Thread #8 - Proposal by Bhaktarupa Das

[Guest guest]

> Krsna-dharma Prabhu wrote:

> "I am a TP, but see my main duty as training and caring for devotees.

> Managing is secondary, and I aim to empower others to take on all my

> administrative tasks anyway, so that I am free to study, teach and

> preach."

 

Here Krishna Dharma prabhu has opened up an entire other aspect of this

discussion, which is the nature of an ISKCON temple and the role of the

temple president.

 

I suggest that there are a number of alternatives and there may not be one

definition.

 

However, it is important to ascertain which functions fit in which varna.

FOr example, he mentions:

 

> "I am a TP, but see my main duty as training and caring for devotees.

 

Training is obviously brahman - karma

but "caring for devotees" is analagous to protection which is ksatriya karma

 

> Managing is secondary, and I aim to empower others to take on all my

> administrative tasks

 

administrative tasks are often delegated, but the question is of

responsibility. Since this generally means protection of assets it is

ultimately the ksatriya who is responsible.

 

>anyway, so that I am free to study, teach and

> preach."

 

Study and preaching is the business of all devotees, but teaching is

brahmana karma.

 

I believe part of the problem is the lack of opportunities for devotees who

are inclined to simply study and teach to just do that without having to be

responsible for management. For example in a well-organized university or

school, the teachers are separate from the administrators. But in ISKCON,

our teaching is so un-structured that things get all mixed up.

 

There are many ways to divide things up better I believe.

 

For example, just as the Jagannath Puri temple is ultimately under the

management of the Maharaj, whereas there are brahmanas who are responsible

for the puja and manage themselves, there could be a division of management

of the physical property, assets, staff,etc. (ksatriya) and management of

the puja, preaching, etc. (brahmana).

 

IN many religious institutions, the management is performed by the "lay"

members and the priests simply focus on preaching, counseling, etc.

 

However, in such a scenario, the laity have the power to remove their priest

or at least get him/her transferred. In any case the principle of division

of responsibility is there.

 

In ISKCON, I could see many of our communities moving towards a model in

which the emphasis is on developing the ksatriya role in the community and

organizing the temple ashrams as educational institutions. IN such a

scenario the temple president could be a brahmana focused on organizing

teaching, but not be responsible for the management which is more

appropriately done by the community leaders.

 

IN any case, the principle of division of responsibility and protecting the

integrity of brahminical work should be maintained.

 

Your servant,

Pancaratna das

 

PS I wrote a paper several years ago on this subject which I would be glad

to share with anyone interested. It is called:

 

Varnashrama and ISKCON

A Scenario for ISKCON Community Organization