Do No Harm

[Guest guest]

> I like to define power as the ability to direct people to take specific

> actions without having to explain to them why they should do so. Like in

> the army -- when the soldiers are told to march, they march, often without

> knowing where they are going. While there is a role for this kind of

> management, it's not a very good modus operandi for an organization such

> as ours.

> Once, after having been in positions of authority in ISKCON for many

> years, I accepted an opportunity for service in a place where I knew no

> one and where I had no authority at all. I interacted daily with devotees

> of a large community and region. Over time, even though my service was not

> for the temple or region, I was into various local issues and problems. I

> found myself having a great deal of influence without having any power

> whatsoever.

> When I wanted to get something done, I couldn't order anyone to do

> anything. If I wanted their assistance or cooperation, I had to convince

> them it was the right thing to do. However, I soon discovered that

> voluntary cooperation was much better than forced compliance. People

> tended to do things better and with more reliability. And they worked in a

> happier mood. This turned out to be some of the most spiritually

> productive and satisfying years I have experienced.

 

This is what our ISKCON leaders have to learn now. This is what is missing.

 

> When I again returned to a position of so-called authority, I still

> relied more on the voluntary approach. It was far more effective and

> efficient in most situations I've subsequently been in. After hearing your

> answer, I feel that if leaders concentrated on giving devotees the tools

> they need to properly evaluate what they hear from others, they would

> willingly do the right thing without the need for force, intimidation,

> manipulation, motivated preaching, cheerleading or trickery. A leader who

> finds he needs to rely on such methods should re-evaluate the program he

> is pushing.

 

Yes. And maybe, a new structure and the emphasis on local management instead

of GBCs managing locally could also help in this attempt.

 

> So it seems that experienced devotees can do their part through

> education and leadership that respects the intelligence and integrity of

> the individual. That answers one side of the equation. But still, what

> does the newer devotee do when faced with a serious doubt about the wisdom

> or propriety of an instruction? If after trying to clear up that doubt

> through discussion and as much sadhu, sastra and guru as possible, what

> does one do if the doubt remains? Nothing? Follow one's intuition?

> Surrender? Leave? Rebel? Comply under protest?

> Even trying to follow one's conscience can be difficult, as it is often

> impossible to distinguish between Supersoul and the mind. Perhaps the best

> alternative is to act under the principle of "do no harm" -- pick the

> alternative you believe is least likely to give trouble to innocent living

> entities.

> Your opinion?

 

Is there not one devotee this "newer devotee" trust enough to approach for

personal advice? Are we that alone in devotional service?

I do not understand your point here? Of course for some devotees preaching

independantly in a remote part of the world that might be a judicious

advice, but I think this is an extreme case, rarely to be found in ISKCON,

or? Do you have something in mind when you say that? Could you give us a

recent or practicle example to illustrate your point here?

 

> Your servant,

> Sri Rama das

 

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

> |

> |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