Jul 12, 2012 — USA (SUN) — The Parallel Lines Committee, of which I have great respect for, released their final draft of new legislation, supposedly aimed at dealing with rouge gurus who fall outside the acceptability of the GBC. It was published on Dandavats.com. After three weeks in print and 1,300 views, it has 7 Facebook "likes."
The recent Governing Body Commission's legislation, entitled "Understanding ISKCON's Lines of Authority", is supposed to be a document addressing "the tension created when spiritual masters sometimes act as an independent line of authority in ISKCON." However, this legislation does much more than ease the tension created by disagreements among leading Vaisnavas. What this legislation actually does is to help further implement a centralized authoritarian control system over EVERY member of the International Society for Krishna Consciousness. This is being done in defiance of the explicit instructions given by His Divine Grace A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada; that the GBC is to have a very limited jurisdiction in regards to the detailed operations of the society and the activities of it's members.
The legislation also aims at minimizing or completely doing away with any kind of checks and balance systems which would prevent the decay of the ability of the management of ISKCON to uphold the desires of Srila Prabhupada, based on guru, sadhu and shastra. This has been gradually implemented over the last decade or so in an informal way and now, with the official position paper being recently released for public presentation on some ISKCON media forums, the authors of this paper, who are the heads of management in ISKCON, have declared their official position.
I was privileged to have a small part in the process of designing this piece of legislation. I was presented with an eighth draft of the paper about a year ago and I gave some input at that time, although it appears to have been largely discarded. I was asked by the member of the Parallel Lines Committee who gave me the draft, not to share it with anyone so that there would not be different versions of the paper floating around. Therefore, I have not and will not share the draft with anyone. However, in order to show the direction the committee has adopted in regards to creating this legislation, I will provide short excerpts from the eighth draft that have been omitted from the final edition. I feel that this is necessary to illustrate to the reader exactly what is in the minds of the leadership of ISKCON. When the final edition was made public, I noticed that many important points that were previously included in the eighth draft were left out, making the final edition an extremely one-sided and authoritarian piece of legislation. I also noticed that many quotes from Srila Prabhupada that were very relevant to the subject matter had been omitted.
In this report, I will show, in-depth, how the leadership of the International Society for Krishna Consciousness is mirroring the current secular geo-political trend of implementing authoritarian rule over the public and effectively eliminating most, if not all of every citizen's Krishna-given liberties. This trend also bears a canny resemblance to the Zonal-Acharya system, which was allowed, by the GBC, to foster for over a decade after the disappearance of our beloved Founder-Acharya, His Divine Grace A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada. The difference being the GBC acting as the sole, unified Zonal-Acharya, instead of a group of swamis and gurus, with little connection to one another, competing for supremacy.
WHO ARE WE TALKING ABOUT HERE?
From the final edition: "spiritual master" means diksa, siksa, or both. It should be noted that, from here on, unless specified, whenever we refer to "the spiritual master" we mean both initiating spiritual masters and instructing spiritual masters (including managers who act as such). Additionally, whenever we refer to "spiritual authorities" we mean anyone (spiritual master or manager) whose instructions (siksa) and example have formed the foundation of a devotee's faith in devotional service and who continues to build on that foundation of the devotee's faith.
From the eighth draft: Although the word "guru" can be interpreted in many ways — siksha—guru, diksha—guru and vartma-pradarshaka —guru — unless otherwise specified, in this paper the word "guru" means diksha—guru.
Comments by Raya Nitai Dasa Vanacari: There is a big difference between the concept of guru in the final version of the Parallel Lines paper and other meanings previously tossed around before the final edition was made public. This is important because in the final version of the Parallel Lines paper the concept of guru is expanded to mean basically anyone who is giving instruction or advice to another person. This change in definition of "spiritual master" indicates that this paper is not about deviant guru cults and how to prevent them from harming ISKCON as is commonly propagated. This sudden change of definition illustrates the desire of the GBC to gain extreme control over EVERY member of our ISKCON society. This erosion of the liberties of every member of ISKCON will surely stifle any attempt to expand ISKCON beyond the status of an authoritarian cult.
