Thread #8 - Proposal by Bhaktarupa Das

[Guest guest]

> 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.

 

It seems that 'big gurus' is a big concern for you. I also share your

concern owing to the past 'big guru' problems we've had in ISKCON. Indeed

Srila Prabhupada says, "Don't try to become a big, big acarya prematurely".

And we find other references instructing that one should not have too many

disciples. However, in Vedic history there are many examples of big gurus.

Our Srila Prabhupada and Srila Bhaktisiddhanta included. Srila Prabhupada

expected some of his disciples to become big gurus: He personally instructed

Bhavananda and Jayapataka Maharaja to take on ten thousand disciples each.

 

So I think it is a little cynical to say "Goodbye and good night 'big, big

gurus'. Sleep tight." We have certainly had very bad experiences with

premature big gurus but that is not to say that over the next ten thousand

years we won't have any 'bona fide' big gurus since that is precisely what

Srila Prabhupada wanted to see. I'm talking about genuine examples.

 

> 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.

 

This has to start with gurus not being involved in any management as per the

varnasrama structure oringnally set up by Srila Prabhupada.

 

> 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

 

One doesn't have to be a very intelligent student of Srila Prabhupada's

teachings to figure out that he wanted daivi varnasrama in ISKCON and that

varnasrama simply means that differently inclined people have different

duties. And beginning at the top of our Society our sannyasis and gurus

should not have any management position as per the original GBC vanrasrama

structure Srila Prabhupada himself implemented.

 

Go back to that original structure for the next twenty years and guru

falldowns will be very signiificantly reduced and ISKCON will spread like

Srila Prabhupada wanted it to. It is simple. We just have to do it.

 

ys

 

ada