Thread #8 - Proposal by Bhaktarupa Das

[Guest guest]

Dear Bhaktarupa prabhu,

 

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

you for your responses to my questions. As I understand it, you feel that

the correct application of varnashrama dharma in ISKCON should begin with

our leaders, in that they should be clearly identified as either managers or

preachers, i.e. kshatriyas and brahmanas. You feel that the mixing of these

roles has caused our present problems. GBC men have been trying to manage

on the one hand -- a 'kshatriya' function -- and on the other hand they have

been acting as gurus and teachers -- a brahmana function. This is neither

Vedic nor practical. As a result they have made a mess of both roles. You

would like to see a situation where the GBC have only the managerial

function, and the preachers, i.e. sannyasis, gurus and brahmanas in general,

are freed up to preach. You feel that these latter devotees should not hold

managerial posts, at least if they wish to act as guru. This is your

understanding of varnashrama, and also of the model desired by Srila

Prabhupada.

 

This is the point I wish to address, if I have properly understood, and

please correct me if I have not. My chief concern is that ISKCON presently

has a system which effectively 'disempowers' most of its preachers. We have

created a handful of rubber stamped gurus who collect all the disciples,

while the rest of the preachers are more or less left to rot. Most of them

have simply left the institution, and more are on their way. Not only this,

but the 'gurus' are, for the most part, not situated in our lines of

accountability -- they are 'loose canons', all too often causing big

managerial headaches for ISKCON. We effectively have two lines of

authority -- actually more like a hundred and two, as on the one hand we

have ISKCON's institutional authority coming from the GBC, while on the

other hand we have the authority of the gurus going down to their disciples

-- authority which, as I say, is all too often not constrained within

ISKCON's managerial lines. Of course, we have tried to compensate for this

by writing a large number of 'guru laws', but these have proved pretty much

useless. Certainly the huge problem of disempowerment and confused

authority lines continues, as I think most ISKCON managers will attest.

 

In my view, this above problem must first be clearly recognised and

addressed. I am a firm believer in varnashrama dharma, but I can't see how

the system you envisage will rectify this problem of spiritual empowerment

and accountability. Indeed, if we propose to keep the preachers outside the

lines of accountability then I see the problem simply getting worse. 'Loose

canons' all over the place, while the poor managers who are trying to

maintain ISKCON's integrity and spiritual force are simply dismissed as

'kshatriyas', 'non-gurus' who cannot preach. That's pretty much the way it

is now -- disastrous.

 

I cannot see any reason why we should not have our preachers in lines of

spiritual accountability. Indeed, this must surely be ISKCON's greatest

asset. We can ensure the integrity of our preachers, and thus of our

institution. But this is only possible if they are accountable. I

understand that you see them being held accountable by kshatriyas, and maybe

one day there will be such highly intelligent and powerful kshatriyas who

can perform this function, but right now all we have is our own spiritual

line of authority descending from Srila Prabhupada. Preachers must also be

accountable to their own guru. They cannot be 'upstarts', as Prabhupada put

it -- they must be situated in parampara.

 

For me this parampara is ISKCON's line of authority. Otherwise, where are

ISKCON preachers deriving their spiritual authority to preach? If we say

from their own diksha gurus (and bear in mind that many of us don't even

have one as such these days) then, in my view, we have lost our

institutional integrity, as there will be hundreds and eventually thousands

of lines of authority coming through the institution. But if we state

clearly that the GBC are ISKCON's first spiritual authority, our first

siksha gurus, linked to Prabhupada through his divine teachings found in his

books, then we have created a manageable situation, as then we simply need

to ensure that anyone who stands up and says 'I am an ISKCON preacher' is

properly situated in ISKCON's line of accountability, coming from the GBC.

Other details, such as who should be in what ashrama, whether posts recieve

payment or not, what exact duties everyone should perform, etc, are all

secondary. These can all be worked out when we have our spiritual integrity

fiirmly in place. And that integrity can be nicely maintained by lines of

accountability, which can include written contracts for everyone to keep

everything very clear.

 

It is my firm view that the effective separation of institutional and

spiritual power, brought about by our various guru appointment systems, has

led to ISKCON's present dire situation. Now I see a proposal that looks to

me like we want to write such a system into our constitution, under the

heading of 'implementing varnashrama dharma', and, in all honesty, I feel

terrified. I fear it will be the final blow that finishes ISKCON off.

Please therefore clear up my doubts by telling me how you feel your proposal

will adequately address the question of spiritual empowerment and

accountability. I'm shaking in my Birkenstocks right now.

 

yhs

KDd

 

p.s. Please let me know what you think I am saying before responding

 

 

 

 

 

 

> Dear Krishna Dharma Prabhu, PAMHO. AGTSP!

>

> Thank you very much for taking the time to consider my proposal and make

> your comments. Indeed, this particular aspect of my proposal requires

> further explanation.

>

> > > There should be no change in the basic structure of the GBC as

> > > established by Srila Prabhupada. He very clearly stated in his will

> > > that it is to be the ultimate managerial authority for ISKCON, and

> > > thus there is no doubt that its function should have been all along

> > > and should always be management, squarely in the ksatriya category.

