By Sesa dasa
Our constitution committee wish to involve experienced and thoughtful devotees from around the world. Not just GBC members and deputies. We need broader input as we devise a constitution relevant to everyone connected to ISKCON. We hope such a constitution will be pertinent to all, and perhaps especially to the ISKCON leadership who are more accustomed to making laws for others than for having a constitution that holds all members equally accountable.
In New Vrindavan we discussed how we would work as a committee and how to divide up responsibilities. We assigned tasks that needed to be done before the next meeting in Mayapur. Our core group members are Bhaktimarga Swami, Bhaktarupa dasa, Hridaya Caitanya dasa, Param Gati Swami and Sesa dasa (Chair). This group is to keep the constitution work proceeding at a satisfactory pace, and stay with the process until it is completed. The Core Group listed the following components of an ISKCON Constitution (Note: this listing is not intended to be conclusive or exhaustive):
1.Defining ISKCON What is its purpose?
2.What are the lines of authority? Organizational Structure – Definitions and roles of GBC, TP, Guru. Clearly defining the roles and relationships between temples, preaching centres, Nama Hattas and other ISKCON related entities, etc.
3.Who is a Member? Are there different levels of membership? What’s a clergy? A congregation member, etc.
4.What is ISKCON’s responsibility to its members? How do we define “devotee care”
5.What are the rights and responsibilities of the members.
6.How is justice to be administered?
7.Responsibility for properties/Protection of Assets.
Based upon feedback from the GBC Body during the New Vrindaban meeting, we gave priority to the following three tasks over the next few months:
Legal Implications of a Constitution – Team Coordinator – Sesa dasa
Questions raised include how an ISKCON Constitution would and/or should interface with the laws of the many countries around the world where there are ISKCON temples; how individual ISKCON members and ISKCON temples would be legally benefited by and bound to provisions of an ISKCON Constitution. It was expressed that our ideal should be that the constitution stays aloof from the legal structure of various localities.
Membership (Including Rights and Responsibilities)
Team Coordinators – Hrdaya Chaitanya dasa and Bhaktarupa dasa
Questions raised include how to define membership (briefly or more elaborately, or a combination of these two approaches), different classes of membership or relationship with ISKCON, minimum standards, rights and/or responsibilities, care for members. It was expressed that this task could be broken up into two or possibly more subdivisions for different teams to work on.
Justice System
Team Coordinator – Bhaktarupa dasa
Questions raised include whether a power, rights, or interest (or some combination of the three) based approach to justice in ISKCON is appropriate, enforcement issues, financial and other practical considerations.
Based on responses previously received from devotees specifically invited to participate in the constitution project, the GBC Body encouraged the formation of a Constitution Committee Extended Group which would include: Akruranatha dasa, Deenanath dasa, Dvarakadhisa dasa, Krishna Dharma dasa, Krsnadas Kaviraja dasa, Murari Hari dasa, Pancharatna dasa, Parivadi dasa, Prema Bhakti dasa, Radha devi dasi, Salagram dasa, Vedavyasa dasa and Visnu Murti dasa. Each of them took part in one or more Sub-Committee(s).
The group will set up a “Wiki” on the internet to help members work together on documents when they can’t meet face-to-face.
Challenges we face include:
1.We are a big group. Big groups are hard to manage, and we have differing views on many topics.
2.Some of the issues we are dealing with are complex.
3.Most of us have other, full-time services. We hope to deal with these challenges by good communications and having determined facilitators to keep us on track.
Greetings,
Hare Krishna! Please accept my respectful obeisances. All glories to Shrila Prabhupad!
Although I am no longer directly affiliated with ISKCON, I keep abreast of developments in the Gaudiya Vaishnav Sampradaya through regular review of its internet presence. My personal instructions from His Divine Grace A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami, received in 1969, are to research the synthesis of Bhakti-yoga with Varnashram-dharma toward the development of a Global Network of Urban & Rural Temple Communities capable of withstanding “Fossil Fuel Depletion” and the subsequent “Depletion Dark Age.” On several occasions Bhaktivedanta Swami commented that the current “Artificial Oil Culture” would collapse, during the lifetime of his disciples, and the world would be plunged into pre-industrial agrarian status. He made a World Tour in 1974 to establish the first Rural Communities and, at that time, gave two important instructions to the GBC. The first was to change the economic and geographical base of ISKCON from urban to rural. The second was to study the Catholic Code Of Canon Law to understand how to establish an organization capable of expanding to include millions of adherents.
