The presentation on the topic from the ELM meeting in Villa Vrndavana.
13 Responses to “What is ISKCON and who is a member? (Part 1)”
Leave a comment
Donate
If you would like to contribute to the maintenance of this site and the costs associated with it, you may do so here:
 |
 |
|
We therefore have to learn how Krsna takes His birth, which is not ordinary. If it were ordinary, why should we observe the Janmastami ceremony? His birth is divyam, divine.
- Srila Prabhupada
Nava Vraja Mandala Parikrama Day 2
Visiting Naradavana, Javat, Kadamba kandhi and Kamyavana.
Visiting Naradavana, Javat, Kadamba kandhi and Kamyavana.
Nava Vraja Mandala Parikrama Day 1
Today we visited Tri-veni-tirtha, Mukta-kunda, Bahulavana, Andhera-ghat and Man-sarovara.
Today we visited Tri-veni-tirtha, Mukta-kunda, Bahulavana, Andhera-ghat and Man-sarovara.
Older posts
Interesting topic. ISKCON needs “laws” and bureaucracy in order to be effective in its preaching mission.
On the other hand, Krishna consciousness is not dependent on membership in ISKCON or on careful adherence to any (!) set of laws or norms. The “Sruti smrti puranadi…” verse indicates that society is disturbed when the general standard behavioral norms are not followed, but the “Yena kena pracarena…” verse indicates that the ultimate principle is how one’s mind is fixed in devotional service.
In the beginning we must carefully adhere to rules (vidhi). That “surrender” to regulations may be our only available expression of our not very well-developed devotional feelings. After being purified by such adherence, when anarthas are cleared, we may begin to be situated in real spiritual emotions (bhava), at which point we may still follow the standard rules to set a good example for others.
But this process of going from sraddha to prema, or of being transformed from a materialistic person to one who is fit to enter the spiritual world, is not only open to members of ISKCON. Other Vaisnavas can do it, and we accept that even Muslims and Christians may in some sense do it (although it is hard to see how they can get beyond santa rasa with their vague and impersonal notions of God, and those who really do it will not be the chauvinistic ones who never miss an opportunity to offend followers of the sanskrt Vedic culture).
We are not like the Catholic Church (or the Mormon LDS Church) who teach that unless one goes through their specific church bureaucracy one cannot reach perfection or satisfy God.
Krishna is much bigger than that. He is everywhere. Those engaged in the culture (sacrifice) of knowledge worship him as the impersonal absolute, or as the universal form, and at last attain His personal service. Even those who faithfully worship demigods are really worshiping Him, but in a wrong way. If they do not know Him and His transcendental nature, they fall down, but it is really He who is the enjoyer and master of all sacrifices.
What I am trying to say (please bear with me, I am not very expert) is that there is something universal about the message of Krishna consciousness that should not be conceptually subordinated to the practical “rights and obligations” of membership in the ISKCON society.
And nevertheless we can and should embrace the “rights and obligations” of membership in ISKCON as something valuable for us, and for what it enables ISKCON to do for the world.
And a corollary to that is, we should be careful to define the “rights and obligations” of ISKCON membership in such a way that it really *is* good for the members’ progressive development of Krishna consciousness and for broadcasting Lord Caitanya’s message to the world. We do not want to exclude or discourage non-members from participating according to their capacity, nor do we want to create an overly-bureaucratized ideal of what it means to be Krishna conscious.
And we can recognize that many of the “rights and obligations” we choose to adopt are pragmatic ones and not necessarily universal principles of bhakti yoga.
It is a tall order and it is frightening when we consider that if we goof in how we define things we could be disturbing the faith of the general community of followers of Prabhupada.
Sorry what I wrote was long, but I do not think I have even scratched the surface of my thoughts on the subject…
There may be different kinds of “membership”. Srila Prabhupada created a Life Membership program where the only “responsibility” was to give a relatively small donation (in those days it was Rs. 1,111) and the “rights” were (1) to stay for free three days per year in each ISKCON temple you chose, and (2) to receive lifetime BTG subscription and all of Prabhupada’s books.
