Thread #5: Functions of ISKCON Leadership.

[Guest guest]

> Good points, Oleg prabhu. But if we are contemplating having ksatriya

> types as our GBC leaders then the answer is simple -- taxation. This is

> the business of ksatriyas -- to give protection to the people, and in

> return to extract taxes. Indeed, no government can govern without

> imposing taxes. We could call them 'affiliation fees' or whatever, but

> certainly some form of direct taxation on ISKCON centres will be needed if

> we intend to set up any kind of social structure.

>

> Is that what we want?

>

> ys

> KDd

 

Yes, taxation is what we want, BUT ONLY IF we had a purely administrative

GBC that ensured no ISKCON gurus neglected any of their disciples; they

reduced guru falldowns to almost nil by implementing proper guru training,

education, and never allowing gurus to get involvend in administration; they

made sure ISKCON diksa and siksa gurus were duly recognised as equal

manifestations of Krishna, they implemented a system whereby all ELIGIBLE

devotees are recognised as guru rather than 'NON GURUING' eligible devotees

with an unfair selective 'no objection' system, they themselves were ideal

siksa gurus ensuring that the spiritual standards were being maintained

throughout ISKCON, they dealt with all problems swiftly and effectively

thereby preventing any serious managerial disruptions, they spent resources

for ISKCON education, they expanded the cow protection programmes, they

cared for women and children, and so on.

 

It is a fact many devotees would gladly donate something regularly to such a

credible GBC. The laxmi would be flowing.

 

The question arises that if we revert to a varnasrama GBC structure who will

replace the displaced gurus who for the most part are the principle GBC

bread winners?

 

Administrators are by nature experts at extractng taxes and raising funds.

When Hastinapur's treasury was completly depleted after the Kurukshetra

battle the Pandavas racked their brains as to how they would get wealth back

into the treasury, and they did it in various ways. Where there is a will

there is a way, provided the administrators have good credibility. But when

the money raising burden is placed upon gurus whose only responsibility is

the spiritual upliftment of their disciples the result is chaos all round,

as we have witnessed for the last two decades.

 

We have many, many materially and spiritually qualified devotees in the

woodwork who would, if reasonably remunerated, take up the job of GBC

administration. The current non varnasrama structure, however, makes that

impossible.

 

So the sooner we revert back to the original varnasrama structure which

Srila Prabhupada implemented, a structure that allowed no sannyasis/gurus to

administrate, the sooner ISKCON will begin to grow and prosper in the way

Srila Prabhupada predicted.

 

ys

 

ada

[Guest guest]

At 11:40 AM 9/7/00 +0100, Ajamila (das) ACBSP (Goloka Books - UK) wrote:

 

>> If a man accepts the role of guru with disciples (sons and daughters) he

>> must assume the responsibility to provide spiritual sustenance for his

>> sons and daughters, educate them in spiritual life, give good association

>> through loving reciprocation, teach by his own example, etc. Thus he is a

>> leader.

>>

>> It's not OK to shirk one's duty as a grhastha, similarly it's not OK to

>> shirk one's duty as a guru. Rather, personally training disciples is the

>> sva-dharma of a guru. This duty of the guru is the most essential, so to

>> shirk this duty is sinful. It is very unhealthy for the disciples, for the

>> guru, and for Prabhupada's ISKCON. It is unacceptable for a guru to simply

>> be a figurehead for his disciples. This is not leadership.

 

>This is exatly the problem which is crippling our Society. Gurus NEGLECT

>disciples because they are TOO BUSY with GBC management. A structure that

>allows this has got to change, and therefore we are making a proposal to

>RESTRUCTURE the GBC according to varnasrama which will free all gurus from

>all management and give them the time to attend to the spiritual upliftment

>of their disciples.

 

I agree with this to some extent. I believe the management reponsibilities

may be a large part of the problem. I also think that in many cases the

problem includes taking too many disciples. Lord Caitanya says clearly that

one should not take an unlimited number of disciples. This is one of the

items of devotional service He explains to Sanatan Gosvami. So, as

devotees, we may find it necessary to accept a few disciples as part of our

preaching. But collecting disciples in the manner of businessmen, or as

members of the GBC also collect items in their management "portfolio," is

to neglect this important item of devotional service, which must

necessarily impair the devotees' chances for advancement. So, if our

attempt to implement a "varnashrama" style restructuring of the GBC helps

address this problem (and I still think it is better done by education than

by legislation), I'm in.