The present effort of ISKCON to fulfill the order of Bhaktivedanta Swami, to create a constitution, although very late in coming, is an essential step in preparing the movement for the onset of “Fossil Fuel Depletion” and its eventual transformation into a full blown “Depletion Dark Age.”
I am in no way qualified to give advice to anyone in ISKCON, however, I would like to make the following comment. ISKCON is an organization much like the Catholic Church in that it is founded on the “Absolute Authority” of the Spiritual Master. Any constitution ratified by ISKCON must strenuously avoid the inclusion of so-called “Modern Ideology” that supports the attribution of unalienable freedoms and rights of sovereignty to the individual. When the rank and file, who are mostly in the category of ordinary or kanishtha adhikari, are afforded guaranteed rights and freedom to determine who their leaders are, the door is open to eventual control by those vested with mundane consciousness. As soon as the constitutional committee begins to study and import the works of Western philosophers such as John Locke and Jean-Jacques Rousseau, etc., the death knell will be tolled for our ancient “autocratic” Guru system.
With respect and appreciation
Prabhupad Das Karapurnam
I would like to request that the discussion of the constitution take place in the open. This will give us the opportunity to read, consider, and comment on each other’s contributions. I would personally like to view the issues, think about them and discuss them, and give a contribution to this.
Can there be a website where submissions are published, and / or a forum (web or email) where committee members and the community interact with each other, and discussion is of issues is publicly archived for future reference.
I think also that such an open discussion will do two things: 1. It will lead to a more robust, considered output, and 2. It will engage the community in the process.
Since we are a volunteer organization we really rely on voluntary participation, and engagement and transparency really encourage that.
thanks,
Sita-pati das
Dear Prabhupada dasa
In quite a direct way you appear to support ancient system and resist modernisation:
Its however should be noted that unlike ancient institutions such as Catholic church, ISKCON is a modern institution that was formed recently and is an innovation in itself.
Innovation and constant interpretation of tradition and use of modern means to keep in tune with the time is a feature of our specific sampradaya, be it poetry or be it collective management system establishedfor example by last two acaryas.
“Freedoms and rights” is a relatively new concept and is based on relatively modern paradigm, but there are unalienable rights of individual, and in particular a brahmin in the ancient paradigm, while positivistic “freedoms and rights” not at all 100% compatible with Vedic or post-vedic traditional systems. especially the materialist interpretation of the concept of equality, what is the basis to assume that it can not be used as an innovative concept not only to protect individuals from potential setbacks in the newly formed institution but also used to establish broader base of responsibilities, that will support it?
Its in modernity that we live, and it would be extremely counterproductive to step back into what you call ” our ancient “autocratic” ” system.
If we are forming something to last we should be ahead of the time not way behind. Its exactly to protect one from the tradition of cast system that daivi varnasrama was used by both Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati and Srila Prabhupada, and also to expose sastric non-complience of this perverted to date, if I may say, tradition.
Its easy to abuse “autocratic” system, especially in the framework of modernity and deterioration of traditional way of life, therefore to make it attractive in the expanding movement and for people to be assured that nobody is going to be in such a position of abused. Its exactly for such a simple reason that daivy-rights need to be considered before stepping any further.
Should it affect the guru-disciple relationship that is a different story, but most certainly at the initial stages of it – yes. Should guru-disciple relationship be even a subject of Law in ISKCON? That is a different story.
Thank you for your comment “a blast from the past”. Its interesting how things change with time and how progressive, in the right meaning of the word, our society has become. Are you prepared to comment on it?
With respect and in good faith,
Caitanya candrodaya
Greetings Caitanya Candrodaya Prabhu,
Hare Krishna! Please accept my respectful obeisances. All glories to Shrila Prabhupad!