YOUR LOVE FOR ME WILL BE SHOWN BY HOW YOU COOPERATE WITH ONEANOTHER
From the final edition: The basic premise of this essay is as follows: Whether a devotee is an initiating spiritual master, an instructing spiritual master, a sannyasi, a Governing Body Commissioner, a Zonal Secretary, a Regional Secretary, a Temple President, a congregational leader, or anyone else in a position of authority within ISKCON, the authority bestowed upon that devotee is complete only if he or she follows Srila Prabhupada's instruction to serve in ISKCON under the authority of the GBC Body. To establish this premise, we feel we need to do no more than emphasize that His Divine Grace consistently and clearly established this principle in his teachings, as well as within official documents he himself signed. Srila Prabhupada thus clearly established the GBC as the ultimate managing authority and also indicated that the GBC's jurisdiction includes the responsibility to offer spiritual guidance (siksa) to the whole of ISKCON, including all devotees serving as spiritual masters.
Comments by Raya Nitai Dasa Vanacari: Srila Prabhupada said that your love for me would be shown by how you cooperate among one another. If the GBC would stop trying to present themselves as a dictatorship and follow Srila Prabhupada's instructions on cooperation, then ISKCON may begin to attract independently minded and thoughtful people as Srila Prabhupada desired. The GBC's jurisdiction certainly includes "the responsibility to offer spiritual guidance", but the GBC must honor and promote independently thoughtful individuals and leaders, not only hen-pecked yes-men who are strategically placed for political purposes. The GBC should encourage a variety of local leaders and gurus to take more charge and management liberties. Management must be less centralized and a broader idea of management and power distribution will decrease the corruption that so many members of ISKCON are currently concerned about.
THE MANAGERIAL STRUCTURE SHOULD NOT BE VIEWED AS A RESTRICTIVE FORCE
From the eighth draft: The managerial structure should not be viewed as a restrictive force but as a means for arranging devotee association, encouraging spiritual advancement, and coordinating our preaching efforts. In a spiritual society a manager cannot simply manage in a material way by passing and enforcing laws. The laws themselves must have a spiritual foundation, and their implementation and enforcement must be done according to Vaisnava principles.
From the final edition: In a spiritual society a manager cannot fulfill his or her duty to manage simply by declaring and enforcing rules. The rules themselves must have a spiritual foundation, and their implementation and enforcement must be applied in accordance with Vaisnava principles. Managers who serve with this understanding will generally carry the full weight of spiritual authority for those under their charge.
Comments by Raya Nitai Dasa Vanacari: We would like to commend the authors for stating: "The rules themselves must have a spiritual foundation, and their implementation and enforcement must be applied in accordance with Vaisnava principles", however big, centralized government has a poor history of implementing and executing this concept. In the final version of the Parallel Lines paper, the concept of the managerial structure not being viewed as a "restrictive force" was unfortunately omitted. This was an idea that could have been included in the final version because it was surely pondered by the authors along the way to the completion of the paper. Why was it left out? It seems that by omitting this statement, the GBC is more easily able to implement an authoritarian type of governmental control over members of ISKCON without having to be criticized as a "restrictive force." The GBC is designed to work best by having limited jurisdiction.
The designers of this paper have noted properly that rules being enforced by management must be applied in accordance with Vaisnava principles, however, those principles, called "guru, sadhu, shastra" are never referred to in the entire paper. This omission is an easy way to obfuscate the actual process of implementing Krishna consciousness and replace it with an authoritarian process that has little or no basis on actual Krishna conscious principles.
Extremist rhetoric such as "Managers who serve with this understanding will generally carry the full weight of spiritual authority for those under their charge", shows very clearly the authoritarian mindset of the authors of the Parallel Lines paper.
