Drutakarma prabhu's proposal

[Guest guest]

Here is Drutakarma prabhu's views on Gurus/managers.

very interesting comment.

YS, KKdd.

 

---------- Forwarded Message ----------

 

Text PAMHO:3401507 (235 lines)

Manjari (dd) BCS (GBC Sec. Office Mayapur - IN)

20-Jul-00 19:22 +0630

GBC (Secretariat) Office [11]

Cc: Bhakti Caitanya Swami [12783] (received: 21-Aug-00 15:58 +0300)

(sender: Divyambara (dd) KKD (GBC Sec. Office Mayapur - IN))

Cc: GBC Restructure

Message from Internet

---------------------------

 

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

 

(1)The quoted portion was part of an ISKCON (not guru) reform proposal that

I submitted to my local GBC Badrinarayan Prabhu and to Anuttama Prabhu, who

is, I was told, on the GBC committee for GBC reform. I told them to make

whatever use of the proposal they wished. I have no idea whether either of

them passed it on to any further GBC members. I also posted it on Chakra.

The complete text of the proposal can be found below.

 

(2) The quoted portion about gurus deals with just one part of the entire

proposal. I don't think it is possible to separately carry out guru reform,

apart from restructuring the whole authority system in ISKCON (gurus, GBCs,

presidents, sannyasis) so that each authority group concentrates on their

primary responsibility. I see the primary responsibility of the guru as

connecting the disciple with the disciplic succession, and representing the

disciplic succession in its teaching function. This involves answering all

the deepest questions and resolving all the deepest doubts of the disciple.

Because of lack of attention to this, disciples become victims of deviant

philosophies, gurus outside ISKCON, etc. They lose faith in Srila

Prabhupada, and the way that he represented the disciplic succession. They

lose faith in all spiritual authority in ISKCON, and they turn ISKCON into

a perpetual debating society. I see this everywhere I go, and I attribute

it to gurus not focusing on their primary duty. This is not to say that

they cannot do other things, but when I talk to many disciples, and ask

them when they last heard from their guru, it is a long, long time.

Philosophically, I am in support of Krishna Dharma's explanation of why the

"becoming a guru" process should be deregulated in ISKCON. On a more

personal level, I know that as someone who has been approached by a couple

of devotees desiring initiation that I cannot at all see why I should have

to go through some bureaucratic process to get a stamp of no objection. I

think it should be up to the prospective disciple and prospective guru to

decide for themselves, with the authority system stepping in only if

something goes wrong.

 

(3) As for Krishna Dharma's objection to my proposal that gurus not be

primarily involved in management positions, I think he misunderstandings my

position. He seems to think that by having most gurus outside the

management structure, this will disempower the managers. I don't think so.

I fully support those who wish to expand the concept of guru to include

siksa guru, along the lines developed in Sivarama Swami's book on the

topic. Devotees should be taught to recognize their many siksa gurus. But I

do not think that being a manager, in charge of devotees, automatically

makes one a siksa guru. I still think there must be a very personal and

loving relationship between a siksa guru and siksa disciple. That may or

may not be there in a managerial relationship (although the manager may

still have to be obeyed). A guru is someone who manifests special care for

someone. So if the manager is manifesting that special care for the

devotee, then that devotee may accept the manager as siksa guru. But I

don't think that can be forced. As with any guru disciple relationship,

there has to be mutual testing of disciple and guru. That said, I think

devotees should be instructed that siksa gurus can be very important in

their spiritual lives, and they should be prepared to recognize them.

 

I hope this is helpful.

 

Your servant, Drutakarma Dasa

 

Reform Proposal for ISKCON

 

By Drutakarma Dasa

 

There are four major leadership groups in ISKCON: 1. GBC, 2. Gurus, 3.

Temple Presidents, 4. Sannyasis. At the present moment, the primary

leadership responsibility of each group is not clearly defined.

 

I propose the following definitions of primary leadership responsibility.

 

GBC is the ultimate managing authority.

Temple Presidents are the actual managers

Gurus are meant to connect their disciples with the disciplic succession

Sannyasis are mean to preserve the siddhanta, preach it widely, and are

practical examples of renunciation and austerity.

 

GBC

 

GBCs should serve for life. Each GBC should oversee a zone that is

geographically contiguous (no exceptions). Zonal oversight is the main duty

of a GBC, and it should not be neglected in favor of other priorities, such

as personal preaching projects, dealings with disciples, etc. GBCs cannot

be managers of any projects. There will be no GBC ministries, and no GBC

deputies. The main duty of the GBC shall be to cultivate relationships with

the zonal presidents, insure that the presidents are following the

principles and programs, and be their friend, guide, and counselor, thus

insuring the proper management of the zone.

 

When a GBC vacancy occurs in a zone, the chairman of the GBC or appointed

representative of the chairman of the GBC shall hold an ista gosthi of all

initiated members of ISKCON in good standing serving in that zone and

inquire how they wish the new GBC to be chosen:

 

1. by vote of all initiated members of ISKCON in good standing in that zone

(i.e chanting 16 rounds and following the four regulative principles).

2. by the zonal presidents.

3. by the full GBC.

 

If methods 1 or 2 are chosen, the elected candidate must be approved by a

simple majority of the GBC. If the candidate is not approved, then the body

that proposed the candidate will be asked to submit another candidate, who

will again be subject to confirmation by majority vote of the GBC. If after

three submissions, no suitable candidate is proposed by election, then the

whole GBC shall appoint a GBC by 75 percent majority vote.

 

Temple Presidents

 

Temple presidents, individually and collectively (in regional and national

councils) will be the principal managers in ISKCON, under the ultimate

authority of the GBC. All ministries will be under the temple presidents.