When an individual takes initiation in the Gaudiya Vaishnav Tradition it is expected that the disciple will offer absolute submission and unconditional obedience to the instructions of the Spiritual Master. In this relationship, there is “no latitude” for freedom of interpretation of those instructions. The Guru-shishya relationship is 100% autocratic, with the Guru holding all power and the disciple offering 100% obedience.
“The instructions and opinions of the Acharyas are the active principle and essence of our spiritual life. Anyone who disobeys, transgresses, bypasses or minimizes the instructions of the Acaryas immediately becomes useless or ineffectual.”
[Chaitanya Charitamrita, Adi Lila, Chapter 12, Text 10]
The instruction of His Divine Grace A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Shrila Prabhupad is that the ISKCON GBC is the ultimate authority in ISKCON. The GBC may or may not be elected by one method or the other, but, once elected or placed in power, it is the ultimate authority. In the personal absence of the founder, the GBC “IS” the functional Guru of ISKCON, so long as it follows his instructions. This ultimate authority feature is a manifestation of the guru-shakti potency of Lord Krishna, whereby the conditioned soul is offered transcendental knowledge, which includes active processes of purification through submission and obedience. In any relationship with Shri Krishna, one must take the position of submission and obedience, and surrender to the absolute authority of The Lord.
The Catholic Church is the largest organization on the face of the Earth, and, I say, due to the institution of the guru-shakti principle within a religious organization. This guru-shakti principle, when applied to mundane organizations, produces giant global corporations that are capable of controlling National Governments. The constant plights of the so-called democratic nations lie in the application of the theory that the rank and file, when given individual sovereignty with freedoms and rights, can properly govern themselves. Just see the Planetary mess that has come out of this leadership of shudras elected by their own! These nations all suffer various debilities that permit autocratic organizations like the Catholic Church and multi-national corporations to eventually control them.
When ISKCON fully applies this principle, by strict adherence to the instructions of Shrila Prabhupad, it too can attain Global influence.
This ancient system of submission and obedience to authority is the “un-alienable law” that permits the jiva to participate in bhakti-yoga, the divine union with Shri Krishna. This same law governs the relationship between guru and disciple and, the relationship between the GBC and each ISKCON member. It is the law that ushers in transcendental potency sufficient to overcome the influence of matter. There is no provision in any Vedic literature where the subordinate jiva obtains “guaranteed or unalienable freedoms and rights” to modify the eternal laws imposed by Lord Krishna. The entire Vedic pantheon is based on submission and obedience to transcendental authority. The attainment of spurious freedoms and rights are the operation of the illusory potency and, their arrival in the so-called modern era, as personal sovereignty, are the primary cause of the rampant degradation of the age.
I dare say that the lessening of the autocratic power of the GBC, through negligence, personal indulgence, immaturity or insufficient intelligence, is the sole cause of all problems in ISKCON. The nature of matter is that, when an anomaly appears, the reaction is to institute a different system. When monarchy fails, transfer sovereignty to the masses and establish democracy. When the Guru fails, transfer independence to the disciple; when the GBC fails, give the vote to the rank and file and establish a mundane religious institution. The Vaishnav system of rectification is called prayaschita, wherein the original system is re-established. When something goes wrong, the solution is to re-establish the principles and practices that cause optimum performance, and remove those causing the problem.
The ISKCON constitution must therefore be firmly based on the ancient autocratic system of descending knowledge, with submission and obedience, and must avoid so-called modernization. As soon as this modernization is permitted, ISKCON will more and more resemble the many non-spiritual institutions that populate the landscape of the Kali Yuga.
I remain a firm advocate of the absolute authority of the instructions of Shrila Prabhupad and the dire need for submission and obedience to them. The solution, when there are problems, is not to transfer sovereignty to the devotees, and let them debate the issues and draw “modern conclusions” through voting, but, rather, to petition the GBC to acknowledge and apply the instructions of Shrila Prabhupad, if it is found they have deviated. If the GBC passes beyond the point of receiving and acting on constructive criticism and advice, and proves incapable of correcting itself through prayaschita, when needed, there would remain little hope of ISKCON long remaining the leading representative of the instructions of Shrila Prabhupad. If the GBC in fact becomes errant, by instituting a modernized constitution, or some other gross deviation/s, time would eventually foment a revolution, and those demanding strict adherence to the instructions of Shrila Prabhupad could obtain sufficient potency to cooperate successfully and carry on his legacy, precisely according to his instructions. Shrila Prabhupad made it clear that ISKCON can be brought down, only from the inside, by disobedience of his instructions, so, whenever an instruction is neglected or changed, a step is taken toward the end of its spiritual potency.
