Mar 20
download it at: http://www.sivaramaswami.com/2010/02/13/what-is-iskcon-and-who-is-a-member/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Dear Members of the GBC Discussions conference,
Please accept my humble obeisances, all glories to Srila Prabhupada. During the last AGM, HH Sivarama Maharaja gave an introduction of his vision
for membership in ISKCON, prefacing it by saying that it was shared as an
opportunity for thinking on the subject, not as a final conclusion. Traditionally the younger members of an assembly speak first, so that they
can freely express their views. If they were to wait for the more seniors,
the yonger people would have to defer to the elders' views. On the other
hands, if the junior speak first the elders won't be too affected by the
juniors' views; the elders would still share their points and even correct
the junior members, if needed. In this spirit, and with your permission, I am sharing some concepts,
inviting your corrections. I will try to express myself respectfully (a great challenge for me!) but
simultaneously I won't compromise on clarity. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- I disagree on the presentation's approach and conclusions. During the presentation I listed some 18-20 points of perplexity or
disagreent, but here I will only concentrate on the single central premise
or underlying principle that appears to inform the whole concept. We heard that membership in ISKCON should be based on following the rules
and laws of ISKCON, just like membership of a country is based on following
the rules and laws of that country. The problem is that this is just not true. Citizenship of a country is not based on following its laws. Consider France (the country that was offered as an example); without
getting into the complex legalities ruling citizenship for immigrants or the
fine points of distinctions between nationality and citizenship (after all
this is only a general analogy and France a "casual" choice) we could say
that whoever is born in France from French parents acquires French
citizenship. How would this fact translate to ISKCON's reality? We could say that anyone
who takes spiritual birth (initiation) from a ISKCON guru is an ISKCON
member (of course there could be other categories of membership, but this
appear to be the most immediate and logical). Whoever joins the sampradaya according to the standard Rupanuga system
("gurupadasraya, diksa" CC Madhya 22.115) as applied in ISKCON Law
***must*** be considered a member of ISKCON. The presentation argued that one who doesn't follow the rules of ISKCON
should loose his membership, but the analogy with France (or any other
country) doesn't support this view. Consider that even French murderers do not loose their French citizenship. They loose some civil liberties and rights but they remain French citizens. How could this translate with ISKCON? Certainly those who transgress ISKCON's standards and laws would loose the
adhikara for specific services (such as initiating spiritual master or
temple president) but what is the philosophical arguement demonstrating that
they should entirely loose their membership? The issue appears theological: Is there an "ontological" element in the
process of initiation? The Sri Caitanya-caritamrita seems to imply that; in
the words of Lord Caitanya (Antya 4.193): diksa-kale bhakta kare atma-samarpana
sei-kale krsna tare kare atma-sama “At the time of initiation, when a devotee fully surrenders unto the service
of the Lord, Krishna accepts him to be as good as Himself." One might ask, "What if the level of surrenders declines after some time, is
still Krishna seeing the initiated devotee in a special way?" This could be an example of the types of questions we should be discussing,
in relation to membership. The mood expressed in the following 1977 GBC resolution seems to indicate
that there should be an ongoing spiritual sense of responsibility even
towards inactive members: "Each GBC man is responsible to try to recover the blooped devotees living
in his zone." The relation is indicated as ongoing and alive; the commitment from the
leaders should continue regardless the spiritual status of the fallen
devotee. Of course everyone can choose to disassociate from ISKCON, but the
institution should still -- according to the above resolution -- feel a
sense of commitment to the person who had, at least at one point,
surrendered to the process, considering him still a part of the spiritual
family. In conclusion: the analogy of membership of a country based on following the
rules doesn't stand. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Waiting for your comments, and repeating that there are other perplexities
connected to the approach to membership presented at the AGM, I remain
willing to share and discuss more on this very important subject. Thank you for reading. Your servant, Kaunteya das
ISKCON Membership - What I wrote to "GBC Discussions"
Below is what I posted on the pamho conference "GBC Discussions," in which
GBCs, Ministers and GBC Deputies are members. The context should be
self-explanatory.