In each zone the presidents of the zone will formulate zonal policies and

present them to the local GBC who retains the right to disapprove them. If

the presidents in a zone disagree with a decision of the local GBC, the

matter can be appealed to the full GBC. A GBC can be removed for cause, as

under the current system.

 

Temple presidents will normally serve for life, but can be removed for

cause, as under the current system. In the event of a vacancy of a

presidency, the local GBC will poll the initiated members in good standing

of the temple to see how they wish the new president to be chosen:

 

1. by vote of those members,

2. by the local temple board, if such a board exists,

3. by the local GBC.

 

If methods 1 and 2 are chosen, the local GBC can veto the candidate who is

selected by election. The electing body via the full GBC can appeal this.

 

GBC, Presidents, and Management Authority

 

Each year, the temple presidents in each zone will select two presidents to

attend an annual temple presidents meeting in Mayapur, before the annual

GBC meeting. This temple presidents meeting will propose resolutions for

the whole society. The GBC will review these decisions, and have the power

to send decisions back to the presidents for further consideration. The GBC

takes the role that Prabhupada took at the GBC meetings, of reviewing the

decisions made by the managing body. If the presidents send back the same

proposal, it can only be rejected by a 75 percent vote of the GBC.

 

The GBC will have the ability to propose a limited number of resolutions to

the presidents. In the event that the presidents reject a proposal by the

GBC, the GBC has the right to submit it again. If it is again rejected by

the presidents, the GBC, exercising its ultimate authority, can vote to

compel its acceptance by a 75 percent vote of the GBC.

 

Any ministries will be established by and function under the temple

presidents. All matters related to the management of the movement will come

under the presidents and their ministers (i.e., education, public

relations, social welfare, legal defense, international projects like

Mayapur, etc.). The GBC will be there to provide vision, overall direction,

inspiration, etc. on issues that concern the whole Society.

 

Under this system, GBCs will not be traveling all over the world, but will

be focusing on only two things: overseeing the development of their zone by

the local presidents and giving some overall guidance to the Society on

issues that concern the whole Society. The maintenance of such a GBC should

not be a problem for any zone, because there will be no big expense.

 

In each zone, there should be a focus on providing shelter for single

mothers with children who wish to live as devotees and serve, elderly

devotees who wish to serve, and gurukula graduates who wish to serve.

 

Sannyasis

 

The current system for selecting sannyasis is okay, although it might be a

good idea to eventually go back to the traditional system whereby any

sannyasi can award sannyasa. The check would be that the GBC could

discipline a sannyasi who goes off the track, or revoke the

sannyasa-giving privilege of a sannyasi who gives it out inappropriately.

But the role of sannyasis should be clarified. Sannyasis shall generally

not be temple presidents or managers. A sannyasi could be a GBC (but under

this new arrangement, GBCs will not be managers). A sannyasi could be a

guru. The principle duty of the sannyasi will be to uphold the siddhanta in

ISKCON and protect the society from philosophical deviations. A certain

percentage of sannyasis (25 percent) should be on call each year as a

"strike force," that the GBC can call upon to go to any part of the world

to uphold the siddhanta against a deviation. Sannyasis should designate a

home zone, and should be responsible for training and engaging brahmacaris

in that zone. In temples, male devotees should spend their first few years

as provisional brahmacaris, after which they should be given the choice of

preparing to enter the householder ashram or continue on as a brahmacari.

If they choose to continue they should be placed under the guidance of a

sannyasi.

 

Gurus

 

The principal leadership duty of the guru shall be to connect disciples to

the disciplic succession. Their principal duty should be to enter into the

hearts and minds of their disciples and clear them of all doubts and

confusion. Gurus in general should not hold management positions, although

they could possibly serve as presidents or GBCs by special permission. All

disciples will be under the authority of a temple president in a zone.

(Note: Obviously the extent of the authority will be different for

congregational and temple disciples. It is not that a temple president

would be overseeing every act of a congregational member, but if that

member wished to do some temple service, the authority of the president as

to how it should be executed should be followed.) Gurus can be ombudsman

for their disciples, but final decisions will rest with the president. The

present system of authorizing gurus is okay, but it would be better to

eventually deregulate the guru selection process and leave it up to the

prospective gurus and disciples to work out for themselves, with the GBC

stepping in only if a guru goes off the track.

 

Free Speech

 

There should be a free speech provision in ISKCON, whereby any member of

ISKCON can publicly advocate any philosophical point or policy matter, with

the following restrictions. If the member is holding any official position

(GBC, president, guru, sannyasi), the advocacy can take place only by

submitting proposals privately through the system of authority. For

example, a temple president should be free to advocate any philosophical

point (an opinion on the fall of the jiva, for example) or any practical

point (an opinion on ritvik initiations) by submitting proposals privately

to the GBC. But the ISKCON official would not be able to engage in public

advocacy. If the devotee wanted to engage in public advocacy against a

position currently endorsed by the GBC, by making statements on the

internet, through public meetings, etc., then the devotee should resign

from the official position and conduct advocacy as an ordinary member of

ISKCON. Such public advocacy could not take place in official forums, such

as temple classes or ISKCON owned and controlled publications and web

sites. But devotees could organize private meetings; advocate their views

in their own publications (which could not, however, be placed in ISKCON

properties), etc. And there would be no sanctions against such free speech

activity. The provision for free speech would include only speech, not

practices. Any authority in ISKCON would remain free to uphold the

Society's current position through public statements in private and

official forums.

 

 

 

 

9701 Venice Blvd. #5

Los Angeles, CA 90034 USA

310-837-5283, fax 310-837-1056

mcremo (AT) compuserve (DOT) com

(Text COM:3398072) --------

(Text PAMHO:3401507) ------

 

------- End of Forwarded Message ------