Thread #8 - Proposal by Bhaktarupa Das

[Guest guest]

Comment on above proposal and subsequent comments

 

 

Bhaktarupa prabhu wrote:

 

 

> 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.

 

 

Thankyou Bhaktarupa prabhu. Your understanding is almost right. Please

allow me to clarify it a little. I am not using the term 'guru' in the

sense of an institutional post that needs to be lined up with our management

structures. My feeling is that every 'ISKCON preacher' who can rightfully

claim this distinction must be situated within that structure. They should

all have clear contracts of engagement setting out their parameters,

expectations, responsibilities, etc. Whether or not they are being accepted

as gurus by other devotees is not the issue. We should not have any post of

guru, as we undoubtedly have now, created by our 'guru approval' systems or

whatever. Rather, we should have posts of GBC, GBC secretaries, TP's, etc.

All of these posts should require certain levels of qualification, both

theoretical -- Bhakti Satsri exams and so on -- and practical, i.e.

character. In this way ISKCON's integrity will be nicely maintained. We

will ensure that we are delivering quality education and training at every

level of the institution. The higher one goes in the institution then the

more qualified should be the individuals, ending with the highest

brahminically qualified devotees at the top, i.e. GBC. Each level is

guiding, teaching and generally caring for the level beneath them. Thus the

main duty of GBC's should be to preach to the devotees in their immediate

care, who in turn take care of the next level, and so on. Whether or not

initiation takes place between any devotees in the institution is a side

issue, and it can be nicely regulated within this structure on a very local

and personal level. The institution as a whole is simply ensuring that

quality siksha is always on offer. We don't even need to mention 'diksha

guru' - indeed such mentions simply confuse people. Diksha is a natural

consequence of siksha, and may or may not occur within institutional

relationships. But whatever happens, ISKCON will have its own lines of

accountability to ensure integrity.

 

As I understand it you feel that many of ISKCON's problems have come about

because 'big gurus' have held both managerial authority - i.e. control of

assets - and spiritual authority - i.e. control of men. This went to their

heads and they became materially contaminated - a problem exacerbated by the

fact that they were overburdened and thus not properly performing sadhana.

The simple solution is to take away their ability to be gurus and thus

control men. On the other hand, if we simply let the gurus do their job of

guiding disciples they will find it much easier, freed of the burden of

management.

 

I'm not sure if this is correct, but in response I have to say that I firmly

disagree with the idea that GBC men should not be allowed to act as guru.

If we deny them this ability then we take away from them their most

important function, which is to preach to the devotees. Preacher means

guru. Siksha or diksha is by the by. However, in my mind guru does not

mean some kind of power broker, controlling so many disciples and building

great empires. Sure, that may be what we have seen, but as far as I am

concerned we have seen so many foolish things because we have had so little

emphasis on proper training and education. 'Get out there and do big', has

been the slogan. 'Work now and samadhi later'. 'If you really want to

please me then distribute books'. And so on. In this way we have

reinforced a culture based firmly on a work ethic, completely neglecting our

most important function of education.

 

Therefore I say we must start by carefully defining our purpose, which is to

systematically educate people in Krishna consciousness. Systematically.

I.e. set up colleges and other training institutions everywhere. That

should be our strategy, in my view, and with this in mind we can then think

about our structure and the specific roles within that structure. And the

role of guru is primarily one of caring for and indeed delivering his

disciples by proper instructions.

 

In the model I envisage I don't see any 'big gurus'. These have come about

because we have appointed a handful of individuals to the post of 'approved

guru', making virtual 'superheroes' out of a few poor devotees. When we

stop doing this we will gradually see the 'big guru' culture dying off.

Especially if we make education our primary function. Guru disciple

relationships will be the natural consequence of genuine loving

relationships. Unless one happens to be a mahabhagavata empowered preacher

like Srila Prabhupada, then each individual's capacity for forming genuine

loving relationships will not be huge. Goodbye and good night 'big, big

gurus'. Sleep tight.

 

As far as controlling assets is concerned: Where is the problem here?

There are thousands of charities that daily deal with vast amounts of assets

- much more than ISKCON at present. They have systems in place to ensure,

as a far as possible, that these assets are properly engaged toward the

organisation's aim. Why can't we do that? It seems to me that we have been

too slow to learn the skills of organisational management - skills widely

available these days from so many places. We have worked by the principle

of 'rugged individualism', of one man, imbued with institutional charisma as

a guru/GBC/sannyasi, doggedly building his dream by the old 'gofer' method,

usually until he explodes. Co-operation, teamwork, empowerment, and all the

other skills and qualities needed to develop healthy organisations have been

neglected, or even roundly derided as 'mode of goodness' contaminations.

Sigh.

 

In any event, my deep concern remains. I still feel that the first thing we

must establish is our spiritual integrity. Clear lines of accountability

running right through the organisation that catches everyone who wants to be

seen as an 'ISKCON preacher'. After we have managed this, and it won't be

easy in my opinion, we can then think about varnashrama dharma, or getting

the externals right. I don't feel that adjusting these externals will solve

the problem of spiritual integrity. Indeed, I am very fearful that we will

make everything worse by trying to apply our presently quite scant knowledge

of varnashrama to ISKCON.

 

Yhs

KDd

 

 

 

 

 

>

> 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