Thread #8 - Proposal by Bhaktarupa Das

[Guest guest]

Dear Samba prabhu,

 

PAMHO AGTSP!

 

Thank you very much for your understanding. I am deeply grateful.

 

You wrote:

 

> Basicaly it appears that in many ways we are in agreement. Basically the

> disagreement appears to be that you feel that brahmanas are more than

> capable of managing ISKCON. You have demonstrated that ksatriyas are lower

> than preachers. You feel that the GBC's are supposed to be preachers, and

> therefore it makes no sense to have GBC men who are of a lower status,

> i.e. Ksatriya.

>

> I think that the difficulty is arising because we do not have the same

> definition of what the words 'preacher', and 'brahmana' mean in the

> ultimate sense.

 

 

In reply KDd writes:

 

Your understanding is more or less correct. I am not sure if we share

similar assumptions as to the definition of preacher and brahmana. For me a

preacher means a guru who knows the science of Krishna -- kiba vipra kiba

nyasi.... And a brahmana is one who knows Brahman -- brahma janatiti

brahmana.

 

 

Samba prabhu wrote:

 

> According to Srila Prabhupadas instructions the Ksatriya must know how to

> fight, but of course we understand that he only does so when the need

> arises. The battle of Kuruksetra only occupied a fraction of Arjunas long

> lifetime, we know that he engaged in many other activities apart from

> fighting.

 

 

In reply KDd writes:

 

Yes. I agree. But fighting when required is a principle for a kshatriya.

"yuddhe capalayanam". If we are saying that TP's and GBC's are ksatriyas

then we must accept that they require training in martial arts. Count me

out. I'm off to join some other movement.

 

Don't get me wrong. I accept that we will need devotees who can bear arms

in battle, but I just don't see that as ever being the temple mahants, as

they have been traditionally known. Maybe we are getting carried away with

the word 'President'. (And also the term 'Governing Body Commission', which

was in fact taken by Srila Bhaktisiddhanta from some British railway company

in India)

 

 

Samba prabhu wrote:

 

> Yes certainly our leaders SHOULD be the best preachers. The 'best'

> preacher being a realised soul. I am at a bit of a disadvantage, as I dont

> have the vedabase to research quotes. But to give a general example, Srila

> Prabhupada, a nitya siddha devotee, since his arrival in the west, created

> an entire movement, and established many many temples. Since he left us,

> many of these temples have closed down, and the 'preaching' in many

> countries is almost non existent. 'Preaching' may be going on, but

> devotees are not being made. This is of course not everywhere, but it

> seems to be the general trend. It is not that the effort is not being

> made, but to the degree of purity we have, to that degree our preaching

> can be effective. So becoming pure is the key to effective preaching.

> Varnasrama is the method for raising conditioned souls to the mode of

> goodness, and then if they are sincere they can reach the platform of

> suddha sattva, pure goodeness, and ultimately self realisation.

>

> So it would be best if our GBC's were really effective preachers, but

> judging by the way they are perceived at the moment (and the results in

> apparent in ISKCON today), it would appear that they are not very

> effective. If they are not effective, then to what degree are they

> 'brahmana' or 'first class' men.

 

 

In reply KDd writes:

 

You are pointing out how our GBC's have not evinced a very high quality of

brahmanism to date. They have not been very effective preachers. What we

require, in your view, is purified and realised souls, and you feel that

this platform can best be reached by the gradual process of varnashrama.

dharma.

 

I hope this is correct. If it is then I agree, although I am loath to

dismiss the whole GBC as ineffective preachers. I am sure that some of them

have done some nice work. In any event, I accept that varnashrama is the

process for elevation, even in our ISKCON society. However, we need to

start right now and work with whatever we have got. My view is that we

should find the most brahminically qualified devotees and get them into

positions of leadership. Get the head in place first, or we won't be able

to see where we are going.

 

 

Samba prabhu wrote:

 

> Actualy this

> is the meaning of the fact that the brahmana is the first class man. He

> can do anything. He will do the needfull. But this does not mean that he

> will be happy doing so. Prabhupada did manage ISKCON, but wanted his

> disciples to free him from it.

 

 

In reply KDd writes:

 

Yes, Srila Prabhupada managed -- and yes he did want to be relieved of the

headache. And that is expert management. Not that you do everything

yourself. You find others, train them, and then empower them to do the

work, setting up all appropriate structures and systems. Brahmanas can

surely do this.