download it at: http://www.sivaramaswami.com/2010/02/13/what-is-iskcon-and-who-is-a-member/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Dear Members of the GBC Discussions conference,
Please accept my humble obeisances, all glories to Srila Prabhupada. During the last AGM, HH Sivarama Maharaja gave an introduction of his vision
for membership in ISKCON, prefacing it by saying that it was shared as an
opportunity for thinking on the subject, not as a final conclusion. Traditionally the younger members of an assembly speak first, so that they
can freely express their views. If they were to wait for the more seniors,
the yonger people would have to defer to the elders' views. On the other
hands, if the junior speak first the elders won't be too affected by the
juniors' views; the elders would still share their points and even correct
the junior members, if needed. In this spirit, and with your permission, I am sharing some concepts,
inviting your corrections. I will try to express myself respectfully (a great challenge for me!) but
simultaneously I won't compromise on clarity. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- I disagree on the presentation's approach and conclusions. During the presentation I listed some 18-20 points of perplexity or
disagreent, but here I will only concentrate on the single central premise
or underlying principle that appears to inform the whole concept. We heard that membership in ISKCON should be based on following the rules
and laws of ISKCON, just like membership of a country is based on following
the rules and laws of that country. The problem is that this is just not true. Citizenship of a country is not based on following its laws. Consider France (the country that was offered as an example); without
getting into the complex legalities ruling citizenship for immigrants or the
fine points of distinctions between nationality and citizenship (after all
this is only a general analogy and France a "casual" choice) we could say
that whoever is born in France from French parents acquires French
citizenship. How would this fact translate to ISKCON's reality? We could say that anyone
who takes spiritual birth (initiation) from a ISKCON guru is an ISKCON
member (of course there could be other categories of membership, but this
appear to be the most immediate and logical). Whoever joins the sampradaya according to the standard Rupanuga system
("gurupadasraya, diksa" CC Madhya 22.115) as applied in ISKCON Law
***must*** be considered a member of ISKCON. The presentation argued that one who doesn't follow the rules of ISKCON
should loose his membership, but the analogy with France (or any other
country) doesn't support this view. Consider that even French murderers do not loose their French citizenship. They loose some civil liberties and rights but they remain French citizens. How could this translate with ISKCON? Certainly those who transgress ISKCON's standards and laws would loose the
adhikara for specific services (such as initiating spiritual master or
temple president) but what is the philosophical arguement demonstrating that
they should entirely loose their membership? The issue appears theological: Is there an "ontological" element in the
process of initiation? The Sri Caitanya-caritamrita seems to imply that; in
the words of Lord Caitanya (Antya 4.193): diksa-kale bhakta kare atma-samarpana
sei-kale krsna tare kare atma-sama “At the time of initiation, when a devotee fully surrenders unto the service
of the Lord, Krishna accepts him to be as good as Himself." One might ask, "What if the level of surrenders declines after some time, is
still Krishna seeing the initiated devotee in a special way?" This could be an example of the types of questions we should be discussing,
in relation to membership. The mood expressed in the following 1977 GBC resolution seems to indicate
that there should be an ongoing spiritual sense of responsibility even
towards inactive members: "Each GBC man is responsible to try to recover the blooped devotees living
in his zone." The relation is indicated as ongoing and alive; the commitment from the
leaders should continue regardless the spiritual status of the fallen
devotee. Of course everyone can choose to disassociate from ISKCON, but the
institution should still -- according to the above resolution -- feel a
sense of commitment to the person who had, at least at one point,
surrendered to the process, considering him still a part of the spiritual
family. In conclusion: the analogy of membership of a country based on following the
rules doesn't stand. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Waiting for your comments, and repeating that there are other perplexities
connected to the approach to membership presented at the AGM, I remain
willing to share and discuss more on this very important subject. Thank you for reading. Your servant, Kaunteya das
