Guest guest Posted September 21, 2000 Report Share Posted September 21, 2000 Comments on above proposal. Dear Ajamila prabhu, Please accept my humble obeisances. All glories to Srila Prabhupada. When we began this discussion I made quite some effort to understand your position and you commented how I am a 'very good listener', as I did manage to properly understand you. I then expressed some concerns and sent you a paper, asking that before you respond please express what you are understanding me to say. However, you have not yet done me this courtesy -- rather you have quickly riposted any points or concerns I have tried to express, apparently seeing them as being opposed to your own views. But I feel you have completely failed to understand me. I have pointed this out to you already, even mentioning how your responses were quite painful in parts, but you have still made no real attempt to understand me, beyond once or twice 'parroting' back my exact statements - and then rebutting them. Hence your responses to me are quite useless, as they fail utterly to connect with my concerns. I do not feel you have empathised with me in the least. Clearly, from what I can see, you have a very strong view as to what are ISKCON's problems, and what are the solutions -- namely, your proposal to implement varnashrama dharma in the way you describe ("Prabhupada's way"). That's fine by me. I am only expressing personal concerns based on my own experience, and that of a number of other ISKCON preachers with whom I have spoken (obviously that's not everyone in ISKCON, so I don't hold my views as being absolute). So far you have said nothing to alleviate those concerns, rather you have only exacerbated them. I feel dismissed, denied, misunderstood, squashed, minimised and marginalised. But don't worry, that's only my feelings. Anyway, please forgive me, but I really don't have time for a back and forth where only one person is trying to understand the other. My feelings now are therefore to stop this discussion here, at least with yourself, until you take the time to express to me what you think I am saying -- without any ripostes appended thereto. For my part I can promise that I will always take the time to properly understand your views, to YOUR satsifaction, before I respond. I apologise if at any time so far I have not done this. I will quite understand if you do not have either the time or inclination for this kind of communication; I certainly don't expect anyone to take my views or feelings seriously. But if you wish to respond, as you have been doing, then please ensure first that you are responding to something I have actually said, and not what you may have mistakenly read into my statements. ys KDd > > > > > > > We propose that from ISKCONÍs topmost sannyasis, gurus, and brahmanas > > > an ISKCON Brahminical Council be formed and thereafter acronymed as > > > the IBC. For balanced ecclesiastical voting with the GBC the IBC > > > should have an equivalent number of voting members as the GBC, the > > > ultimate managing authority in ISKCON. The acronym GBC coined by Srila > > > Prabhupada himself must always be retained. The IBC will consist of > > > sannyasis, gurus, and brahmanas > > > > > > As I think we all agree that guru is not an institutional post, can I > > request that we not use this term in our proposals as if it were? The > > above excerpt is an example of what I mean > > I for one am not using the term 'guru' as if it were synonymous with some > kind of 'institutional post'. I clearly stated that ISKCON gurus/sannyasis > would not have any managerial post because a varnasrama structure does not > allow that. I thought I made that very clear. > > It is understood that in a varnasrama structure our gurus will not have > any 'institutional posts'. As I have proposed, no sannyasis or gurus will > be doing any management at all. That means NO POSTS. This should clarify > your 'not an institutional post' point quite adequately. Again, no gurus > will have any managerial post, they would only serve ISKCON by studying, > teaching, and so on. > > If you like we could add a specific clause to ease your cause for concern: > For fuurther clarification no gurus in ISKCON will have any 'institutional > posts' although they nonetheless perform some of the topmost functions in > our Soceity: Teaching, preaching, initiating, and so on. > > > > The IBC will be the guiding light and topmost spiritual > > > leaders of ISKCON, and the GBC will be ISKCONÍs ultimate managing > > > authority. > > > > > > Once again, I am extremely concerned to see statements such as the > > above, which appear to distinguish between managerial and spiritual > > authority in ISKCON. For me this is a recipe for (continued) disaster. > > I think your cause for concern is unfounded. > > If what you mean is that the managerial authorities don't/won't/can't have > any spiritual authority in a varnarsrama system then you have missed the > point entirely. GBC administrators will have spiritual authority since > they are siksa gurus for the devotees in their charge. But, as I mentioned > before, the most transparent spiritual authorities will be the sannyasis > and brahnamas, either of which can additionally be gurus without any > ISKCON institutional post, functioning within ISKCON's laws and at the > same time independent of any administration and dependent salary. > Sannyasis should never get a fixed salary from any administration. > Legitimate frugal expenses is another thing. Thus in the proposal we have > gurus who are not holding any instutionalised posts but still they perform > some of the most important functions in ISKCON. > > Or if what you mean is that you are worried by the system of separating > managerial and spiritual authority, as it is done in a varnasrama system, > then reflect upon the example of Yudhisthira who took spiritual adivce > from INDEPENDENT brahmanas and the brahmanas would in turn take managerial > advice from Yudhisthira. That is what varnasrama is all about: SEPARATING > the duties of the brahmanas and administrators while both are recognised > spiritual authorities. Your 'extreme concern' is for what? (And don't say > ouch.) > > The problem in ISKCON right now