krishna

> consciousness? Or speculate on what might be considered authorized if one

> had better knowledge of the standards? Or follow direction, more or less

> blindly?

>

> Your servant,

> Sri Rama das