Of course, the expectation was that loving reciprocation would ensue in which Life Members would continue contributing and associating in many ways, not just say “I have fulfilled my responsibilities.” And many of them have, even in cases where ISKCON did not completely make good on providing all the promised “rights”.
First and Second initiation may be seen as different kinds of “membership” with their respective “rights and responsibilities.” The standard established by Prahupada was that only the twice-initiated go on the altar or cook with fire for the Deities, and generally only twice-initiated would be upper management of temples, or give classes.
But “rights and responsibilities” is an external, rule-oriented way of looking at things that does not penetrate to the level of natural feelings. What would we think of a wealthy mother who told her son, “The law only requires me to do this much for you”, or the son who likewise says, “I will fulfill my bare minimum legal responsibilities to my parents”? Wouldn’t we feel some natural affection is missing?
Don’t get me wrong. I am not criticizing the idea of creating better definitions of rights and responsibilities of membership in ISKCON (if it can be done well).
I guess what I am saying is that a church-like organization of the preaching institution, though important for accomplishing its mission, is not the all in all. ISKCON is meant for facilitating six kinds of loving exchanges, as Prabhupada writes in NOI, and we should never forget that love on the basis of Krishna consciousness is the real goal which the ecclesiastical bureaucracy serves to increase and facilitate.
The actual qualifications of beginning, intermediate and advanced devotees and how to associate with them are universal principles described in Nectar of Instruction. The organization of various types of “membership” with their respective “rights and responsibilities” is at best a pragmatic means to help increase and facilitate the social intercourse among such different levels of Hare Krishna chanters.
In this talk Maharaja raises the important question (but does not give a very elaborate answer) about the rights and obligations of someone who distributed books for five years thirty years ago (but presumably is not doing much for ISKCON at present).
Maharaja indicates that such people sometimes make claims based on the argument that they gave their youth to ISKCON, and seems to imply there is something unrealistic or overreaching about these claims.
I agree that anyone who is no longer fully practicing the vows made at initiation cannot claim rights to full “membership” in ISKCON. How can they, if they are violating ISKCON’s cardinal rules for initiated disciples?
Even if they were not violating such rules, it seems axiomatic that one “obligation” for full membership in a preaching organization is to be able to integrate ones’ self in such a way as to contribute meaningfully to the work of the organization.
Still, I can understand how they may rightly claim to have some kind of stake in ISKCON, to deserve some respect for their past service, some claim on at least being engaged and heard and cared about and ministered to. Due to some circumstances they may have become like “black sheep” who nevertheless are still members of the family and cannot be ignored or shut out from family matters.
ISKCON has a kind of duty to at least make reasonable efforts to always invite them back into the fold of fully participating members, and to listen to and respond respectfully to any arguments they raise against doing so. They have a special claim on our attention much greater than someone who has never served in ISKCON.
ISKCON may be constrained by limited resources and pressing duties to increase the sankirtan of Lord Caitanya, but we cannot afford to act cold-heartedly or disrespectfully to those who have sincerely tried to surrender to Krishna and Prabhupada, but who have fallen away in an immature stage.
We learn from Bhagavatam (1st Canto, Chapter 5) that such persons are never the same as ordinary fruitive workers. They have a special claim on Krishna’s attention, and if we are trying to serve and represent Krishna they should on ours as well.
And we have to remain at least open to the possibility that there were some failings within ISKCON’s organization or leadership that may have contributed to their disaffection, and be willing to take corrective action where such action is due, to satisfy them. And at the same time we should hold our ground and defend ISKCON against unwarranted criticism. So it requires skill and tact, but doesn’t all preaching and organization of a preaching institution require such skill?
And then there are those who may have broken with ISKCON over some disagreement with policy but who have continued to practice their sadhana and to preach with some other group of devotees. What claims, if any, do they have on rights of ISKCON membership, and why, or why not?
These are important questions…
I agree with Akruranath…it struck me as quite cold when I heard Maharaja dismiss the devotee who did sankirtan for 5 years but for whatever reason is not now practicing strictly. Obviously we may not have them giving class or being a guru but we should be organizing the society in such a way as to help and encourage them. By telling them they are not a part of Iskcon will hurt them and push them away further. There are innumerable devotees like this, and there are likely innumerable devotees in the temples now who will one day fall into this category.