is that there is no separation or division > of duties according to one's varna and occupation, particularly on the GBC > level where varnasrama must start. On the GBC we have so many individual > brahmanas doing the occupational work of two differently inclinded people: > Being a zonal administrator and being a guru for hundreds or even > thousands of devotees. It is all too obvious that in such a situation > something somewhere along the line will crack, and it sure did. No only > once but fifty times over. More than fifty guru fell and most were GBCs > trying to imitate the superhumaness of Srila Prabhupada. > > But if we follow your suggestion of no spearation the chaos will only > continue. In a varnasrama society this separation or DIVISION was clearly > made. If you don't separate then you don't have a varnasrama system, and > that has been our poblem for the last two decades. > > So don't get worried about 'separating managerial and spiritual > authority', as you put it, because in a varnasrama system, as I have > proposed, both are mutually inclusive, not exclusive as you have > suggested. > > > > It will be one of most important mandated > > > responsibilities of the IBCs to swiftly remove any GBC who is not up > > > to the standard. And it will the duty of the GBCs to remove any IBC > > > members and non IBC gurus and sannyasis who are not up to the > > > standard. > > > > > > I am struggling to think of a constitutional device that might > > facilitate such an arrangement, where two separate bodies each have the > > power to remove the other. It seems unworkable to me. > > Such a check and balance system worked in varnasrama societies: The > brahmanas would either correct or remove administrators who deviated from > dharma and the administrators would always keep a watchful eye on the > brahmanas, making sure they were doing their prescribed duties. It worked > then and it can work now, Srila Prabhupada said it would, he said it many > times. > > The 'constitutional device' is to have an equal number of brahmanas and > administrators voting on various issues thereby giving a BALANCED input > into the constant flow of important resolutions in a spiritual Society. > > I believe the process proposed resembles the ways of the ancient Vedic > administrators who would consult the brahmanas in the their royal courts > before making important decisions. > > > I feel that there needs to > > be a clear head with the power of ultimate veto. In my view these should > > be the brahmanas in ISKCON. > > So the IBC and the GBC combined would be the best brahmanas in ISKCON and > the majority voice of that body would be our guiding light (and hopefully > not the light of an oncoming train at the end of a dark tunnel). > > The IBC would clearly be our topmost brahmanas, and the GBC would also > consist of brahmanas but non/guru brahmanas with an ability to manage > competently. Both are spiritual. > > > We are not comprising the totality of human > > society and therefore do not necessarily need powerful kshatriyas at our > > head. It seems to me that an excess of 'ishvara bhava' has contributed > > significantly to our present malaise. > > The root cause of our present malaise is because we have no real checks > and balance system. Currently, if a managerial decision needs to be rushed > through or taken unilaterally by 'managers only' it can be done, and it > was done many times with devastating consequences. But if the decision > making process is balanced by 'both independent unpaid brahmanas and the > directly involved administrators' then the proposal of any self destroying > resolutions will get filtered out in such a varnasrama system. > > > There were large institutions in Vedic society comprised of and managed > > by brahmanas. These were the educational institutions, the big ashramas > > found generally in the rural areas. > > > > Managing does not have to mean kshatriya. Nanda 'Maharaja' managed the > > vaishya community, but he was not a kshatriya. > > > > Overall this proposal worries me as it appears to separate managerial > > and spiritual authority, which, as I say above, seems to me to be one of > > the main problems in ISKCON right now. > > You say you are alarmed to see that I made a distinction made between > managerial and spiritual authority in ISKCON but when Srila Prabhupada > first set up the GBC HE HIMSELF MADE SUCH A DISTINCTION. He separated the > sannyasis from the GBC managers because of their different functions. Such > distinguishing, separating, dividing is varnasrama. > > This of course in no way implies that GBC administration is devoid of any > spiritual authority. Far from it. > > Srila Prabhupada stated that the GBC are the ultimate managing authority > in ISKCON. He didn't say 'spiritual authority' because the only spiritual > authority in ISKCON is guru, sadhu, and sastra. And to the degree that ANY > devotee embodies those principles to that same degree he becomes a > spiritual authority. So although everyone in ISKCON is a spiritual > authority the sannyasis, gurus (without institutional posts??), and > brahmanas are generally the most transparent spiritual representatives. > This is a basic concept in Bhagavatam that the brahmanas and sannyasis are > always the most pure and therefore they best represent guru, sadhu, and > sastra. Those who are implicated in management are generally and naturally > less transparent, but they are nonetheless spiritual representatives. > > So IBC and GBC are BOTH SPIRITUAL preachers but one specialises in > management and the other specialises in studying and preaching. That is > the varnasrama system. > > ys > > ada Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 25, 2000 Report Share Posted September 25, 2000 wrong Mark Middle Mountain wrote: > > > > > Before assuming something, have we ever thought why did Srila Prabhupada not > > appoint one woman to post of GBC? Why were none of the 11 chosen in 1977 > women? > > He had full opportunity. Why did he choose only men? Why? > > Too many misogynists amongst the early disciples who were too under the bodily > concept to be able to deal with it. > > Hopefully that has changed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.