 

Your servant,

Babhru das

[Guest guest]

> >> If a man accepts the role of guru with disciples (sons and daughters)

> >> he must assume the responsibility to provide spiritual sustenance for

> >> his sons and daughters, educate them in spiritual life, give good

> >> association through loving reciprocation, teach by his own example,

> >> etc. Thus he is a leader.

> >>

> >> It's not OK to shirk one's duty as a grhastha, similarly it's not OK to

> >> shirk one's duty as a guru. Rather, personally training disciples is

> >> the sva-dharma of a guru. This duty of the guru is the most essential,

> >> so to shirk this duty is sinful. It is very unhealthy for the

> >> disciples, for the guru, and for Prabhupada's ISKCON. It is

> >> unacceptable for a guru to simply be a figurehead for his disciples.

> >> This is not leadership.

 

 

I just want to say how glad I am to see this point becoming more prominent

-- i.e. the need for gurus to provide quality training.

 

Now, if that can only be nicely aligned with our organisational structure

then I think we'll have cracked it.

 

ys

KDd

[Guest guest]

> >This is exatly the problem which is crippling our Society. Gurus NEGLECT

> >disciples because they are TOO BUSY with GBC management. A structure that

> >allows this has got to change, and therefore we are making a proposal to

> >RESTRUCTURE the GBC according to varnasrama which will free all gurus

> >from all management and give them the time to attend to the spiritual

> >upliftment of their disciples.

>

> I agree with this to some extent. I believe the management reponsibilities

> may be a large part of the problem. I also think that in many cases the

> problem includes taking too many disciples. Lord Caitanya says clearly

> that one should not take an unlimited number of disciples. This is one of

> the items of devotional service He explains to Sanatan Gosvami. So, as

> devotees, we may find it necessary to accept a few disciples as part of

> our preaching. But collecting disciples in the manner of businessmen, or

> as members of the GBC also collect items in their management "portfolio,"

> is to neglect this important item of devotional service, which must

> necessarily impair the devotees' chances for advancement. So, if our

> attempt to implement a "varnashrama" style restructuring of the GBC helps

> address this problem (and I still think it is better done by education

> than by legislation), I'm in.

 

Madhvacarya, for example, had only a handful of disciples. A senior

Prabhupada disciple here in England recently said: "Why aren't the GBC

asking me and many hundreds of Prabhupada disciples like me to take on

disciples and share the burden? We have not been approached even once. How

could this possibly be fair?"

 

There must be kind of illusion about the burden, thinking it is something

one might enjoy.

 

With a varnsrama structured GBC, however, the GBC administrators would

ensure that the brahmanas/gurus were carrying out their responsibilities

properly. Such discipline is currently not possible in our Society simply

because there is no one empowered to do it, the structure prevents it.

 

But it is never too late to change back to the original varnasrama structure

Srila Prabhupad implemented in the GBC.

 

ys

 

ada

[Guest guest]

> > "Why aren't the GBC

> > asking me and many hundreds of Prabhupada disciples like me to take on

> > disciples and share the burden? We have not been approached even once.

> > How could this possibly be fair?"

>

> I have asked many, {Svavasa, Badrinarayana, Anutamma and otheres} but none

> have been interested. The GBC body doesn't ask anyone to take on

> disciples.

 

The devotees you've mentioned have righteously declined most probably

because they are in administrative positions. The devotees in question are

non-managerial long-time preachers.

 

> |Generally, when somene is preaching, he attracts followers. Then the

> GBC sanctions his taking disciples.

>

> There may be some who want every disciple for themselves. But I think

> that most of us would be happy to happy many of Srila Prabhupada's

> disciples taking disciples.

>

> The system is there. Sometimes a preacher gets blocked for various

> reasons.

 

The system as it stands is unfair. For example, here in England Kripamoya

Prabhu has been preaching and maintaining many nama hatta groups for the

last nearly twenty years. When the devotees he trains ask him are you an

initiating guru he has to say no because the system says so. But sastra says

that the siksa-guru normally becomes the diksa-guru. So in actual fact

Kripamoya Prabhu, who is quite shy about putting himself forward, is

qualified to be the diksa-guru for all the devotees for whom he is their

siksa-guru.

 

When by default the system says that so-and-so is not a diksa-guru, when in

actual fact many are entitled to be at least no objection diksa-gurus, this

is not only unfair but not in line with sastra.