THIS IS NOT A TITLE
From the eighth draft: This is the function of the GBC, to see that one may not be taken away by maya. The GBC should all be the instructor gurus. I am in the initiator guru, and you should be the instructor guru by teaching what I am teaching and doing what I am doing. This is not a title, but you must actually come to this platform. This I want. [Letter to Madhudvisa, Detroit, August 4, 1975]
Comments by Raya Nitai Dasa Vanacari: This statement made by Srila Prabhupada was not included in the final version of the Parallel Lines paper, although it clearly states that managers in ISKCON must clearly teach and do what he has instructed. One reason for leaving this statement out of the paper is so that the managers within ISKCON do not have to be held accountable to teaching and doing as Srila Prabhupada has instructed. Prabhupada says that authority is not a title, but based on qualification. Another important point in this connection is that although Srila Prabhupada states that the GBC should all be the instructor gurus, he doesn't say that they should be the ONLY instructor gurus.
THERE IS ONLY ONE AUTHORITY
From the final edition: By distinguishing the two lines of spiritual authority in these terms — as primarily spiritual or primarily managerial — we are not suggesting that managerial authority is contrary to spiritual authority. Nor are we suggesting that the spiritual line of authority is somehow more privileged or intrinsically more pure.
Comments by Raya Nitai Dasa Vanacari: There is only one authority; the Absolute truth, Sri Krsna. Whoever represents the Absolute Truth, Sri Krsna, is also authority. This talk of two lines of authority is simply word jugglery used to obfuscate the actual authority, guru and Krishna. Addressing the statement: "we are not suggesting that managerial authority is contrary to spiritual authority", sometimes we can see that "managerial" authority IS contrary to real spiritual authority. Unfortunately, this paper says very little on avoiding blind following according to Srila Prabhupada's instructions and instead seems to advocate more authoritarianism based on a lack of guru, sadhu, and shastra. A claim is made in this paper about following the "bonafide" and politically accepted process of appeal to the dictates of management, but as His Holiness Bhakti Vikasa Swami has pointed out many times, this process consisting of bureaucratic red tape takes a ridiculously long time and often accomplishes little.
SOMETIMES MANAGERS INTERFERE WITH SPIRITUAL AUTHORITIES
From the final edition: Although in an ideal world everything would work according to Srila Prabhupada's vision for ISKCON, we have seen tendencies from those in one line of authority to interfere with those in the other line of authority. For instance, there are spiritual authorities who sometimes interfere with competent and responsible managers. They do not consider themselves part of the zonal managerial structure where their preaching has influence (though they are in fact accountable to it), but they are still either directly or indirectly managing some project(s) within that structure.
Comments by Raya Nitai Dasa Vanacari: Therefore, we can very easily see that power and authority must be divided among many branches as is done in some forms of government, as long as there is not a qualified autocratic body at the head of the society (or even if there is a qualified head). This "checks and balances" system is similar to the principle of guru, sadhu and shastra. In the system of varnasrama, the power and control over the mass of people is not completely consolidated among the administrators. Actually, the brahamanas are the real "ultimate managing authority" and can dispose of a bad ksatriya as in the case of King Vena. Disputes will come as long as one party in this system tries to exert extremist absolute authority over another party. In fact it may be offensive for two parties that may be on an equal platform for one or other of those parties to try to lord it over. This can also apply to the governing body taking an extreme position of absolutism in regard to dealing with qualified devotees in ISKCON. The term "ultimate managerial authority" can be abused by the GBC itself if it fails to follow guru, sadhu, and shastra and then tries to impose authoritarian rule, demanding blind following, even from some of its most qualified, strong links in the parampara. The management can also misuse their "ultimate managing authority" if it curtails the basic liberties afforded to every devotee. By this analysis, we don't want to weaken the management, but make it stronger by preventing abuse of power. Sometimes, although it is not noted here, management can interfere with other authorities, even Krishna.
CARING FOR DEVOTEES?
From the final edition: Of course, it is understood that circumstances do arise where there are financially independent devotees who have no managerial connection with locally organized sanghas. Still, it should not be assumed that no effort is being made by local management structures to include every devotee, or aspiring devotee, within their locally managed system of care for congregational devotees.
Comments by Raya Nitai Dasa Vanacari: Here, the rhetoric: "include every devotee", like we wouldn't want anyone to feel left out, and "system of care" seem to contradict the previously analyzed rhetoric of "carry the full weight of spiritual authority for those under their charge." Which is it, is the management caring for devotees, or does the management force the full weight of their authority on the members under their charge?
