Vote #1

[Guest guest]

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

> > for

> > settling theological disputes.

>

> I am not convinced we need an institutionalized group. I would prefer to

> see a GBC with enough insight to determine whether a philosophical issue

> really needs to be settled and then commission a group specifically for

> that purpose. Such a group would conduct thorough research into the issue

> and produce documents containing their conclusions. The GBC could then

> release these on their own merits.

>

> I would like to see the GBC create an atmosphere in which independent,

> qualified brahmanas are able to flourish without financial and managerial

> constraints.

 

 

I agree that ISKCON leaders may need to call upon the resources and skills

of others in order to do their job properly. In fairness I think they have

been doing this to some degree already. Let's hope, pray, and try to ensure

as far as possible that we in leadership positions always have enough

humility to recognise our own shortcomings.

 

But it still needs to be clear where the power lies. The GBC must have the

ultimate insititutional authority. Whether or not they take advice must be

their prerogative. We could perhaps build certain safeguards into our

constitution in that regard if we are worried about them becoming tyrants.

If there is division amd uncertainty in our power structure, especially at

the very top, then we leave ourselves wide open for politics, IMHO.

 

ys

KDd

[Guest guest]

> Thank you very much for taking the time to listen and to say all this. You

> have got it right, but I wanted to take the opportunity to make a bit of a

> clarification/improvement of what I originally wrote to you. I do not want

> to say that the GBC Body is not a spiritual authority. They can certainly

> take that role. I only have a problem with calling them the ultimate

> spiritual authority. We should not try to institute some strict dichotomy

> between spiritual roles and managerial roles. There is considerable

> overlapping. In an institution such as ISKCON they are largely

> overlapping. I said in my previous text that a spiritual authority should

> be followed unquestioningly. I should have said that our ultimate

> spiritual authority should be followed unquestioningly.

 

 

I agree with this. I think what you mean is that an individual can hardly

see the GBC body, or indeed any body, as his or her ultimate spiritual

guide. That's true enough -- we need to form a personal relationship with a

guru, and he will become our life and soul, not some committee.

 

But ISKCON, starting with the GBC, can nevertheless offer protection,

guidance and training in spiritual life. It can be system of checks and

balances, of accountability, within which we can safely practice spiritual

life. Then, even if our chosen guru falls down, as, sadly, I think we will

continue to see in this dark and miserable age, it does not have to be a

disaster. We will still have shelter.

 

I completely agree that we do not want tyranny in the realm of thought and

belief, as you seem to saying elsewhere, and that we must be free to reach

our own realisations in spiritual life, not have them thrust upon us. But I

do see a spiritual role for the GBC body where they ensure that ISKCON is

always offering quality siksha -- that its representatives are properly

trained and qualified. However, the choice of who we accept as our life and

soul must always remain with us as individuals. In my view, this is not

presently the case in ISKCON.

 

ys

KDd

[Guest guest]

Bhakta Rupa wrote:

|

|But from what you say below they actually won't be settling philosophical

|disputes. So then what is the point of the group?

 

I didn't follow that.

 

|a. But as soon as the group has to be appointed by some managerial

|body then immediately they will be affected by managerial considerations.

It's

|unavoidable.

 

Who said this group has to be appointed by a managerial body?

 

|b. Srila Prabhupada never suggested such a body. Although he

|sometimes would request individual GBC members to instruct the devotees in

spiritual

|matters, or for a few of them to deliberate on a particular

|subject, that is a far cry from him setting up a body to settle theological

issues. |Rather, he always instructed us to be individually thoughtful.

 

Srila Prabhupada may never have suggested it, but then it's a fact that

the GBC took it on itself to fulfill that function anyway. The need has been

demonstrated. The issue now is to correct the problems created by having

everything done by one overburdened group.

 

|c. Generally such a body will fill up with those that want to be known as

|philosophically astute individuals as opposed to those who are actually

|astute.

 

If that is the case, then it is our responsibility to make sure that

doesn't happen again. The current system, where the GBC members volunteer

themselves to serve on the committees of their own choosing, suffers from

the shortcoming you describe above.

