Thread #8 - Proposal by Bhaktarupa Das

[Guest guest]

> 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.

 

I think that Bhaktarupa prabhus proposal does take care of precisely the

problems you mention. Srila Prabhupadas books are the 'law books'. In those

books the sacred principles of Krsna consciousness are described. ISKCON is

the upholder of the legacy that Srila Prabhupada has left us.

 

What is spiritual power? Bonafide spiritual power exists in the personal

relationship between guru and disciple. The control of assets is not

spiritual power but political power.

 

The bonafide guru is not interested in the control of assets, he is only

interested in the advancement of conditioned souls in Krsna consciousness.

If we see a guru taking undue interest in assets, then this is a dangerous

signal that we should recognise. Of course no guru wants to see ISKCON's

assets squandered, but then if the GBC is properly constituted that will not

happen. The gurus of course have the power of speech, and by such power can

alert the authorities as to the folly of certain action. If the saints speak

thus, the authorities will be bound to act due to the pressure of the

citizens. The GBC's authority rests in the legacy of instruction in the

books, and the opinion of other sadhus; guru sadhu and sastra. As has been

pointed out, the Ksatrias are also highly learned. Many existing temple

presidents are actually great scholars, and it is some of these that would

be the first candidates for the GBC. In order to actualy wield power the GBC

needs to create an independant Judicial body, which will provide a balance

(but I am not sure how that fits into the varnasrama system, or how it is

constituted)

 

Right now the gurus have power because they control the management and the

assets. They can decide who the temple president should be, and if they

don't like a certain preacher they can silence him or get him removed. But

if the managers are Ksatriya householders, they will not necesarily be

partial as to who preaches, but will be interested to hear any good

preacher, and be inspired to have non motivated preachers visit their

temples, to inspire the devotees there.

 

The gurus are interested in sastra, and so are the Ksatriya managers. But

there would be no vested interests on the side of the gurus. They can study

and preach to their hearts content, they dont have to worry about

management, and they are detached, as they are taken care of. If there is

some discrepancy over sastric or dharmic action, that can be debated, and

evidences weighed.

 

Hopefully if our desires are right, one or more super saintly authorities

will become apparent, and the tendency will be to approach these authorities

for advice in situations that require absolute advice.

 

Administrative checks and balances such as possibly a judiciary should be

there to stop the GBC's wielding too much power or becoming corrupt.

 

That is the way I see it. I'm feel I might have missed something though.

 

Your servant

Samba das

 

> > 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