AN ADMISSION OF GUILT
From the final edition: But if managers act in a way contrary to spiritual principles, in conflict with the spiritual interests of those devotees for whom they are responsible, that will also erode others' faith.
Comments by Raya Nitai Dasa Vanacari: Is this finally some kind of admission that the conduct and divergent attitudes and ideologies of management has eroded so many devotees faith? If so, thank you for at least admitting that we have an issue here.
THE DUTIES OF THE SPIRITUAL MASTER
From the final edition: The spiritual masters are thus obligated to follow the Society's policies and codes of conduct, including those outlined in this GBC-approved paper, and to abide by the decisions of its management. Included within that obligation is the responsibility to inspire their disciples to associate with and serve within ISKCON's already-existing managerial and devotee-care sangas, located within their disciple's area of residence rather than only inspiring them to associate with themselves (the spiritual masters) or with their sangas and projects that have no connection with the ISKCON zonal management structure.
Comments by Raya Nitai Dasa Vanacari: The term used here: "ISKCON zonal management structure" is an admitance of the continuation of the concept of Zonal-Acarya, not because of the concept of "zones", but because the members of ISKCON are forced, against their free will, to associate with devotees they may not want to associate with simply because of being located in a particular geographical region. Members of ISKCON will always have the right to choose to associate with whoever they see fit to associate with and are generally not so foolish to accept being told who they may or may not associate with in regards to their spiritual well being. This authoritarian "big brother" attitude of the governing body is a major cause of the decline of ISKCON, similar to the decline that was experienced after the Zonal- Acarya period of the 1980′s. As far as the duties of the spiritual master goes, it is the duty of every spiritual master to guide the disciple back to godhead, which may sometimes mean recomending a subordinate to avoid associating with the local management structure of ISKCON. In this regard, His Holiness Danavir Goswami has written a nice article called: "In The Local Temple" .
WHOEVER REPRESENTS PRABHUPADA AND KRISHNA IS TO BE FOLLOWED
From the final edition: If a disciple has the mistaken conviction that his or her spiritual master is above the GBC and ISKCON's laws and policies, that should be corrected by the spiritual master and other authorities. Otherwise, that misconception may lead to actions which create conflict between his or her spiritual and managerial authorities.
Comments by Raya Nitai Dasa Vanacari: This is not a race or some kind of mundane competition. The GBC and the senior devotees within ISKCON are not meant to be seen as superior or inferior to one another. Every member of ISKCON must follow the policies set by the ultimate managerial body, and the ultimate managerial body must also accept they have a rather limited jurisdiction and are not meant to be authoritarian dictators, forcing their controlling attitude upon every Bhakta Tom, Bhakta Dick, and Bhakta Harry. Krsna is the "above", and whoever, whether the diksa guru, GBC or siksa guru represents the "above", is who is to be followed by everyone, otherwise it is considered blind following and is condemned by Srila Prabhupada himself in the purport to verse 4-34 of the Bhagavad-gita As It Is. In connection with these concepts addressed in the final version of the Parallel Lines paper, His Holiness Bhakti Vikasa Swami has written a very nice article addressing "guru groupism", entitled: "Balancing Guru Bhakti and ISKCON Values" .
THE ART OF MANAGEMENT
From the eighth draft: GBC does not mean to control a center. GBC means to see that the activities of a center go on nicely. [Letter to Rupanuga, Bombay, Nov. 4, 1970]
From the eighth draft: Our leaders shall be careful not to kill the spirit of enthusiastic service, which is individual, spontaneous and voluntary. They should try always to generate some atmosphere of fresh challenge to the devotees, so that they will agree enthusiastically to rise and meet it. That is the art of management: to draw out spontaneous loving spirit of sacrificing some energy for Krishna. [Letter to Karandhara, Bombay, Dec.22, 1972]
Comments by Raya Nitai Dasa Vanacari: Why would these statements made by Srila Prabhupada be left out of the final version of the paper? These statements are very relevant to the subject matter. It appears that the authors of the paper may want to twist their own philosophy upon the mass of ISKCON devotees. Prabhupada says "GBC does not mean to control a center", so why does it appear that they want to have some extreme, centralized and authoritarian concept of management? Prabhupada says: "Our leaders shall be careful not to kill the spirit of enthusiastic service, which is individual, spontaneous and voluntary", so why do they insist on exerting some extreme form of control upon all members of the society, thus destroying the spontaneous service attitude?