Regarding obligations, does not a society which accepts service for 5 years from someone who is unpaid and promotes the society, doesn’t that society have some obligation to that person?
I agree with Maharaja.Setting standards for Iskcon is important specially on the matter of vows,regulations for not allowing compromise in standards establish by Srila Prabhupada.Srila Prabhupada said that purity is the force and such purity resides on following the standards establish by Guru,Sadhu and Sastra.We cannot change the principles and still claim that we are practicing Krsna Consciousness.People argue that the majority will never be able to follow the standards and other arguments but i see this as a lack of faith in the process.Others say that we are not inclusive enough as Caitanya Mahaprabhu sankirtana movement and our international society should be but i see that we can be inclusive and preach to the whole world and still be strict in our standards.Srila Prabhupada did that. Thank you Maharaja.My respectful obeisances.Sorry for my english
Your servant
Fernando
I object to the ignorant attitude of “Akurarnath” with regards to other vaisnavas , and gaudiya vaisnavs outside of iskcon. “Other Vaisnavas can do it” , this is very childish to suggest devotees in iskcon are more capable than any other vaisnavs simply because they are in iskcon. Ridiculous. Before there was iskcon other vaisnavs were “doing it” and they will continue to do so. In bengal and bangaladesh there are millions and upon millions of gaudiyas who dont even know about iskcon at all , and they are “doing it” – attaining prema. Please educate yourself about Gaudiya Vaisnavism and Vaisnavims itself , of which iskcon is what maybe 5- 10 percent?? I dont know.
(I wrote this as a rather immediate response to receiving a copy of Maharaja’s PowerPoint presentation. I recently posted it on my blog, and another Web site asked permission to post it there as well. This shouldn’t be taken as my most careful, or final, thoughts on the issue. I still haven’t been able to make time to listen to the audio. Perhaps after doing so, I may find it useful to reconsider these remarks. I’m certainly open to discussion. And I’d be especially happy to hear Maharaja’s [or his representative's] explanation of what it means to be connected to “ISKCON’s line of authority.)
A few weeks ago, I received a copy of a PowerPoint presentation arguing for certain standards for ISKCON membership. More recently, an ISKCON news site published some audio accompanying this presentation, along with some editorial comments. Perhaps against my better judgement, I posted a comment on this presentation.
I haven’t had a chance to listen to the audio yet, but someone sent me Sivarama Swami’s PowerPoint presentation a couple of weeks ago. At the moment, I can only respond to that. Although I understand the perceived need to define membership, such definition should be in line with Srila Prabhupada’s standard, as suggested by others here and elsewhere. (This refers to the ISKCON News Weekly site, where I first posted this note.)
With regard to specifics of his presentation, I can share a couple of my initial, immediate responses to reading his ideas.
He suggests that membership requires accepting the GBC as one’s “ultimate managerial and spiritual authority.” What’s the basis for such an assertion? Certainly not Srila Prabhupada’s instruction. We know he told us that the GBC is the Society’s ultimate managerial authority, but spiritual authority? Bullet Point One, and I’m already out.
He says that members must “be connected to ISKCON’s line of authority.” That reads to me as an empty claim. What does it even mean?
He writes that members may “only accept initiation from member of ISKCON.” Well, I guess I’d be okay, if I hadn’t already been excluded by Bullet Point One. But we might ask about the status of those serving in ISKCON who are initiated by preachers working outside the GBC’s authority. Perhaps he means that they should be purged, however valuable their service may be and despite the fact that they follow all the other requirements. I’m not sure that’s a good idea.
He says that members of ISKCON “do not divorce.” It appears that certain members of the GBC, as well as other officers in the Society, be they local, regional, or international, must be exempt from this requirement.
He writes that “[t]he laws and bylaws of ISKCON determine devotees’ values and conduct in all aspects of their live; work (varna), social status (asrama) and spiritual practice and aspiration.” I’m certainly further excluded, it seems. I have chosen for the last 40 years to shape my values and conduct according to guru, sadhu, and shastra. ISKCON’s laws and bylaws change too frequently, and on the basis of too many factors other than guru, sadhu, and shastra, for me to take that seriously.
