Thread #8 - Proposal by Bhaktarupa Das

[Guest guest]

> 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.

 

Bhaktarupa Prabhu, you have it. This is the solution. Gurus are supposed to

be brahmanas. They are supposed to have no interest in management. Put the

management of ISKCON into the hands of ksatria householders. The ISKCON

temples, run by Ksatria temple presidents, provide places for the gurus to

preach. If the gurus have no say in how the temples are managed, other than

pointing out if there is some kind of discrepancy in terms of dharmic or

sastric teaching, then so many problems are solved.

 

Of course gurus have daksin, but we know that sanyasis should not have bank

accounts. Of course a guru wants to use whatever he gets in Krsnas service,

so he would want to hand the daksin over to a worthy ISKCON cause. It may be

that the guru wants to open a temple. However if he wants that Temple to be

an ISKCON temple, he has to sign it over to the GBC, who will make sure it

is managed properly. In any case, a real brahmana preacher guru, would not

want the headache of actualy managing such a temple, and would be more than

happy to have it managed by ISKCON.

 

The guru may want to use his daksin to travel. This is something that would

need to be clarified. I think it is important that a pure devotee guru,

should not be impeded in any way, in terms of his travel, so restrictions

might be difficult in terms of controlling daksin funds in the case of a

person posing as a bonafide guru, and then using funds for his own ends. But

of course what ends can he use the funds for, unless he decides to create

his own movement, and thus forego all ISKCON facilities and name.

 

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.

 

It really is that simple. Of course there might be a problem if a guru gets

a disciple into the GBC, and then manipulates him, but I guess the GBC would

have its own set of checks and balances to prevent that kind of abuse. There

is the problem though of disciples of certain gurus, not cooperating with

local managers, this being a way in which an unscrupulous guru can

manipulate things. But then if a temple has a good mix of disciples, with no

buildup of particular disciples, that could be minimised.

 

Wow, this is inspiring. Can someone please send me the text number of

Bhaktarupa prabhus original proposal on thread 8. I will rejoin the

conference to read it.

 

Having not read the proposal I am not sure how the GBC's themselves are

balanced. The idea that a ksatria has to be allowed to take shelter of

whomever he is inspired by is absolutely crucial, but how does one make sure

that the Ksatrias we have in control are actually taking shelter?

 

If the assets of ISKCON are not in the control of gurus, and a guru goes

haywire, a lot less damage would be done. I don't know if it is practicable,

but if a yatra had a good mix of devotees of various gurus, then the loss of

a guru, and the disciple fall out, also need not be too devastating for a

yatra.

 

I think it is really important, and a point of vaisnava behaviour that gurus

not be restricted at all in terms of the rights of worship, according to our

parampara, for the disciples. It may be that we have had unqualified persons

as gurus, and therefore the level of worship they were given was corrupting.

But to put blanket restrictions on all gurus, means to run the risk of

offending the genuine pure devotee guru, and his bonafide disciples from

performing appropriate worship. This is a risk too far (for want of a better

saying). I guess we need to have some rules in terms of the worship of gurus

in ISKCON properties, so that there is enough privacy for disciples to

properly honour their gurus in the appropriate ways.

 

Another benefit of taking the ISKCON assets from the gurus, is that less ill

motivated people would find the guru role attractive. Of course ISKCON

temples would be bound to offer certain facilties to gurus and swamis, but

this should be of a standard that is comfortable, yet simple, and in line

with sanyas austerity. If disciples wish to honour their guru in a more

opulent way, that can be arranged outside.

 

I am sure there are many more pro's. I cant really find many cons.

 

I hope I am not interpolating here prabhus, I find this line of reasoning to

be exciting, and appropriate, and wish to submit my understanding for your

critical analysis. Could the solution really be this simple?

 

Your servant

Samba das