RATHER THAN THE SPIRITUAL MASTER ONLY PURSUING HIS OWN AGENDA
From the final edition: Moreover, to show respect toward the managerial line of authority and to help nurture and protect managers' faith in the spiritual line of authority, every spiritual master should: 1) When first visiting or preferably before arriving at a recognized ISKCON temple or preaching center, ask the local manager how he (the spiritual master) may serve that yatra during his visit (rather than the spiritual master only pursuing his own agenda).
Comments by Raya Nitai Dasa Vanacari: Hopefully, the spiritual master's "agenda" is larger than serving the "dimonating the three devotees living in the temple and taking daksina from the Indian congregation" agenda of the local T.V. watching, karmi food eating, academically brainwashed, Mangala-arati missing manger of the dead on every day but Sunday ISKCON temple. This is the epitome of the authoritarian regime being established in Mayapur. Often showing a lack of regard for guru, sadhu, and shastra and a society of blind following and dysfunction, to the point of offending the great devotees who do not want to have anything to do with this. The spiritual master has a right to have his "own agenda" and no godbrother or group of godbrothers (including the GBC) has any right to force the spiritual master to give up his "own agenda." On the contrary, the local manager at the ISKCON temple can greatly benefit by serving the visiting spiritual master. This has nothing to do with one supposed reason that the paper was written, which is to prevent rouge and deviant guru cults from developing, which, by the way, are developing through some of the extreme liberal gurus who are devotedly backed by the same GBC that is supposed to be protecting ISKCON from them.
ISKCON'S MANAGERIAL SYSTEM IS ONE THAT RESPECTS FEEDBACK AND DIRECT INPUT
From the eighth draft: Thus ISKCON's managerial system is one that respects feedback and direct input from the devotees at large, since its underlying purpose is to foster devotees' spiritual growth.
From the final edition: To promote the full flourishing of devotees' spiritual lives, Srila Prabhupada created for ISKCON a managerial structure with clear lines of authority.
Comments by Raya Nitai Dasa Vanacari: Hopefully, the GBC will respect this feedback even though they ommitted the statement: "ISKCON's managerial system is one that respects feedback and direct input from the devotees at large", from the final version of the paper.
GBC MEMBERS ARE SIMPLY TO SEE THAT THINGS ARE GOING ON
From the eighth draft: Who is being managed? Spiritual life is a voluntary process. Thus the codes of ISKCON apply to persons who voluntarily accept ISKCON's values and system as outlined by Srila Prabhupada.
Comments by Raya Nitai Dasa Vanacari: Contrary to some of the ideas of the GBC, Srila Prabhupada did not outline their authoritarian system at any time, but rather preached heavily against it: "GBC members are simply to see that things are going on. Other centers have got president, secretary, etc. and they are managing separately. That is the formula. And most GBC members are householders. You also may be elected. The position is open to all grhasthas." [July 9, 1971]
I would like to note here that Srila Prabhupada states that most GBC members are householders. The parallel Lines Committee is made up of six sannyasis and one grhastha, who is about to accept sannyasa.
THE MANAGERS OF ISKCON SHOULD SIMPLY FACILITATE THIS PRINCIPLE
From the eighth draft: From the above quotations we can see that the aim of all management in ISKCON is to coordinate the activities of its members so as to most effectively develop the Krishna consciousness of its members and the public at large. The managers of ISKCON should simply facilitate this principle. This type of manager requires spiritual qualifications as well as managerial talents.