> >

> >

> > Bhaktarupa prabhu,

> >

> > Could you explain why you feel that ISKCON managers must be of a

> > kshatriya nature? Are there any instances where Srila Prabhupada

> > indicated that this was required? I am genuinely interested.

>

> I don't have access to the folio to try to pull up some quotes. There may

> not be any.

>

> > As far as I know, Srila

> > Bhaktisiddhanta, along with his senior disciples, managed his own

> > institution. Srila Prabhupada also engaged in management work. He

> > sometimes referred to kshatriyas as 'less intelligent'. Do we not need

> > the most intelligent men at the head of our society, i.e. brahmanas.

>

> Ksatriyas are less intelligent than brahmanas. That is true in the sense

> that they may become bewildered by the power which they have. But they are

> still highly intelligent as well as learned in the scriptures, and if they

> are conscious of their dangerous position, having all that power, then

> they will seek out the protection of the brahmanas who will keep them on

> the straight and narrow. Thus whatever shortcoming is there in the

> intelligence department will not yield untoward results. And as far as our

> acaryas are concerned, both were primarily engaged in preaching work and

> their management was a necessity that they engaged in with, shall we say,

> less than full enthusiasm. It doesn't really help us much to try to draw

> parallels between our activities and those of great vaishnavas, as we risk

> imitation.

>

> > I understand your feelings that brahamanas are by nature detached, not

> > wanting any posts, and certainly not paid posts, but can they not take

> > charge of a spiritual movement whose main purpose is entirely

> > brahminical, i.e. spiritual education?

>

> Yes. By preaching they will definitely be in charge. This is the only way

> they know how to manage. But if everyone in ISKCON was a cooperative

> follower of brahminical-style managers then we wouldn't have much need for

> an administrative structure at all, except to fulfill some legal

> requirements. Many ISKCON members need to be ordered around by someone

> with the guts to tell them to get lost if they don't toe the line.

> Brahmanas are notably weak in the guts department. I would like to take

> yourself as an example: Your grace and many other senior devotees are

> quite capable of doing just fine in leading many conditioned souls back to

> godhead regardless of what kind of mess the GBC Body is in. Is it not a

> fact? You have joined this conference out of concern over how others will

> be adversely affected by the continued mess, and you want Srila Prabhupada

> to be glorified more and more -- this requires a healthy GBC Body that can

> be strong and fight for the right facilities so that the brahmanas

> preaching will be more effective. So many nonsense elements need to be

> controlled. This requires ksatriyas.

>

> > Kshatriyas want territories, men, money, etc. This is their nature. Do

> > we really want that kind of mentality running ISKCON? Haven't such

> > devotees already made a big enough mess?

>

> Bowing at the feet of all the vaisnava devotees of the Lord, I would like

> to humbly suggest that it is not only ksatriyas that want territories, men

> and money. Vaisyas and sudras also want them. And when they have them they

> use them for their personal aggrandizement. Ksatriyas want these things

> because they have compassion on the weaker sections, whom they see as

> becoming further degraded, and they want to force those weaker souls to

> act in their own self-interest through good governance. So I would like to

> suggest that if you are considering any previous examples of ISKCON

> leaders who acted grossly selfishly, then they could have been neither

> brahmanas nor ksatriyas.

>

> > Or do we want gentle brahmanas,

> > whose main concern is to uplift others rather than tax them -- who want

> > to spread the mission of Sri Chaitanya Mahaprabhu.

>

> The gentle brahmanas, left on their own, will just sit down under a tree

> and teach. It will be wonderful for those who have the extreme good

> fortune to appreciate them, but ISKCON is supposed to be an outreach

> organization and is supposed to make transcendental trickery to attract

> those without such extreme good fortune to come and associate with the

> brahmanas, chant Hare Krishna, and become fortunate. Better tax those who

> can pay and use the funds to make big, big facilities for education.

>

> > "Instruct everyone to follow the orders of Lord Sri Krsna as they are

> > given in the Bhagavad-gita and Srimad-Bhagavatam. In this way become a

> > spiritual master and try to liberate everyone in this land."

> > PURPORT

> > This is the sublime mission of the International Society for Krishna

> > Consciousness. (CC Mad 128)

>

> Yes. The brahmanas should lead us in this mission, and the ksatriyas

> should assist them by taking care of the details of management as required

> by the brahmanas.

>

> > Our mission is to become gurus, to liberate everyone in the land. It

> > seems like a brahminical mission to me. I thus feel that ISKCON should

> > be, at least in its core aspect, a movement of brahmanas, led by

> > brahmanas. Surely that should be our first endeavor, to get some

> > brahmanas in the leadership positions.

> >

> > "The Krsna consciousness movement has been started especially to create

> > qualified brahmanas to broadcast spiritual knowledge all over the world,

> > for thus people may become very happy." SB 4.12.48

> >

> > What do you think?

>

> Give a brahmana a management post and you give him a headache. Wasn't

> Srila Prabhupada constantly begging us to take the management headache

> from him? The less management a brahmana is forced to do the more the

> spreading of the movement will go on.

>

> Your servant, Bhaktarupa Das