 

I still feel that we need to have brahmanas at the head of our educational

institution. As I have already pointed out, brahmanas have always managed

their own institutions in Vedic society. It's not that difficult.

 

 

Samba prabhu wrote:

 

> Absolutely! The brahmanas are the ones that train all the others. This is

> why it is so essential that we create a situation where the brahmanas are

> independant, so that they can speak freely, without any fear that they

> will be thrown out, as Pradyumna Prabhu (and I daresay others) was. But

> really if the four varnas aren't in place, then how can the brahmanas do

> their job, how can they be protected?

>

> This is a whole discussion in itself, as right now we do not have the

> cultural arrangement wherein brahmanas can act according to their dharma.

> Right now brahmanas often live in the temples and are under the control of

> the administrators who often dont want to hear the truth. If we had

> varnasrama communities, we might be able to actualy cater to an

> independant brahmana class, but in the situation as it is, how can they be

> independant?

 

 

In reply KDd writes:

 

I understand you feel that brahmanas must be independent; they should not be

always worried that they may be marginalised or dismissed by less

intelligent men. You see the present situation as an example of this

problem, i.e. the brahmanas are not free, they depend on others for their

livelihood and cannot speak the truth for fear of being thrown out. You

envision varnashrama societies where brahmanas are actually valued and

supported, but are still somehow independent.

 

I agree with all of this. I also hope to see such values arising in

society, especially ISKCON society. One point I will make though: Being

independent does not mean being unaccountable. I think you also agree,

although you may see a brahmana's accountability as being to some kshatriya

manager. I am dubious about this, especially in realistic terms of the here

and now of ISKCON. I don't see us suddenly creating a class of pure and

powerful kshatriyas. Sure, we may see that happening in time, but right now

it seems to me that we need to take a long hard look at our lines of

spiritual accountability, i.e. our parampara. Where is it coming from? How

are we empowered to preach? Who is and can be a guru? I have already

written a lot about this in other texts.

 

Samba prabhu wrote:

 

> So finaly to be really clear. We certainly have brahmanas in the movement

> who display 'most' of the qualities of brahmanas. There must also be at

> least one 'pure' brahmana, and maybe many. But still we are bound to

> engage devotees according to their varna, so that they can all become

> gradually elevated, this is Srila Prabhupadas instruction. I agree that a

> self realised soul (and hence the 'ultimate' preacher) can certainly lead

> the movement with great force, and I was (and still do) argue for us to

> recognise this, and cultivate the desire to beg that 'mahabhagavata' to

> appear (or to allow us to recognise him or them). But I also beleive that

> many devotees are not situated properly, and I feel it is essential that a

> program (the gradual research and implementation) of varnasrama should be

> ISKCON's priority right now, starting at the top.

 

In reply KDd writes:

 

I understand you to be saying that we require highly advanced devotees to

lead ISKCON; and we should allow for the possibility that some great soul or

souls may appear for this purpose. In such a case you feel that our society

could be led by brahmanas. However, you feel that at present, in the

absence of such great souls, we need to find an alternative strategy, and

varnashrama dharma is the way forward. It should be implemented now,

starting with the GBC, who need to be separated out into preachers and

managers.

 

In response: I am not sure if ISKCON will ever be led by one great devotee.

Did Srila Prabhupada ever indicate that this may happen? I know that he

critised the Gaudiya Matha for neglecting Srila Bhaktisiddhanta's order that

they establish a GBC, and instead trying to elect an acharya. Anyway, I

have no problem with the idea of us being led by brahmanas, obviously, and I

also accept that everyone should be properly engaged according to his varna.

However, I am very concerned that we will not recognise the great damage

that has been done by not empowering ISKCON representatives, i.e. TP's etc,

to preach. Those who are daily teaching, guiding and looking after ISKCON

temples must be recognised as bona-fide gurus (provided they are qualified

of course), otherwise the preaching of ISKCON as an institution is going

nowhere. Soon all the 'non-guru' preachers will have taken off for sunnier

climes, without doubt.

 

Thanks again Samba prabhu for trying to understand me. I hope I have got

your position right -- if not feel free to correct me. However, I am having

to leave these GBC conferences now, as I am hard pressed by many duties

(including varnashrama duties :-), so please include me as a separate

receiver if you want me to reply.

 

yhs

KDd