Comments by Raya Nitai Dasa Vanacari: Not only was this left out of the final version, but so were the important quotes from Srila Prabhupada on the subject matter. Hearing from Srila Prabhupada, the authors could see that the aim of all management in ISKCON is to: "coordinate the activities of its members so as to most effectively develop the Krishna consciousness of its members and the public at large." Then the authors go on to ponder the idea of "simply facilitate this principle" and not try to become a centralized big-government system, having the attitude that: through the GBC is the "only way to the father." Also, left out is what Srila Prabhupada states to be a bona fide qualification of a member of management as requiring spiritual qualifications, not being simply a post or a bland position.
AUTHORITY DOESN'T MEAN THAT A GBC OR TEMPLE PRESIDENT DIRECTS ALL ACTIONS IN A DEVOTEE'S LIFE
From the eighth draft: It should be noted at this point that "authority" in this discussion and in the diagrams does not mean that the GBC or temple president directs all actions in a devotee's life. From the perspective of the managers, it means that they have been given the responsibility of helping to manage the society and care for the devotees. From the perspective of the devotees, the authority structure is the framework of rules within which they work as followers of ISKCON while living their lives wherever they are, just as in a country a person naturally acts within the laws of a country while at the same time maintaining independence in many aspects of life. Accepting ISKCON's guidance is voluntary. Those who accept ISKCON also agree to follow its codes of conduct. The managerial system of ISKCON simply maintains those codes so that the devotees can function harmoniously within the society and achieve their personal spiritual goals while simultaneously furthering the society's broader goals.
Comments by Raya Nitai Dasa Vanacari: So, this was left out of the final "official" version of such an important document? How does that tally with these statements that have been added to the final version?
"Moreover, to show respect toward the managerial line of authority and to help nurture and protect managers' faith in the spiritual line of authority, every spiritual master should: 1) When first visiting or preferably before arriving at a recognized ISKCON temple or preaching center, ask the local manager how he (the spiritual master) may serve that yatra during his visit (rather than the spiritual master only pursuing his own agenda)."
"Before planning a visit to a zone or region where there is no local temple or preaching center, first ask the Zonal GBC if there is a vision local leaders have for that place or region which he (the spiritual master) could serve."
LONG RIBBONS OF RED TAPE
From the final edition: 3) If there is a disagreement in terms of managerial decisions, do his best to cooperate with the relevant authority. If no agreement can be reached, then the spiritual master should defer to the decision of the relevant authority, with the option of appealing to higher authorities if necessary.
Comments by Raya Nitai Dasa Vanacari: This doesn't sound like "parallel lines" of authority to me. It sound like a one-sided authoritarian or totalitarian system meant to further the agenda of over-extended Zonal-Acaryas. This system is characterized by heavy bureaucracy and a long ribbon of red tape, strung out as a diversionary smokescreen to obfuscate the absolute truth.
ISKCON MUST RESPECT THE DEVOTEES
From the eighth draft: Simultaneously, ISKCON must respect the devotees' attitude of surrender to their gurus' instructions, since that attitude is a powerful cause of the devotees' advancement. At the same time, the essence of being a guru in ISKCON is being an obedient servant of Srila Prabhupada, the previous acharyas, and Lord Krishna.
Comments by Raya Nitai Dasa Vanacari: ISKCON's only hope is to "respect the devotees attitude of surrender to their gurus' instructions." It is nicely stated here that: "the essence of being a guru in ISKCON is being an obedient servant of Srila Prabhupada, the previous acharyas and Lord Krishna. Unfortunately, giving the GBC room to initiate their own agenda, these kind of statements were left out of the final edition of the paper.
MAY WE EXPRESS SOME CONCERNS ABOUT ISKCON?
From the eighth draft: The gurus can and should express their concerns to the management.
Comments by Raya Nitai Dasa Vanacari: This may have been omitted from the final edition so the mangers may not have to be bogged down by defending themselves from so many critical remarks. Also, it seems that recently, His Holiness Bhakti Vikasa Swami had aired "Some concerns about ISKCON" on his website and was forced to have it removed by the GBC. It doesn't sound like the GBC wants His Holiness Bhakti Vikasa Swami expressing HIS concerns!