 

|If it is not written in stone, then what is the value? The philosophy might

|change later? What you are really saying here is that if there is some

|argument on a theological issue, then all the devotees who don't want to

|take the trouble to approach guru-sadhu-sastra themselves for help on the

|issue will have it easy. They simply have to wait for this body to

|tell them what to believe.

 

It is not so much that philosophy changes, but rather that our

understanding of how it is to be applied changes. The problem comes when

managers make interpretations on the basis of what is amenable to their

management program. Rarely, there arises a genuine theological dispute. As

an institution it will be foolish and irresponsible to not have a mechanism

to decide the issue. To say that this function is within the managerial

purview of every individual is to deny the system of varnashrama division --

that there is a portion of society with the inclination and training to

research and deliberate on such issues. Of course, what individuals believe

is their own business. But the institution has a responsibility to give

guidence. Since this is the material world, no group is going to be perfect.

Therefore, how can we honestly say things are written in stone? You can

pretend that, but it doesn't make it true.

 

But the fact that every endeavor is covered by fault doesn't excuse us

from doing our duty. And just because we haven't liked the results of mixing

up the kshatriya and brahminical functions, doesn't mean we can't do it

right.

 

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 Srirama Prabhu, PAMHO. AGTSP!

 

Thank you for taking the time to answer. You must be very busy. Pancaratna

Prabhu brought me into the discussion in the middle and I am sorry if I have

created any disturbance due to my ignorance of the initial discussions.

 

> Bhakta Rupa wrote:

> |

> |But from what you say below they actually won't be settling philosophical

> |disputes. So then what is the point of the group?

>

> I didn't follow that.

 

The point I was making is that if the decisions are not chiselled into

stone, but are subject to change at a later date, then it is not really

"settling" anything philosophical, but it is only providing a managerial

function of cooling off the disagreements so they don't disturb others. And

to back up a further step, if there is a philosophical disagreement going on

which is actually not disturbing anyone then there is no need for it to be

settled by any official body at all. Best it be left as an open issue for

continued thought and discussion. Thus the function of "settling"

philosophical disagreements is a managerial one, not a brahminical one.

 

> |a. But as soon as the group has to be appointed by some managerial |body

> then immediately they will be affected by managerial considerations. It's

> |unavoidable.

>

> Who said this group has to be appointed by a managerial body?

 

Being unaware of the specific proposal, I was speaking of the general

principle that as soon as you use the term "appoint" you are somehow in the

realm of management.

 

> |b. Srila Prabhupada never suggested such a body. Although he

> |sometimes would request individual GBC members to instruct the devotees

> in spiritual |matters, or for a few of them to deliberate on a particular

> |subject, that is a far cry from him setting up a body to settle

> theological issues. |Rather, he always instructed us to be individually

> thoughtful.

>

> Srila Prabhupada may never have suggested it, but then it's a fact that

> the GBC took it on itself to fulfill that function anyway. The need has

> been demonstrated. The issue now is to correct the problems created by

> having everything done by one overburdened group.

 

The need requires no demonstration. As an institution it is required. But

the frequency of use is a very serious issue. If you constitute a standing

body then naturally the implication is that they will have regular work to

do, finding out where the disputes are and taking sides. Pancaratna Prabhu's

contention (and I agree) is that as the function only rarely needs to be

performed, there is no need for a standing committee, and that the GBC

should constitute such a body whenever the need arises (I was thinking maybe

once every three or four generations).

 

The GBC has overburdened itself with so many things. And they have overused

the power to settle philosophical disputes, unnecessarily adding more burden

on themselves. But of all the things the GBC Body should and should not be

doing, this MUST be on the TO DO list, even if they will as a general rule

actually delegate it to others. Otherwise they cannot be the ultimate

managerial authority. But only very rarely! Then it will not add to their

overburden.

 

> |c. Generally such a body will fill up with those that want to be known as

> |philosophically astute individuals as opposed to those who are actually

> |astute.

>

> If that is the case, then it is our responsibility to make sure that

> doesn't happen again. The current system, where the GBC members volunteer

> themselves to serve on the committees of their own choosing, suffers from

> the shortcoming you describe above.