 

The effect this has on new devotees is that when informed by their qualified

siksa-guru that he is by 'default' unqualified to be their diksa-guru they

can't help but conclude that there is something wrong with their siksa guru

because he does not have the no objection.

 

Now a fairer and more sastric system would be to name and 'no object' all

Prabhupada disciples in good standing; then if those nominated devotees

decide to give diksa they could do so, if they were approached. This system

would put active non managerial preachers under pressure to become diksa

gurus because some of their siksa disciples would inevitably and rightly

request diksa.

 

If a nominated siksa-guru declines to give diksa for whatever reason then at

least the integrity of his siksa relationship would not be minimised nor

would that siksa-guru's siksa-disciple fall into the offense of minimising

his siksa-guru.

 

I have seen because of the current system a Prabhupada disciple give just as

good a class (if not better) as a listed diksa-guru but is was comparatively

very poorly attended because the system tells the class attendees that one

is a guru and the other is not but in actual fact both are diksa gurus: One

has been activated while the other has been surpressed.

 

A comprehensive good standing list system would be fairer and more in line

with our philosophy which states that after the departure of one's spiritual

master one can accept one's own disciples wthout any limitation, that is the

law of disciplic succession.

 

Does the current exclusive rather than inclusive system to some extent

contravene the law of disciplic succession?

 

> Let someone make some kind of official proposal about this subject and I

> will present it.

 

I could formulate a more detailed and referenced proposal if you agree that

in principle what I am saying above is correct.

 

ys

 

ada

[Guest guest]

> A comprehensive good standing list system would be fairer and more in line

> with our philosophy which states that after the departure of one's

> spiritual master one can accept one's own disciples wthout any limitation,

> that is the law of disciplic succession.

>

> Does the current exclusive rather than inclusive system to some extent

> contravene the law of disciplic succession?

 

 

Haribol! Yes. Absolutely. It contravenes (IMHO). I don't see how we are

so much better than the ritviks, indeed they (the rits) are born of the same

paradigm. We have created them ourselves with our ISKCON system.

 

Thesis -- "these men are qualified" (our approved guru list), antithesis --

"no one is qualified!" (the rits). And now we want the synthesis. I see

that as being the provision of education and training in order to make

people qualified. No one is excluded from the opportunity for that

training, and anyone can potentially be a guru.

 

No need for any lists of gurus, or even potential gurus. Simply ensure that

all ISKCON representatives are properly trained and qualified, and situated

in a line of accountability. Then let devotees make their own independently

thoughtful decision.

 

Simple living, high thinking.

 

ys

KDd

[Guest guest]

Krishna Dharma said:

 

|Thesis -- "these men are qualified" (our approved guru list),

|antithesis --

|"no one is qualified!" (the rits). And now we want the synthesis. I see

|that as being the provision of education and training in order to make

|people qualified. No one is excluded from the opportunity for that

|training, and anyone can potentially be a guru.

 

I think I missed something. Isn't it supposed to be:

 

Thesis -- "these men are qualified." Antithesis -- "these men are

unqualified."

or

Thesis -- "everyone is qualified." Antithesis -- "no one is qualified."

 

ys

SRd

 

 

How about, "Everyone who is not unqualified, is qualified?" Just kidding.

[Guest guest]

> I think I missed something. Isn't it supposed to be:

>

> Thesis -- "these men are qualified." Antithesis -- "these men are

> unqualified."

> or

> Thesis -- "everyone is qualified." Antithesis -- "no one is

> qualified.

 

You're right, of course, from the logical point of view. But I think you

get the point. The ritviks have just taken it to the extreme. At least our

system is only seriously impeding the preaching. It seems they want to kill

it off entirely.

 

But the basic paradigm is the same. Guru is a post and must be declared as

such.

 

ys

KDd

[Guest guest]

Krishna Dharma said:

 

|But the basic paradigm is the same. Guru is a post and must be declared as

|such.

 

I don't agree. Initiation is a function. In a traditional society, it

would not normally be regulated. Of course, we don't live in a traditional

culture and these are not normal times.

 

If Krishna consciousness was simply a religious phenomenon, initiation

would be solely a personal concern. But since it is also an institution,

ISKCON may have a responsibility to guide its members or regulate that role.

 

ys

SRd

[Guest guest]

At 05:26 PM 9/16/00 -0700, Srirama (das) ACBSP wrote:

>Krishna Dharma said:

>

>|But the basic paradigm is the same. Guru is a post and must be declared as

>|such.

