My most sincere obeisance. Kindly bless me to someday approach bhakti marg.
All glories to Srila Prabhupada.
Being further requested to expand on my earlier appeal for ‘due diligence and due process’, I had already indicated that the history of our GBC dealing with important issues is not encouraging, to say the least. Although they have been mandated as “the ultimate managerial authority”, I wonder were they got anointed to evolve the format of Srila Prabhupada’s institution?
So far I can understand, a manager must execute the systems and policies of the owners of a company or institution. ISKCON is forever the creation and manifestation of only Srila Prabhupada, and should never be thought of in any other way.
I would like to point out that already the GBC have overstepped their mandate far too often, such as in the case of the infamous Zonal Acharya System, which alone drove out thousands of Srila Prabhupada’s disciples and then an anaemic and compromising attempt at reforming that blunder has led us to another major split and loss of cohesion by causing the ritvik divisions.
Please don’t try to misunderstand me, for I am not arguing for ritvik or against FDGs herein.
Rather I am questioning the diligence and process of GBC decision making.
That questioning of their past failures and obvious incompetency inspires me to raise another question as to their actual right to enter into changing formats, traditions, and any other manifestation of the bhakti marg within Srila Prabhupada’s institution. Having FDGs may be an excellent idea, but, but, but do the GBC have the authority to change or adopt a tradition that ISKCON’s Founder-Acharya did not manifest in his lifetime???
If so, where did they get that authority? In committee? In some self appointing vote?? This is not enough!
I suggest, that their ONLY authority is to follow the Bhagawat as the Person Bhagawat demonstrated and to preside over HIS institution as its managers to ensure continuity. To second guess what, if any changes the Founder-Acharya (in fact the true OWNER) of ISKCON might have made is a criminal violation of their mandate.
My suggestion is, if any of those sixteen GBC votes [in favor of female diksha gurus] believes that their interpretation of what might be a better evolution of the preaching mission should be, they are very welcome to start their own institution and do that. There is no wrong in so doing, but to remain within ISKCON and alter the established traditions set during Srila Prabhupada’s direct leadership is not their right and will only continue to fracture the society and faith of its followers.
I remain on the same theme here as my earlier comments, namely context. I see much being argued, with great skill and erudition about FDG being right or wrong, and have tried myself to steer clear of that never to end cacophony, but prefer to raise broader contextual issues about the role of the GBC to establish any new traditions, not [already] established by Srila Prabhupada in his time leading his institution.
This is a more fundamental question about the limits of managerial authority. In common and legal terminology, a ‘manger’ always operates within constraints set by those superior in authority to himself. In operating Srila Prabhupada’s society or even reprinting his books, no ‘manager’ (be he ultimate or ordinary) can alter established protocol, despite their deepest conviction that it is right to do so. If they feel so deeply inspired that it is The Lord’s will, then they should be encouraged and applauded to go out and start a new manifestation of Mahaprabhu’s movement. I do not say this with tongue in cheek, for I sincerely believe that this will and also has happened and should go on. Let those sincerely inspired on both sides have a safe haven to execute their bhakti marg, rather than the liberals imposing their views on the conservatives, or visa versa. Let them each have a place, but the original ‘mother ship’ of ISKCON should only reflect the traditions established by it’ only Founder and only Acharya pre-1977.
Again, I appeal for further due diligence and due process.
Begging your all forgiveness for my impertinent intrusions.
Abhiram Das ( ACBSP1969 )
Note please that I am not arguing for or against the issue of female diksha gurus, although I am obviously against it, but rather I am questioning if the GBC have the right to appoint anyone as Guru.
All of your concerns and objections could be better adjudicated if GBC would have acted within more clearly defined limits of authority. Therefore, I am raising THAT issue, for it is the root issue. Once that is clear, then we know how and whom to follow.
If they had understood from the beginning that guru is self efulgent and self manifested and outside of their jurisdiction, so much would have been done differently.
If they could have embraced the point that within the structure known as ISKCON we already have an eternal Acharya, with no need of being corrected, improved on or duplicated, so much would be different.
I say ISKCON traditions, missions and style were set pre Nov 77 and that is it. Nothing more should be changed.
If this means it will remain too narrow and unable to adapt to modern times, so be it. Let it fade away with only a hundred followers, but with the integrity and dignity of being loyal in total to Srila Prabhupada’s style, traditions, and precedents.