 

As soon as you create a powerful body, those who want power will advertise

themselves as available. This is quite natural and there is not much which

can be done to prevent it. But one of the qualities of brahmanas is

humility. You want the spiritual guidance to come from real brahmanas. Out

of humility, brahmanas dislike formal groups and the pratistha that

automatically comes with them. They will be seldom visible to the appointing

committees, and if they are they will generally decline the appointments.

Others will want to be known as brahmanas and will stand in the front. You

will have to choose the best of the lot, no doubt, but since you are forced

to choose someone you will probably end up with those who are the most

expert at standing in the front without looking like they are actually

standing in the front. And you will think that you have roped in only the

brahmanas.

 

> |If it is not written in stone, then what is the value? The philosophy

> might |change later? What you are really saying here is that if there is

> some |argument on a theological issue, then all the devotees who don't

> want to |take the trouble to approach guru-sadhu-sastra themselves for

> help on the |issue will have it easy. They simply have to wait for this

> body to |tell them what to believe.

>

> It is not so much that philosophy changes, but rather that our

> understanding of how it is to be applied changes.

 

Yes. Application of the philosophy. This means management. It is not

brahminical work at all but ksatriya work. But we should not use terms like

"settle" for their function.

 

> The problem comes when

> managers make interpretations on the basis of what is amenable to their

> management program.

 

This is not a problem at all. Perhaps here is the real flaw in the whole

idea. We should not take away this power, otherwise who will agree to

manage? But we should endeavor to get the best managers, meaning especially

those who are intent on taking guidance from the brahmanas of their choice

(not forced to take guidance from some particular institutionalized

brahminical body). This will minimize mistakes and anomalies. Elimination of

mistakes is not possible.

 

> Rarely, there arises a genuine theological dispute. As

> an institution it will be foolish and irresponsible to not have a

> mechanism to decide the issue.

 

Agreed 100%. But since the occurances are rare, the mechanism should be

needed only rarely.

 

> To say that this function is within the

> managerial purview of every individual is to deny the system of

> varnashrama division

 

I am saying that it is within the purview of the managers to decide what

goes on inside the movement and what should go on outside. This is purely a

ksatriya function. What you are proposing is the setting up of something you

will call brahminical but which will actually be mostly managerial.

Brahmanas are independent. They may be listened to or not. They don't care.

But they will instruct those who ask them. Rather than an HBC, why not

institute a culture in ISKCON that makes it generally practiced that the

managers regularly inquire from whomever they consider to be detached and

intelligent brahmanas. And also preach about the importance of supporting

detached brahmanas so they can engage in brahminical work. This will create

a real brahminical class integrated within the social fabric, rather than an

institutionally mandated brahminical caste. Management would become so much

easier in such a climate, which is natural varnasrama rather than forced

varnasrama.

 

> -- that there is a portion of society with the

> inclination and training to research and deliberate on such issues. Of

> course, what individuals believe is their own business. But the

> institution has a responsibility to give guidence.

 

Any institution must give guidance. Primarily ISKCON should guide the

members to take spiritual guidance from truly detached souls, not formally

appointed ones.

 

> Since this is the

> material world, no group is going to be perfect. Therefore, how can we

> honestly say things are written in stone? You can pretend that, but it

> doesn't make it true.

 

The Bhagavatam is written in stone. Anything a formal body writes will

certain not be. So if we already have the Bhagavatam as our spiritual

lawbook, why do we need another body to write (changeable) "spiritual" laws

for us? And as for application of the philosophy is concerned, we should not

kid ourselves that anything other than managers can do this best.

 

> But the fact that every endeavor is covered by fault doesn't excuse us

> from doing our duty. And just because we haven't liked the results of

> mixing up the kshatriya and brahminical functions, doesn't mean we can't

> do it right.

 

I agree that these functions should not be mixed.

 

Your servant, Bhaktarupa Das

[Guest guest]

Dear Bhaktarupa Prabhu,

PAMHO, AGTSP.

 

In the GBC Restructure conference, there is currently a proposal being

discussed which recommends splitting the GBC into separate brahminical and

kshatriya bodies. However, your approach is just as valid in terms of

varnashrama principles. I would strongly encourage you to make a proposal to

the conference based on the concepts you outline below.

 

Essentially, proposals must be organized to show what groups should be

responsible for the various leadership functions ISKCON needs and uses. You

should have no problem meeting the proposal requirements with what you have

here.