HERE ARE SOME ADDITIONAL STATEMENTS THAT WERE INCLUDED IN THE EIGHTH DRAFT, BUT UNFORTUNATELY LEFT OUT OF THE FINAL EDITION OF "UNDERSTANDING ISKCON'S LINES OF AUTHORITY"
In the above explanation of cooperation, the guru acts as a preacher within ISKCON. However, sometimes the guru may be appointed to assume one of the managerial roles, such as temple president, national council member, or GBC. In fact, at present ISKCON has many gurus who function simultaneously as GBC's or other managers. Without a careful balance between these dual roles, complications may sometimes arise. For example, suppose a disciple's guru is also the disciple's GBC. The disciple often cannot distinguish between these roles and simply plays the role of a disciple. When the guru orders, the disciple follows. Thus the Guru/GBC may use the authority as a guru to implement managerial decisions that are actually being made in the role as a GBC. This is an easy method for accomplishing tasks, but a danger arises because the obedience of the disciple limits that disciple's critical judgment and power to object to what may be a poor managerial decision made by the guru. For example, a GBC/guru may tell his temple president/disciple to organize a major festival. He says that it should be first-class with all the finest arrangements. "Spare no expense, Krishna is no poor man" he tells his disciple. As an obedient disciple, the temple president/disciple agrees to organize the expensive festival. As a result, his temple which was already in debt, experiences serious financial problems after the festival.
How can such situations be avoided? Gurus who also serve as ISKCON managers must teach their disciples to act differently toward them according to their two roles. Each disciple must be trained to discern the difference between the guru's order given as guru and an order given as GBC or other manager. When the guru gives personal spiritual advice, the disciple should humbly obey, but when the guru gives managerial advice as a GBC (as in the instance above), the disciple should respond on the basis of what is best for ISKCON, even if that contradicts the advice of the guru. The disciple's judgment, of course, should be made in consultation with other senior devotees. The disciples need to be trained to separate their role as disciples from their roles as managers, and similarly the gurus need to practice separating their role as gurus from their roles as managers.
We recognize that it may be difficult for disciples to act differently toward their gurus according to the gurus' various roles. It requires training and maturity. But coming to this balanced understanding is essential, and it is possible, especially if the gurus support the principle. Gurus should make clear to their disciples how they function in these two capacities. If they cannot do so, they should voluntarily refrain from assuming both roles.
What is the solution? First the gurus must accept the principle that when they manage, their disciples must feel free to communicate with them without fear of transgressing guru/disciple etiquette, and then the gurus must teach this principle to their disciples. The gurus must learn to educate their disciples not only about their duties as disciples but also about their duties as managers and members of ISKCON.
It is the duty of the siksa-guru or diksa-guru to instruct the disciple in the right way, and it depends on the disciple to execute the process. According to sastric injunctions, there is no difference between siksa-guru and diksa-guru, and generally the siksa-guru later on becomes the diksa-guru. [SB 4.12.32, purport]
In many cases the disciple is first inspired and trained by the local manager and only later meets a diksa guru.
Vaisnava etiquette is a key requirement in correcting discrepancies. While the gurus and disciples need to appreciate the service and position of ISKCON managers, those managers need to reciprocate by respecting the diksa guru's relationship with his or her disciples and recognizing the essential service ISKCON's gurus offer to the society.
It is not the direction of ISKCON law or the intent of this paper that the guru must simply accept whatever the local decision is.
Sannyasis are the natural gurus for the entire varnasrama system. Those who are not diksa gurus still hold a position quite similar to gurus regarding respect and influence. Thus the principles outlined in this paper apply to sannyasis as well. The following Diagram #4 gives an idea of how sannyasis fit into ISKCON's structure via the addition of the boxes "Sannyasa Ministry" and "Sannyasi."
To promote the full flourishing of devotees' spiritual lives, Srila Prabhupada created a managerial structure for ISKCON, with clear lines of authority. Every member of ISKCON must respect this structure and learn to work within it. The goal of the managerial structure is spiritual: to facilitate spiritual advancement, association with devotees, opportunities for service, and effective preaching strategies.
This cooperative, mutually respectful spirit is the best way to preserve the Society's unity, please Srila Prabhupada, and expand the sankirtana mission.