My original comment was made as a one time observation and not an invitation to debate, thus, having replied here, I have no further interest in entering into a protracted exchange with you, since, any conclusions we might come to would not necessarily be accepted and applied by the GBC. If you are an initiated disciple of an ISKCON Guru, your only effective course of action, to address any concerns you may have about ISKCON GBC or Constitution, is to approach your Spiritual Master for instruction, and, having received that, follow it obediently. Debating the issue with me, without presenting his conclusions, would serve no purpose other than a futile exercise of contention. If you are not initiated, your next step would be to become initiated, and thus obtain the essential connection needed to understand these matters in a conclusive manner, according to the opinion of your Guru, who, being an ISKCON Guru, would concur that the GBC is the ultimate authority for ISKCON, etc. If he happened to be a non-ISKCON Guru, you would be duty bound to obey his instructions regarding your relationship with ISKCON.
My closing comment is that ISKCON makes a serious mistake by turning the Constitutional process over to a committee composed of individuals who are not Gurus, which then engages the rank and file in “dialog” to discover constitutional principles by exploration and public discourse. The GBC must be a body of Spiritual Masters acting in unison with the instructions of Shrila Prabhupad. The GBC itself must be the body that formulates the Constitution, either directly in plenary council, or by setting up a committee of Spiritual Masters to analyze the instructions of the Founder. This does not require involvement of the rank and file. In any case, the GBC must be the final arbiter of any Constitution meant to govern ISKCON, according to the instructions of Shrila Prabhupad. And, that constitution must be the autocratic blast from the past desired by Shrila Prabhupad.
With respect and appreciation
Prabhupad Das Karapurnam
With deep respect to Sita-pati, I would like to see the general results of GBC discussions, but would not like for the leadership to be too influenced by dialogue on the internet, including dandavats.com. The democratic process has some utitlity; however, when the leadership becomes driven by its constituents, that leadership can become weakened and indecisive. The GBC should be sensitive to the desires of its constituents; however, not driven by them.
ys, d
Dear Dayananda prabhu,
The degree to which the committee decides to be influenced by submissions and dialogue is entirely at their discretion.
I think it beneficial to engage with the constituents of ISKCON and to allow the constituents to engage with each other around this process. In fact, that’s what we are doing now. Our current conversation is itself input for the committee.
This same dynamic can be expanded to discussion around the constitutional issues, such as the initial questions posed by the committee: other questions and issues will emerge from the discussion. Brahmanas within ISKCON will no doubt produce papers for discussion.
The committee is interested in knowing who is in ISKCON and what they think, and I’m sure that many of us in ISKCON are also interested in knowing this. The constitutional process has the potential to be very illuminating for everyone.
ys,
sda
Dear Prabhus and respected Prabhupada Das Karapurnam
Yes of course DRAFT of the constitution should be presented to a wider audience and has a greater degree of participation from rank and file or other ISKCON constituencies.
In the same time internet is not the greatest place for it. We all know its limitations.
When you, respected Prabhupada dasa, say that GBC should act in the ways any but modern or contemporary it shows that you are not GBC well wisher. In fact I doubt if you want them to survive.
Prabhupada was in touch with time, he used technology in preaching and he used modernity in preaching. He was writing in the modern language on modern topics and wanted modern people to appreciate his movement. And he left a huge amount of the task to his disciples to complete. That how I take what is above presented by Sesa Prabhu.