This strikes many devotees as an outline of a plan for further reducing ISKCON’s membership and consequently its influence. I’m looking for a reason to disagree with that assessment. Can someone throw me a line?
Dear Shivarama Swami,
Hare Krsna. Please accept my dandavats and pranams.
I do not see a pressing need for establishing an ISKCON membership. There is, however, a pressing need for establishing better relations between the ISKCON GBC and all Vaishnavas. Srila Prabhupada defined ISKCON and it’s purpose
when her wrote the Articles of Incorporation of the Society. To adhere to those principles is enough to consider oneself a member of ISKCON. In practical matters, he was very forgiving with his disciples. On several occasions, Sannyasis would fall and Srila Prabhupada would encourage them to get duly married and stay within the Society. Srila Prabhupada established a brahmacarini ashram, which was a novel Vaishnava concept.
The mood of Srila Prabhupada should be carried forward by the GBC. Building a wall around ISKCON with membership requirements is extraneous. Srila Prabhupada has already built the House. If the GBC will focus on practicing the qualities of tolerance and forbearance, isn’t that better?
Please do not further ISKCON from the greater world body of Vaishnavas.
Vaishnava dasanudas
I have to admit I’m more than puzzled by Rohini nandana’s comment on Akruranath’s first post. His diction and tone indicate to me that he has seriously misread Akruranath’s comments on vaishnavas outside ISKCON. Rather than denigrating them somehow, he appears to me to be saying rather directly that no one needs to be a member of ISKCON to make real spiritual progress. That seems to me to be the point of that section of his post. I know Akruranath well enough to know that he’s a thoughtful, broad-minded devotee, so the kind of narrow mindedness Rohini nandan sees in his post is simply not part of Akruranath’s character. I sugges that Rohini nandan re-read that first post and consider whether he owes the readers of this thread, and certainly Akruranath, an apology.
Haribol. I’m coming late to this discussion, but decided it would be good to bring it up on Krishna.com. I’ll be filling in some time there this evening (Dec. 1) at 8pm, Eastern Time. If any of the esteemed Vaisnavas here would like to participate in the discussion, please go to Krishna.com/live and log in to the chat room. I’m going to see if I’ll be able to take calls via Skype also.
Is ISKCON to accept those who have been qualified or to accept those who are going to be qualified?
We know many devotees were qualified when they joined ISKCON at the beginning, but later may become not so strict.
Babhru prabhu, long time :) Your quote, “Bullet Point One, and I’m already out” struck me; my first response is, “…you and thousands of others.” They may be our managerial authority, perhaps, but spiritual authorities are a distinctly personal choice. As for “managerial,” I’ve seen 13 year olds do better, and I’m not even exaggerating. Abominable managerial conditions in ISKCON are still the norm. My question is, is there an unavoidable melding of both managerial and spiritual at some stages? Perhaps not: it’s always been a given that if we choose to be in ISKCON, we are obliged to follow the authorities, accept the authorities, and see them as leaders. Why? I’m Australian by birth, but you’d be hard-pressed to get me to name the Aussie Prime Minister these days. He and his crowd have nothing to do with me. In the same way, I chose a long time ago to be a member of ISKCON, but it doesn’t mean I have to accept that everything the management does is right and good and spiritually strong. Sometimes it is, sometimes it isn’t.
As for your last paragraph, I agree: I don’t consider that the institute is the shaping force of my life: like you have pointed out, I’ve always believed guru, sadhu, and sastra to have that role. The institute is the product of those three things…
hare krsna
yes i would agree with a lot of sivaram-swamis comments re the need for a constitution or contract a list of what is expected of the members and what they should expect in return from the organization in the form of a legal written contract this way devotees who give there life to the organization have some rights and control over there organization, as it has been seen that management is sometimes working against the best interests of the members and the organization, i see this as largely being due to there being no rules beyond do what you are told by the person who holds the management position/guru/tp etc who is sometimes less than perfect and sometimes has even totally lost it, there needs to be some common sense rules in this respect,
i see the first point being to define the organization and decide weather the members are considered separate form the organization or are themselves the organization!
going to temple soon by for now hare boll gaura pd