>

> I don't agree. Initiation is a function. In a traditional society, it

>would not normally be regulated. Of course, we don't live in a traditional

>culture and these are not normal times.

>

> If Krishna consciousness was simply a religious phenomenon, initiation

>would be solely a personal concern. But since it is also an institution,

>ISKCON may have a responsibility to guide its members or regulate that role.

 

 

Krishna consciousness is neither a religious phenomenon nor an institution.

It is the inherent nature of the soul. It is religious only in the

essential substantive sense of the concept: reviving our dormant

relationship with Krishna. Institutions have been formed by compassionate

devotees to systematically propagate this consciousness. Part of the

problem with reforming ISKCON and the GBC (not to mention the perspective

on the service of guiding others as a guru) is that we have mistaken these

outward forms for the essence, and have thus gradually chosen to neglect

the real thing. Religious practices and institutions are meant to serve the

real deal. Otherwise, they simply become troublesome.

 

In fact, initiation is primarily a personal concern. It's a personal

decision. If the institution pretends to supplant this real relationship

rather than support it, we have trouble. After considering all the

practical arguments favoring legislation as the most effective way of

regulating inititation (all of which fly in the face of our practical

experience of trying to do just that over the last 20-odd years), while I

have to acknowledge and appreciate their good intentions, I will continue

to assert that to emphasize legalistic reasoning over the dicta of guru,

sadhu, and shastra is a recipe for just the kind of trouble we're hoping to

correct, perhaps worse.

 

And (here comes a preemptive strike, Ajamila prabhu) lest someone may

mistake this as advocating any wishy-washy, free-for-all,

anyone-can-do-any-damned-thing non-system of nonregulation, I suggest that

he or she actually read what I have written on the subject, or even better,

what Srila Prabhupada and our previous acharyas have written on the subject.

 

Your pain-in-the-neck servant,

Babhru das

 

P.S. Srirama prabhu, since I have no access to pamho.net and no one has yet

been able to help me, would it be possible for you to me to the

GBC.Unmoderated conference?

[Guest guest]

> If Krishna consciousness was simply a religious phenomenon, initiation

> would be solely a personal concern. But since it is also an institution,

> ISKCON may have a responsibility to guide its members or regulate that

> role.

 

 

Fine. I quite agree that we need to regulate our standards and maintain

institutional integrity (did you not see my texts in this regard?). But I

believe there is a far better way than we use at present. Education and

empowerment is the key, in my view, not control and legislation.

 

We're working on an alternative model here in the UK. I'll keep you posted

(if we survive).

 

Ys

KDd

[Guest guest]

> Krishna Dharma said:

>

> |But the basic paradigm is the same. Guru is a post and must be declared

> as |such.

>

> I don't agree.

 

 

Sorry prabhu, but I'm not sure what you disagree with. Could you let me

know what you think I am saying?

 

ys

KDd

[Guest guest]

> > If Krishna consciousness was simply a religious phenomenon, initiation

> > would be solely a personal concern. But since it is also an institution,

> > ISKCON may have a responsibility to guide its members or regulate that

> > role.

>

>

> Fine. I quite agree that we need to regulate our standards and maintain

> institutional integrity (did you not see my texts in this regard?). But I

> believe there is a far better way than we use at present. Education and

> empowerment is the key, in my view, not control and legislation.

 

You say 'not control and legislation' but did not great Vedic kings

'control' their kingdoms? And did not Srila Prabhupada say that that Society

without rules and regualtions, legislation, is an animal society?

 

You seem to give the impression that 'education and empowerment' cannot

coexist with 'control and legislation' but in Vedic society described

throughout our scriptures we find all four elements working in harmony.

 

> We're working on an alternative model here in the UK. I'll keep you

> posted (if we survive).

>

> Ys

> KDd

 

I get worried when I hear about 'no control or legislation'. No doubt these

things are subject to much abuse like a knife used the wrong way. But when

applied properly they are useful, when abused great harm is done, and when

absent there is anarchy.

 

Best is if we have PROPER 'control and legislation', a GBC with a varnasrama

structure just as Sila Prabhupada instructed.

 

ys

 

ada

[Guest guest]

|

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

|RE: Thread #5: Functions of ISKCON Leadership.

 

|> Krishna Dharma said:

|> |But the basic paradigm is the same. Guru is a post and must be declared

|> as |such.

|>

|>I don't agree.

|

|Sorry prabhu, but I'm not sure what you disagree with. Could you let me

|know what you think I am saying?