There are obvious flaws in your logic: Fist of all in regards of autocracy of guru or administrator. Srila Prabhupada writes: “They were never autocratic monarchs” [SB 2.7]. Why Prabhupada was critical of autocracy in this instance? Why guru always represent Sastra and consults with sadhus and is thus not seen as all-in-all but as a servant of God? Why did Prabhupada said to his leaders “If you make me god, I will turn my back to all of you?” Because they, acaryas, gurus, are humble servants, not autocrats. There was no system of autocracy in the past in India, and the only rulers who showed disrespect to this principle were Ravana, Kamsa as well as modern day dictators and bogus gurus etc you name them. And this concept of autocracy has often polluted the idea of guru-disciple relationship in ISKCON, but guru is only guru IF he represent Sastra and IF sadhus (some individual GBCs for example) accept and support him in that role, and if he thinks to be guru without such order or outside of this relationship he is goru. Again you seems to be of an opinion that guru is a “status” or a level, its however a role and the service that one acts upon in surrender. Guru is such only in relationship with his or her disciples or listeners, not in relationship with his godbrothers or seniors. And yes for every guru there is a senior, this is called paramapara system, you know that.., and even then after departure of the Spiritual Master, it’s the words of the spiritual master and Sastra that remain the point of reference, and they always were the “constitution” for the rule of the guru anyhow. So ISKCON constitution should summarise the rights as they appear in Sastra and Prabhupadas interpretation of it.
For GBC as you pointed out superior is Prabhupadas instructions. And there are plenty of his words that contradict your fundamentalism, he said to a similar to yours doubt by Hayagriva:
It was way before GBC ever formed, years before that… Prabhupada never wanted autocracy.
Where do you take in the Sastra that there is no place of “freedom of interpretation of those instructions”. You must interpret correctly however not in a dogmatic way as you seems to do. There are so many freedoms, freedom to ask question, freedom to choose service, freedom to choose association and choose asrama, and in many many cases Prabhupada put those freedoms in front of his disciples, especially as they became more mature, in fact he liked people around him who could argue the case, and never let “star-eyed” fanatics too close.
You know perfectly well, to every responsibility one takes, there are rights attached, for example, if you have a responsibility to develop a sustainable rural community, you have to have a right to interpret and put in practice Prabupadas instructions, and you know that your interpretation can be different then someone say in East Africa or in South Siberia, due to simple practical reasons.
The dogmatic military style attitude “no-interpretation” is only “one interpretation” of what Srila Prabhupada said, the wrong one, after all he wrote that “this Krishna Consciousness movement is for training man to be independently thoughtful and competent in all types of departments of knowledge and action”, which by the way includes sustainable rural communities but does not exclude everything else.
Go ahead and prove me wrong, but words of Prabhupada and Vaisnava Sastra should be the basis of the constitution of ISKCON and members (or aspiring members) rights and its ruling body rights and definition, and the ultimate managerial authority, the GBC, and especially individual GBCs should respect and obey by that as well, not that they are above it all, autocrats, “the gurus” as you call them. Just like every other acarya in our tradition, for example when commenting on Bhagavatam, will respect and follow the interpretation of Srila Sridhara Svami, even if they have a different interpretation. For example my guru is an individual GBC, but he is still cooperating with the GBC body and often accepts different interpretations because of the spirit of cooperation, and that is both duty and a right. And the GBC body (who you at least in your words above accept as a “functional guru”) wants to have a constitution and wants to do what Sesa Prabhu described above in detail, they do it on the basis of what Srila Prabhupada wanted, are you saying you will never accept their interpretation unless GBC rejects any modern idea and go back 20 centuries to at least Catholic church foundation times? There are names to such an attitude.
There are rights that are based on Srimad Bhagavatam and Prabhupadas words and on common sense, all of it valid pramanas if taken in the parampara, and if you do not accept them you are not following CC. Adi 10.12.
I wonder however if you are critical to the point of not wanting to be part of ISKCON and not wishing well GBC, why would you consider to be following Srila Prabhupada at all? And why comment on constitution?
You write:
An the same time you do not accept GBC as the authority AND you are telling them what to do and what not to do, obviously exercising your rights, (that you protest you don’t have), but missing the point of obligation of loyalty or wishing well our GBC body. Even if you have different opinion, its better to cooperate and then GBCs duty will be, if I may say so, to find unity in diversity, and that requires them to be both “exact” and “magnanimous” in their interpretation, I hope it will be part of the constitution…
Thanks Prabhupada dasa for providing your insights and taking the time to write so thoughtfully.
