Constitution of a Spiritual Society

[maccoy77 0]

 

I don't know.

 

How can they write a constitution for a society that was already started over 40 years ago?

 

the constitution is the orders of Srila Prabhupada.

 

they just need to sort that out and follow.

 

Constitutions are for countries, not Vaishnava societies.

 

Srila Prabhupada is the constitution of ISKCON.

 

I think you don't understand, Prabhupada has transferred all managing authority to the GBC ,infact all powers, So the GBC has the right to change certain rules. Things can be altered to suit the changes for the next 10,000years, But the 4 principles should remain and the message of Krishna should remain unchange.

[Guruvani 0]

 

I think you don't understand, Prabhupada has transferred all managing authority to the GBC ,infact all powers, So the GBC has the right to change certain rules. Things can be altered to suit the changes for the next 10,000years, But the 4 principles should remain and the message of Krishna should remain unchange.

That is a big stretch.

The GBC is a management body for handling corperate matters.

They have no right or authority to change anything.

 

Srila Prabhupada made it clear in his final days when he instructed the GBC "don't change anything after I am gone".

 

Many devotees heard Srila Prabhupada say that several times.

 

No, they cannot change anything.

 

Srila Prabhupada gave strict orders that the GBC could not change anything that he established in ISKCON.

 

The GBC is a managing authority, not a spiritual authority.

[suchandra 1]

 

That is a big stretch.

The GBC is a management body for handling corperate matters.

They have no right or authority to change anything.

 

Srila Prabhupada made it clear in his final days when he instructed the GBC "don't change anything after I am gone".

 

Many devotees heard Srila Prabhupada say that several times.

 

No, they cannot change anything.

 

Srila Prabhupada gave strict orders that the GBC could not change anything that he established in ISKCON.

 

The GBC is a managing authority, not a spiritual authority.

 

Amen! No one comes to the Father except through me, obey the GBC.

[Guruvani 0]

 

Amen! No one comes to the Father except through me, obey the GBC.

 

Yep, it appears that some devotees have trouble distinguishing the difference between a managing authority and a spiritual authority.

 

Srila Prabhupada has never said the GBC was a spiritual authority.

 

They are managers not acharyas.

[theist 1]

Quote:

<table border="0" cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0" width="100%"> <tbody><tr> <td style="border: 1px solid rgb(102, 102, 102); padding-left: 3ex; padding-right: 3ex;" bgcolor="#e0e0e0"> Originally Posted by theist

2. Prabhupada's disciples are free to take on their own disciples as the sastra states and as Prabhupada willed but they must do that outside the Iskcon structure entirely and their disciples should live outside the Iskcon temple structure. A son when mature leaves home to start his own family. If someone is not confident enough to do that simple thing then he has no business taking on disciples and promising to take them back to Godhead. /quote]

 

Didn't Prabhupada want the ISKCON family to stay together? I'm also not happy with the way ISKCON is prsently managed either, but the heart of the movement is the guru/disciple relationship in Prabhupadas ISKCON. Your idea will only lead to every guru starting their own movement which will weaken Iskcon from within. I believe in Prabupadas iskcon, but not the present version where in many places around the world and especially in Australia, many leaders arrogently believe their dictatorial version is the only way to serve Krishna and His devotees when in truth Prabhupadas books are the only way. I don't believe other Gaudiya camps are the answer either. Prabhupada created ISKCON for the entire world therefor Prabhupada is ISKCON

</td> </tr> </tbody></table>Please note the end quote. Only the first paragraph was mine.

<!-- END TEMPLATE: bbcode_quote -->

[suchandra 1]

 

Yep, it appears that some devotees have trouble distinguishing the difference between a managing authority and a spiritual authority.

 

Srila Prabhupada has never said the GBC was a spiritual authority.

 

They are managers not acharyas.

Looks like this topic causes within ISKCON quite some discussion.

 

 

 

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

 

Prabhupada: No. The committee. The majority decision will be…

Hayagriva: That’s democracy. That’s democracy. That’s no good.