 

I'm going to forward to you the two texts that explain the details about

proposals. I sincerely hope you will choose to participate in this way. The

process will also make it easier to discuss your ideas. Let me know if you

need assistance.

 

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]

 

 

|

|Bhaktarupa.ACBSP (AT) pamho (DOT) net [bhaktarupa.ACBSP (AT) pamho (DOT) net]

|Wednesday, September 13, 2000 10:42 PM

|Pancaratna ACBSP; Srirama (das) ACBSP

|RE: Vote #1

|

|

|Dear Srirama Prabhu, PAMHO. AGTSP!

|

|Thank you for taking the time to answer. You must be very busy. Pancaratna

|Prabhu brought me into the discussion in the middle and I am sorry

|if I have

|created any disturbance due to my ignorance of the initial discussions.

|

|> Bhakta Rupa wrote:

|> |

|> |But from what you say below they actually won't be settling

|philosophical

|> |disputes. So then what is the point of the group?

|>

|> I didn't follow that.

|

|The point I was making is that if the decisions are not chiselled into

|stone, but are subject to change at a later date, then it is not really

|"settling" anything philosophical, but it is only providing a managerial

|function of cooling off the disagreements so they don't disturb others. And

|to back up a further step, if there is a philosophical

|disagreement going on

|which is actually not disturbing anyone then there is no need for it to be

|settled by any official body at all. Best it be left as an open issue for

|continued thought and discussion. Thus the function of "settling"

|philosophical disagreements is a managerial one, not a brahminical one.

|

|> |a. But as soon as the group has to be appointed by some managerial |body

|> then immediately they will be affected by managerial considerations. It's

|> |unavoidable.

|>

|> Who said this group has to be appointed by a managerial body?

|

|Being unaware of the specific proposal, I was speaking of the general

|principle that as soon as you use the term "appoint" you are somehow in the

|realm of management.

|

|> |b. Srila Prabhupada never suggested such a body. Although he

|> |sometimes would request individual GBC members to instruct the devotees

|> in spiritual |matters, or for a few of them to deliberate on a particular

|> |subject, that is a far cry from him setting up a body to settle

|> theological issues. |Rather, he always instructed us to be individually

|> thoughtful.

|>

|> Srila Prabhupada may never have suggested it, but then it's a fact that

|> the GBC took it on itself to fulfill that function anyway. The need has

|> been demonstrated. The issue now is to correct the problems created by

|> having everything done by one overburdened group.

|

|The need requires no demonstration. As an institution it is required. But

|the frequency of use is a very serious issue. If you constitute a standing

|body then naturally the implication is that they will have regular work to

|do, finding out where the disputes are and taking sides.

|Pancaratna Prabhu's

|contention (and I agree) is that as the function only rarely needs to be

|performed, there is no need for a standing committee, and that the GBC

|should constitute such a body whenever the need arises (I was

|thinking maybe

|once every three or four generations).

|

|The GBC has overburdened itself with so many things. And they have overused

|the power to settle philosophical disputes, unnecessarily adding

|more burden

|on themselves. But of all the things the GBC Body should and should not be

|doing, this MUST be on the TO DO list, even if they will as a general rule

|actually delegate it to others. Otherwise they cannot be the ultimate

|managerial authority. But only very rarely! Then it will not add to their

|overburden.

|

|> |c. Generally such a body will fill up with those that want to

|be known as

|> |philosophically astute individuals as opposed to those who are actually

|> |astute.

|>

|> If that is the case, then it is our responsibility to make sure that

|> doesn't happen again. The current system, where the GBC members volunteer

|> themselves to serve on the committees of their own choosing, suffers from

|> the shortcoming you describe above.

|

|As soon as you create a powerful body, those who want power will advertise

|themselves as available. This is quite natural and there is not much which

|can be done to prevent it. But one of the qualities of brahmanas is

|humility. You want the spiritual guidance to come from real brahmanas. Out

|of humility, brahmanas dislike formal groups and the pratistha that

|automatically comes with them. They will be seldom visible to the

|appointing

|committees, and if they are they will generally decline the appointments.

