Comments

January 19, 2002

A few and quick comments on an article I’ve read tonight on VNN called

“Authoritarianism And ISKCON”, by Narottama dasa.*

A wrong definition: “An authoritarian leader does not want his subordinates to

think, to discern good from bad, or to analyze various phenomena.” He should

have written: “A bad authoritarian leader…”

Do you agree with this one: “Essentially, authoritarianism is a position of

fear.” It is not true.

Ironically, he gave an example to support his idea of two persons that I

consider authoritarian: “For further example one can read Jayadvaita Swami's

paper” and “Bhakti Vikasa Swami has also written that”.

I like the paragraph that follows but I don’t think the context is

appropriate; a philosopher is not a king. “Since authoritarianism is quite a

widespread problem, we have many scholars who have various writings about the

syndrome. C.S. Lewis writes, "If we are any good, we must always be working

towards the moment at which our pupils are fit to become our critics and

rivals. We should be delighted when it arrives, as the fencing master is

delighted when his pupil can pink him and disarm him."”

That is wrong also. “Vaishnavism is a pure monotheistic doctrine, rich with

literature that dates back at least 5,000 years.” At least, he should have not

used the adjective “pure”. That’s the problem when you refer to concepts of

different paradigms with the grammar of another one. Monotheism means one God

and nothing else; no other worship. Balarama is another God. Vishnu, Narayana,

etc. are expansion of God that don’t allow us to use this word in his pure

sense. Plus, we worship Shiva, Ganesh, Tulasi and cows.

“This leads to a rapid degeneration of leadership, causing any intelligent

people to disregard the leaders and thus leave the organization. This

degeneration has been nicely described by authors Laurence Peter and Raymond

Hull in their book, The Peter Principle.”

Peter Principle does not say that. It says that at one point or another, the

perverse nature of an administration will bring up unqualified managers.

That’s what I remember as the Peter Principle.

“Another view is that many people believe that the current leaders of ISKCON

are incapable of such change; as a result, these leaders should retire or step

down and have proper leadership re-established.” If you don’t fixe the

philosophy first it is a waste of time and it can conduct the movement towards

a disaster.

Recommended Posts