 

I don't agree that guru is a post.

 

ys

SRd

[Guest guest]

At 12:48 PM 9/17/00 +0100, Ajamila (das) ACBSP (Goloka Books - UK) wrote:

 

>> Fine. I quite agree that we need to regulate our standards and maintain

>> institutional integrity (did you not see my texts in this regard?). But I

>> believe there is a far better way than we use at present. Education and

>> empowerment is the key, in my view, not control and legislation.

>

>You say 'not control and legislation' but did not great Vedic kings

>'control' their kingdoms? And did not Srila Prabhupada say that that Society

>without rules and regualtions, legislation, is an animal society?

>

>You seem to give the impression that 'education and empowerment' cannot

>coexist with 'control and legislation' but in Vedic society described

>throughout our scriptures we find all four elements working in harmony.

 

>I get worried when I hear about 'no control or legislation'. No doubt these

>things are subject to much abuse like a knife used the wrong way. But when

>applied properly they are useful, when abused great harm is done, and when

>absent there is anarchy.

>

>Best is if we have PROPER 'control and legislation', a GBC with a varnasrama

>structure just as Sila Prabhupada instructed.

 

I'll try this one more time: If you read Krishna Dharma's texts carefully,

you'll see that he does not say there should be "no control and

legislation," but that "control and legislation" are not the key to solving

ISCKON's problems. In other words, he seems to allow for "PROPER 'control

and legislation.'" Our discussions will be more likely to bear the fruit we

anticipate if we are careful to avoid false dilemmas. As I've said before,

I believe this tendency shows how contentious we still are after all these

years. If someone is so certain of his (or her) perspective that he insists

on arguing to "win," we may all lose in the long run (if not before).

 

And proper control and legislation should, in my humble (oh, that would be

nice!) opinion, be subordinate to education.

 

Babhru das

[Guest guest]

> Best is if we have PROPER 'control and legislation'

 

 

No problem. I have never argued that we should have a society devoid of any

rules and regulations. But we cannot depend upon such laws to bring people

to the point of perfection. They require education. This is the first

priority. Prabhupada makes the point nicely in the purport of 9.10.50,

which I quoted earlier.

 

 

ys

KDd

[Guest guest]

> And proper control and legislation should, in my humble (oh, that would be

> nice!) opinion, be subordinate to education.

>

> Babhru das

 

I agree with your above conclusion one hundred per cent.

 

Our Society should be education driven. Books are the basis. But IMHO it

will never happen unless and until we change the current GBC structure. If

it does not change it is only a matter of time before the same problems

reoccur, and here we go again. It gets unbearable to watch each time the

news of yet another massive disaster comes through. We have a top end

structure that makes checks and balances possible only after each disaster

happens. So unless the structure is changed now history will just keep on

repeating itself over and over again. But mind you I'll still stick wth

ISKCON. We can all still go back to Godhead by the wonderful association of

devotees like you Babru Prabhu. But I sure do wish the ride was a whole lot

smoother.

 

Hope you are well. Hare Krishna.

 

ys

 

ada

[Guest guest]

At 05:58 PM 9/18/00 +0100, Ajamila (das) ACBSP (Goloka Books - UK) wrote:

>> And proper control and legislation should, in my humble (oh, that would be

>> nice!) opinion, be subordinate to education.

>>

>> Babhru das

>

>I agree with your above conclusion one hundred per cent.

>

>Our Society should be education driven. Books are the basis. But IMHO it

>will never happen unless and until we change the current GBC structure. If

>it does not change it is only a matter of time before the same problems

>reoccur, and here we go again. It gets unbearable to watch each time the

>news of yet another massive disaster comes through. We have a top end

>structure that makes checks and balances possible only after each disaster

>happens. So unless the structure is changed now history will just keep on

>repeating itself over and over again. But mind you I'll still stick wth

>ISKCON. We can all still go back to Godhead by the wonderful association of

>devotees like you Babru Prabhu. But I sure do wish the ride was a whole lot

>smoother.

 

I agree with this completely. I intend to work with ISKCON as well. That's

why I'm trying to participate in this effort to reform the GBC. But this

pattern of disasters makes all of us wonder whether the GBC policies have

made ISKCON irrelevant (I know there are wonderful devotees within ISKCON

who still offer important service and are shcngin the world, so please

don't jump down my throuat just yet). That's why I beolive that the change

must be radical and that we must get it right this time. This is the source

of my carping.

 

Your servant,

Babhru das