|Others will want to be known as brahmanas and will stand in the front. You

|will have to choose the best of the lot, no doubt, but since you are forced

|to choose someone you will probably end up with those who are the most

|expert at standing in the front without looking like they are actually

|standing in the front. And you will think that you have roped in only the

|brahmanas.

|

|> |If it is not written in stone, then what is the value? The philosophy

|> might |change later? What you are really saying here is that if there is

|> some |argument on a theological issue, then all the devotees who don't

|> want to |take the trouble to approach guru-sadhu-sastra themselves for

|> help on the |issue will have it easy. They simply have to wait for this

|> body to |tell them what to believe.

|>

|> It is not so much that philosophy changes, but rather that our

|> understanding of how it is to be applied changes.

|

|Yes. Application of the philosophy. This means management. It is not

|brahminical work at all but ksatriya work. But we should not use terms like

|"settle" for their function.

|

|> The problem comes when

|> managers make interpretations on the basis of what is amenable to their

|> management program.

|

|This is not a problem at all. Perhaps here is the real flaw in the whole

|idea. We should not take away this power, otherwise who will agree to

|manage? But we should endeavor to get the best managers, meaning especially

|those who are intent on taking guidance from the brahmanas of their choice

|(not forced to take guidance from some particular institutionalized

|brahminical body). This will minimize mistakes and anomalies.

|Elimination of

|mistakes is not possible.

|

|> Rarely, there arises a genuine theological dispute. As

|> an institution it will be foolish and irresponsible to not have a

|> mechanism to decide the issue.

|

|Agreed 100%. But since the occurances are rare, the mechanism should be

|needed only rarely.

|

|> To say that this function is within the

|> managerial purview of every individual is to deny the system of

|> varnashrama division

|

|I am saying that it is within the purview of the managers to decide what

|goes on inside the movement and what should go on outside. This is purely a

|ksatriya function. What you are proposing is the setting up of

|something you

|will call brahminical but which will actually be mostly managerial.

|Brahmanas are independent. They may be listened to or not. They don't care.

|But they will instruct those who ask them. Rather than an HBC, why not

|institute a culture in ISKCON that makes it generally practiced that the

|managers regularly inquire from whomever they consider to be detached and

|intelligent brahmanas. And also preach about the importance of supporting

|detached brahmanas so they can engage in brahminical work. This will create

|a real brahminical class integrated within the social fabric,

|rather than an

|institutionally mandated brahminical caste. Management would become so much

|easier in such a climate, which is natural varnasrama rather than forced

|varnasrama.

|

|> -- that there is a portion of society with the

|> inclination and training to research and deliberate on such issues. Of

|> course, what individuals believe is their own business. But the

|> institution has a responsibility to give guidence.

|

|Any institution must give guidance. Primarily ISKCON should guide the

|members to take spiritual guidance from truly detached souls, not formally

|appointed ones.

|

|> Since this is the

|> material world, no group is going to be perfect. Therefore, how can we

|> honestly say things are written in stone? You can pretend that, but it

|> doesn't make it true.

|

|The Bhagavatam is written in stone. Anything a formal body writes will

|certain not be. So if we already have the Bhagavatam as our spiritual

|lawbook, why do we need another body to write (changeable) "spiritual" laws

|for us? And as for application of the philosophy is concerned, we

|should not

|kid ourselves that anything other than managers can do this best.

|

|> But the fact that every endeavor is covered by fault doesn't excuse us

|> from doing our duty. And just because we haven't liked the results of

|> mixing up the kshatriya and brahminical functions, doesn't mean we can't

|> do it right.

|

|I agree that these functions should not be mixed.

|

|Your servant, Bhaktarupa Das

|

[Guest guest]

Sri Rama Prabhu wrote:

> > The problem comes when

> > managers make interpretations on the basis of what is amenable to their

> > management program.

 

Bhaktarupa Prabhu answered:

> This is not a problem at all. Perhaps here is the real flaw in the whole

> idea. We should not take away this power, otherwise who will agree to

> manage? But we should endeavor to get the best managers, meaning

> especially those who are intent on taking guidance from the brahmanas of

> their choice (not forced to take guidance from some particular

> institutionalized brahminical body). This will minimize mistakes and

> anomalies. Elimination of mistakes is not possible.

 

My comment:

That is a very interesting idea that needs to be elaborated upon.

