Thread #8 - Proposal by Bhaktarupa Das

[Guest guest]

Dear Krishna Dharma Prabhu, PAMHO. AGTSP!

 

Thank you very much for your thoughtful reply and your concerns. I

understand your concern to be primarily that our gurus need to be clearly

situated within the administrative structure of the society so that they do

not cause havoc. Their disciples may not feel beholdin' to the

administrators because they have a direct link to their guru, who is beyond

the administration. Thus they won't cooperate, and there will be chaos.

Other preachers who are not gurus, you feel, will continue to get the short

end of the facilities. You feel that we must preach that the spiritual

authority is primarily flowing through the GBC instead of through the gurus.

In this way the institution will remain strong and united. How will the

preachers be accountable?

 

I hope this is a correct understanding, brief as it is. Please correct me if

I am wrong.

 

My premise behind this proposal is that the present lack of accountability

of the gurus has not come about due to the fact that they had no authority

directly over them, but because they also had their hands on the material

assets through their GBC posts. The GBC never could establish local

discipline over the fanatical followers of the gurus, because they were both

the managerial as well as the spiritual authority for the devotees. An olde

boy's club developed in the GBC with the unwritten rule that everyone should

keep their hands off the other clique member's domains. This problem may

never go away completely, but if the GBC members are not gurus then they can

set policies to control it to the extent possible.

 

If the physical assets of the movement are not in the direct hands of the

big gurus then I would expect the whole way things work would change

drastically. Sure, a preacher can always become independent and not

cooperate, but if the managers are strong then loose cannon can have their

facilities curtailed. It is more of a natural process of gradually heading

in the right direction through sound varnasrama principles rather than a

knee-jerk systemic change which won't stand the test of time.

 

Sorry I can't write more just now. I have to catch a train. But please note

one further comment below.

 

Hoping you are well.

 

Your servant, Bhaktarupa Das

 

> 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.

 

A detailed point here: The brahmanas should be freed up to engage in

brahminical type work. All ISKCON devotees are preachers in different ways.

The GBC members should also preach. But as GBC members they should be suited

to the managerial kind of work, which means, in general, ksatriya qualities.

 

> 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

>

>