I have been too busy to comment lately, but I want to express my appreciation and I hope you do not feel too discouraged by some of the reactions to your contribution.
I know you do not need me to say so, but I feel inspired to thank and congratulate you.
For now I mainly just want to say that even though the intenet discussions can get a little unfriendly at times, we are gradually learning how to be more polite and (hopefully) even gracious in our internet discussions, even when there are disagreements. I do find that the disagreements, expressed carefully and respectfully, often generate useful insights and new realizations.
As for the substance of your contribution and the responses, I will try to add my two cents when my schedule permits. For now I can say that, basically, I agree with you that ISKCON should have a “hierarchical” polity, with the GBC acting as the representative of the founder-acarya H.D.G. Srila Prabhupada. That seems to be the way Srila Prabhupada did establish things and he wanted it to remain so.
All the devotees including spiritual masters, disciples, grand-disciples, great-grand-dsciples, TPs, Trustees, individual GBC members, regional secretaries and ministers of all kinds, should serve under at least the spiritual the authority of the GBC, recognizing the GBC body as Srila Prabhupada’s representative. Under almost every circumstance (I say “almost” only to avoid committing to an absolutely rigid rule that might not apply in extreme, unforeseen circumstances), we should follow the GBC body’s decision even though we ourselves disagree. We can make our disagreement known through proper channels in the hope that we may eventually carry the day and persuade the GBC to change its decision, but to disobey in open defiance and rebellion would cause more trouble and could not be pleasing to Srila Prabhupada.
As I have tried to say before, it should not interfere with a disciples’ “absolute” vision of their spiritual master to see the guru loyally obeying GBC decisions he or she personally disagrees with. The guru should set an example of the principle of obedience to properly constituted authority, in this case the order of Srila Prabhupada to obey the GBC as his representative.
As I am sure you also agree, autocracy in ISKCON is never a license for exploitation or mistreatment of subordinates, although it sometimes has been abused in the past (and in the material atmosphere everyone is particularly sensitive to abuse of authority, real or perceived). Krishna is the only real autocrat (and even He performs duties to set a good example), and those who are designated as His material or spiritual representatives also have a great responsibility to act within proper parameters to help spread His fame, justice and mercy.
The GBC has a duty to try to be as magnanimous and merciful and personally concerned with the welfare of the devotees as Srila Prabhupada, since it is acting as his representative.
And the GBC body probably should also recognize limits on its own jurisdiction and define the spheres in which it generally will not interfere, in order that it may properly carry out its duty of representing Srila Prabhupada and encouraging independent initiative and decentralized organization as Srila Prabhupada wanted.
In making momentous decisions such as the adoption of a written constitution for ISKCON, it sounds like a wise thing to request input from all interested devotees and to consider all such comments in light of Srila Prabhupada’s instructions. The GBC knows that even junior devotees or those who have “left ISKCON” may have worthwhile input and that all viewpoints should be given due consideration.
I do agree with you that there is no need for a “plebiscite” or general election, which would be cumbersome and impractical, not to mention unprecedented.
I had heard before that Srila Prabhupada instructed the devotees to seek guidance in matters of organization by studying the example of the Roman Catholic church, as you stated. (Specifically, Hanumat Presaka Swami said that in a class in Berkeley some 15 or so years ago). I have not checked folio, but does anyone have an exact citation to that instruction? Is it in a published letter or room conversation?
Hare Krsna!
PAMHO! AgtSP!
I would like to point out that such document as constitution – or at least the closest to that definition – already exist in our sampradaya. It’s Srila Bhaktisiddhanta’s “Sixty-four Principles for Community” translated by HH Bhakti Caru Maharaja and commented by HH Bhakti Tirtha Maharaja, recently published by HariNama Press. In my humble opinion; anybody who wants to draft, contribute or influence the upcoming constitution of ISKCON, should study this work.
yhs Dhamesvara Gaura das