I like it. Would you kindly agree to give me an example of a present ISKCON

Ksatriya type GBC member, who is spontaneously taking shelter of a genuine

brahmana before sharing his input in any decision?

 

Sri Rama Prabhu:

> > To say that this function is within the

> > managerial purview of every individual is to deny the system of

> > varnashrama division

 

Bhaktarupa Prabhu:

> Brahmanas are independent. They may be listened to or not. They don't

> care. But they will instruct those who ask them. Rather than an HBC, why

> not institute a culture in ISKCON that makes it generally practiced that

> the managers regularly inquire from whomever they consider to be detached

> and intelligent brahmanas. And also preach about the importance of

> supporting detached brahmanas so they can engage in brahminical work. This

> will create a real brahminical class integrated within the social fabric,

> rather than an institutionally mandated brahminical caste. Management

> would become so much easier in such a climate, which is natural varnasrama

> rather than forced varnasrama.

 

My comment:

If you do not set the example at the head by what you call a "forced

varnasram" nobody will start doing it spontaneously as ISKCON has such an

horrible past on this issue. The leaders first have to accept to be guided

by qualified brahmanas (in the form of a council to start with) in order to

be trained to confirm with genuine authority, before they take any

decisions.

 

They have never been trained like that, even when Srila Prabhupada was there

personally, most of the time they ignored his advice. (I have so many

examples to share on this matter). So, first they have to practice this with

the help of this council and new structure. It is just a safeguard against

abuses and it is in perfect line with the varnasram system.

 

Sri Rama Prabhu:

> > -- that there is a portion of society with the

> > inclination and training to research and deliberate on such issues. Of

> > course, what individuals believe is their own business. But the

> > institution has a responsibility to give guidance.

 

Bhaktarupa Prabhu:

> Any institution must give guidance. Primarily ISKCON should guide the

> members to take spiritual guidance from truly detached souls, not formally

> appointed ones.

 

My comment:

Approved 100%. (The HBC is mainly there to protect the devotees from the bad

decisions of the GBC Body, that's all: checks and balance)

 

Bhaktarupa Prabhu:

And as for application of the philosophy is concerned, we

> should not kid ourselves that anything other than managers can do this

> best.

 

My comment:

Here I do not follow you. The guru or spiritual authority is supposed to

know best how to apply the philosophy, not the manager IMHO. We want the GBC

Body to take advice from qualified brahmanas and they are in ISKCON. However

these GBCs are not spontaneously taking advice from their qualified

Godbrothers before reacting, so this council is set up to train them to

think twice before deciding anything. This is the perfect training for these

strong personalities and we want that now.

 

Sri Rama Prabhu:

> > But the fact that every endeavor is covered by fault doesn't excuse us

> > from doing our duty. And just because we haven't liked the results of

> > mixing up the kshatriya and brahminical functions, doesn't mean we can't

> > do it right.

 

Bhaktarupa Prabhu:

> I agree that these functions should not be mixed.

> Your servant, Bhaktarupa Das

 

My comment:

Wonderful! So, Prabhu, can we start separating these two functions in the

GBC Body? Do you have some personal suggestions to offer to start with?

 

Your servant, Krsna-kirtana dasi.

[Guest guest]

Dear Krishna Dharma Prabhu,

 

PAMHO. AGTSP.

 

You wrote:

 

>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)

 

Actually it not a question of which is better. My understanding is control

and legislation are as much required as education and empowerment. Both

have to be there.

 

Even though we may try to educate and empower, there will always be a

certain amount of miscreants, in all ages at all times. So to punish the

miscreants, we need control and legislation.

 

There will always be Pandavas and Kauravas. One can educate and empower

Pandava like people, but there has to be control and legislation for Kaurava

like people.

 

Everyone who takes a driving licence actually goes through the training and

education and is empowered to drive when he is issued a driving licence.

That does not mean that everyone will follow the rules and regulations as

taught and educated, prior to issuing licence. There will be some one who

misuses his *independance*, and break the traffic rules. That is why some

legislation and traffic contol is required.

 

The same is true even in the driving school. There will be some humble and

sincere students, and some not so humble and not so sincere students. When

the school/teacher is imparting education, there has to be some control and

legislation in the class. Otherwise the a few bad students, will disrupt

the majority in the class.