Prabhupada: Democracy? This is the age of democracy.

Hayagriva: I thought you said we should have enlightened monarchy.

Prabhupada: No. Monarchy is out of date now. …

If you have to live together, you have to work together; if you disagree in that way, it will be a difficult job.

 

 

Constitution Committee Update

 

<!-- the top of the post, the background graphic gets applied here, and we truncate the title itself so it fits, in case of long post titles - title will still show the full title though --> Constitution Committee Update

 

1,081 Views / EMail This Post / Print This Post / Home » Constitution Committee Update

<!-- end .post-top --> <!-- the main section of the post goes here --> 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.

[suchandra 1]

HH Bir Krishna Goswami suggests today, "Separating Spiritual and Temporal Authorities". This would go in the direction of no more guru appointment by the GBC?

 

Separating Spiritual and Temporal Authorities

 

H.H. Bir Krishna Goswami: Separating Spiritual and Temporal Authorities

<small>Submitted by Sitapati on Thu, 10/11/2007 - 10:50.</small>

• Organizational Structure
  
• Community Proposal

 

Actually we should extend this prohibition on management beyond the sannyasis. Those who are in a brahminical role should not be managing either.

Just as we have seen sannyasis/gurus deviate from having many allurements presented to them we have seen even more temple presidents deviate because they had both managerial and spiritual authority over others. How many temple presidents have succumbed to illicit sex with devotees in the temple or have succumbed to financial irregularities.

In most other religious organizations (non-ISKCON) the management structure is completely separate from the ecclesiastical structure. For example I have friends who are ministers but they do not run the church. The church is run by a board. They simply preach.

Because they are in that position without any conflicts of interest, people trust them; because their only interest is in the welfare of the people they are counseling/helping.

This is different from our situation where the temple president is also “in charge” of the temporal lives of the devotees. So, naturally he has a hard time balancing both positions and the temporal responsibilities tend to keep him from being 100% focused on the spiritual lives of the people he is responsible for.

In temples that I visit the devotees are begging to have someone who they can take shelter of, because they can’t fully trust someone who is managing and who uses his spiritual position to carry out his managerial desires.

Also the temple president begins to think that he is possessor or at least controller of the assets that are aquired due to his preaching, and he becomes bewildered by women, and money.

If you examine the history of ISKCON you will see this is a constantly recurring phenomenon amongst temple presidents.

Hence my proposal is that we separate these two roles (management and brahminical functions) on all levels.

This of course is what Srila Prabhupada was talking about when said that he wanted Varnashrama instituted.

Let sannyasis and brahmans be free to help people without any managerial burdens or allurements.

·>> In the begining stages of ISKCON, the EMERGENCY ERA, Srila Prabhupada

·>> HAD to give the administration to the most spiritually advanced. But it

·>> was meant to be a ’short term measure’ to get the mission going.

·>> Verification of that is when Srila Prabhupada first created the GBCs his

·>> vision was grihasthas only. But to cater to the emergency era he

·>> positioned mostly sannyasis. But now it is clear that it would be better

·>> to implement Srila Prabhupada’s original idea of grihastas only on the

·>> GBC, and not sannyasis who could then just concentrate on remaining

·>> pure, preaching, and taking on disciples with far less risk of becoming

·>> spiritually weakened.

·>>

·>> Unless the structure is changed to exclude gurus and sannyasis from

·>> management then the incident/s referred to by Kripamoya Prabhu will keep

·>> on re-occuring and we will simply remain a laughing stock repeatedly.

·>>

·>> The structure HAS to be changed. Guruship and managing big money,

·>> properties, and very intensive managerial responsibilities just simply

·>> do not go together. Even Srila POrabhupada himself was planning how he

·>> could avoid managerial responsibilities so that he could be just our

·>> Jagat Guru.

·>>

·>> Its time to change the structure, with some padlocks as it were, as we

·>> envision Srila Prabhupada would do. Otherwise it is not a question of IF

·>> such absolutely terrible disruptions to the preaching will occur again -

·>> but only a question of WHEN.

·>>

·>> ad