 

You quote Srila Prabhupada (as below) to support your above claim.

 

>"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

 

What Srila Prabhupada is telling is only legislation and control are not

sufficient. Education and training are also required.

 

I agree if you had said that With proper education and training there will

be less law and order problem.

 

Also there is already a superficial varnasrama in all places and in all

ages. What Prabhupad means is if we give them spiritual knowledge as given

is Bg and SB and make them understand "I am not this body. I am a spirit

soul. I am part and parcel of krishna. My duty is to serve Him", then

automatically they will fall into Daiva Varnasrama, according to their Guna

& Karma which is anyway already present in them. We don't have to train

someone in Guna and Karma, which is a natural quality, which is already

there in them. We can train some one in spiritual knowledge which is very

much lacking in Kali Yuga.

 

This should also answer Srirama Prabhu's query to a certain extant.

 

Srirama Prabhu's query:

 

>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

 

Srila Prabhupad said, that one must atleast know what is gold, otherwise he

will get cheated by a blacksmith. Srila Prabhupad says every one is

cheated, many times, in many life times, before they finally come to the

right place and person. Second most important thing is one's sincerety. If

one is sincere, even if one is cheated many times, Krishna will finally

guide him to a bonafide Spiritual Master. Srila Prabhupad says, if one is

sincere, Krishna will send him a bonafide spiritual master.

 

However Caitanya Mahaprabhu says, one has to be a bhagyavan, or fortunate.

 

Brahmanda Bhramite kona bhagyavan jiva

Guru Krishna Prasade Paye Bhakti Lata Bija.

 

One has to be simply sincere and fortunate.

 

Your humble servant,

Bhadra Govinda Das.

[Guest guest]

Dear Bhaktarupa Prabhu,

 

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

pure followers!

 

I want to thank you for your thoughtful answer. Even if my words are a

little sharp at times, I do acknowledge your mature, learned and

filled-with-experiences comments.

 

Please kindly rest assured that I have appreciated your involvement in this

delicate issue and your consistent suggestions.

 

I also do agree that sannyasis and gurus should generally be out of

management, and I hope we will be able to implement that very soon.

 

Your servant, Krsna-kirtana dasi.

 

> It is not that a qualified ksatriya needs to consult with a qualified

> brahmana over every little matter. The main idea is that ksatriyas should

> clearly understand that although they are highly qualified to lead others

> they are in a dangerous position, as attachment can leak in and cause the

> leading to be done for one's own pleasure rather than the pleasure of guru

> and Krishna. Thus they will strongly feel the need for protection and

> regularly take the association of brahmanas who will remind them of their

> true responsibilities. Thus naturally they will make good decisions.

 

> As far as giving an example is concerned, I am not in any position to

> judge the inner mood of anyone. I am sure good examples exist, but we can

> quite reasonably assume that many present GBC members have developed the

> concept that they are 1) qualified brahmanas themselves (in spite of their

> managerial engagements) and thus do not need to seek shelter; and/or 2) in

> no danger of becoming materially attached due to being engaged in the

> service of the Lord -- whatever attachment exists is seen as somehow

> spiritual and proper. Convincing them otherwise will be a major hurdle in

> getting such a reform approved.

 

> > My previous comment:

> > If you do not set the example at the head by what you call a "forced

> > varnasram" nobody will start doing it spontaneously as ISKCON has such

> > an horrible past on this issue. The leaders first have to accept to be

> > guided by qualified brahmanas (in the form of a council to start with)

> > in order to be trained to confirm with genuine authority, before they

> > take any decisions.

> > They have never been trained like that, even when Srila Prabhupada was

> > there personally, most of the time they ignored his advice. (I have so

> > many examples to share on this matter). So, first they have to practice

> > this with the help of this council and new structure. It is just a

> > safeguard against abuses and it is in perfect line with the varnasram

> > system.

 

> Just by having a council designated as brahminical does not mean they can

> actually function as brahmanas. It is not such a cheap thing.

 

> > Sri Rama Prabhu:

> > > > -- that there is a portion of society with the

> > > > inclination and training to research and deliberate on such issues.

> > > > Of course, what individuals believe is their own business. But the

> > > > institution has a responsibility to give guidance.

 

> > Bhaktarupa Prabhu:

> > > Any institution must give guidance. Primarily ISKCON should guide the

> > > members to take spiritual guidance from truly detached souls, not

> > > formally appointed ones.

 

> > Approved 100%. We want this Higher Council mainly to protect the

> > devotees from some of the bad decisions of the GBC Body. (Checks and

balance, that's all.)

 

> Best accomplished culturally rather than through a new formal structure.

 

> > Bhaktarupa Prabhu previously:

> > And as for application of the philosophy is concerned, we

> > > should not kid ourselves that anything other than managers can do this

> > > best.

 

> > Here I do not follow you. The guru or spiritual authority is supposed to

> > know best how to apply the philosophy, not the manager IMHO. We want the

> > GBC Body to take advice from qualified brahmanas and they are in ISKCON.

> > However these GBCs are not spontaneously taking advice from their

> > qualified Godbrothers before reacting, so this council is set up to

> > train them to think twice before deciding anything. This is the perfect

> > training for these strong personalities and we would like that now.

 

> The guru guides the individual disciple. Since disciple means voluntarily

> under discipline, the guru's instructions very easily penetrate to the

> heart. But that is a separate process from what we are discussing here.

> Ksatriyas guide society at large with weapons, because not everyone is

> submissive. He knows how to apply the philosophy just like the guru does,

> but he has to force the general masses for their own benefit. The GBC body

> has weapons, such as expulsion and derecognition, and they should not be

> afraid to show and use them when required to keep the whole social body

> healthy. (In another text, Sri Ram Prabhu was expressing how he felt that

> when he was a junior devotee he had been used improperly by the managers

> and had been engaged improperly. While I have no doubt in his conclusion,

> it does illustrate that managers have considerable power over the

> devotees. I would be inclined to leave the power with the managers, in

> spite of its possible misuse. Pure devotional service does not come

> automatically and immediately when someone joins, thus managers require

> the power to engage the junior devotees while the bhakti lata sprouts and

> puts down its own roots. Since we are crooked in the beginning we may find

> ourselves being engaged in crooked works. Meanwhile the holy name is

> working on the heart.)

> -------

> My suggestions for an approach to break the logjam at the top is to simply

> start glorifying the brahmanas. Educate the devotees about how only truly

> detached persons can give lastingly valuable guidance. Suggest that many

> of the sannyasis should take sannyas from their management

> responsibilities and cultivate detachment. Gurus the same. Emphasize

> training and education of all kinds, the arts, scholarly research, and

> writing. Downplay the glories of being a GBC member, as it should be hard

> work and no glory. Censure zonal secretaries whose zones are in a mess.

> This kind of pressure should do the trick and many resignations will come.

> Fill the gaps with proven administrators who are known team players.

> Emphasize the administrative role of the GBC members. Delegate the zonal

> managerial functions to regional bodies where accountability is more

> easily arranged. Delegate other traditional GBC work also. (By all this

> delegation I mean it still stays somehow in the GBC's hand, only they get

> others to do it on their behalf, with their ultimate right to oversee it.)

> Push the development of ministries and make this work the primary function

> of the GBC body. If necessary to let down the biggies easy, set up some

> commissions with high sounding names and offer them charter seats. Set the

> clock for five years hence and monitor the progress. But above all, don't

> throw the baby out with the bath water. Keep Srila Prabhupada's basic

> structure intact. If we respect that structure and try to work with it he

> will definitely bless us.

> Just my thoughts.

> Your servant, Bhaktarupa Das

[Guest guest]

> If the time is ripe to introduce varnasrama in Iskcon for the GBC, we

> should ponder on the thought that it would be incorrect to introduce it

> only for the GBC - it should be for the temples also.

 

The leaders should set the example for others to follow. One

can see this in practice. The disciples/followers of particular

gurus/leaders reflect the position of their guru/leader. If the

leader is for introducing VAD, so are his followers, and if he is

of "We don't need it" opinion then the same will be propagated by

his followers.

 

If the leaders show no real interest, it wouldn't happen. It will

simply remain as dead letters on the pages of Srila Prabhupada's

books.

 

 

 

- mnd