My wishlist for GBC leadership

View a video podcast discussing "the power to annotate"

I would like to see reports coming out of the GBC meetings that include such details as how many books are being distributed in each GBC zone, how many devotees are going out on harinam, and how many initiated devotees have actually read the 4th canto, and what is being done to increase these three figures.

I would like to see GBC leaders taking time to meet with local leaders in their zones and sharing their expertise and experience to increase effectiveness at a local level.

Authority in any organization is related to influence. Especially in a volunteer organization like ISKCON, this is effectively all that authority is. If no-one follows you, you're not leading.

When you make calls you need to be aware of how much influence you have, and if the call you are making will exceed that influence.

For example, there is the famous example of Srila Prabhupada approving a disciple's request to divorce and remarry. Srila Prabhupada's secretary, to whom he had dictated the letter, Harikesa prabhu, was puzzled by this and asked Prabhupada why he said "yes" when he had given so many instructions saying that divorce was not allowed. Srila Prabhupada replied that he knew that the disciple would do it anyway. Rather than lose the disciple completely by forcing him into a situation where he would have to disobey a direct order, Srila Prabhupada instead chose to preserve the relationship by not trying to transmit more force across it than it could sustain. In this way he continued to build influence with him and guide him forward from where he was.

Srila Prabhupada was expert in adjusting to the situation without compromising the principles. I don't have sufficient confidence that the current leadership has the same level of expertise to agree to them inserting commentary into Srila Prabhupada's books.

I said in an earlier comment, banned on Dandavats.com, that if the GBC has fully calculated the effects of resolution 311 they have said: "Yeah, some people aren't going to like it, but too bad for them. We can afford to lose those guys, and the positive outcomes in the long run will offset the short term losses. Press the go button."

I can appreciate that, from a ksatriya managerial perspective. Those are the kind of decisions that you make when you're in charge. No-one will agree with everything you do, and you have to do something.

However, I am very worried, because I don't think that they have properly calculated the impact and consequences of resolution 311 and its introduction.

If I were at the helm, or advising those at the helm on this issue, I would have position papers by Ravindra Svarupa Prabhu, Prahladananda Swami, Jayadvaita Swami and others flooding out right now to swamp the society. I would also include samsaya (doubt) and purva-paksa (opposing argument) papers to show that it had been robustly considered, and to preempt opposition. Nothing like arguing the case against yourself more powerfully than anyone else... and then defeating it. In fact, that's our brahminical tradition.

This would achieve a number of effects:

1. It would not create a thought leadership vaccuum for persons like Sita-pati and Krishna-kirti to step into.
2. It would give talking points to pro-resolution 311 thought leaders at a local level, who could then retransmit and expand on the arguments and justifications given (that would have been me in a parallel universe, or on another issue where I actually agreed with the principle).
3. It would demonstrate to the non-brahminical membership that there is brahminical leadership in this area, even if they don't understand the issues and arguments.
4. It would give brahminical members something to consider, something to follow, and something to pitch their position against if they disagree.

Brahmanas do not follow orders. They follow explanations. ISKCON is supposed to be a society primarily of brahmanas. It requires brahminical leadership.

Instead we have only Praghosa prabhu's brief foray into a soon-aborted comments thread on Dandavats.com, comments from pro-resolution 311 devotees who personally don't like what Srila Prabhupada says in his books and seem unaware of the wider ramifications of bringing into creation "the power to annotate", and a podcast by GBC member His Holiness Sivarama Swami ["Rape and editing"] which is far from unqualified support for the measure.

That this brahminical leadership is missing in the form of resolution of 311 reinforces the conclusion that in its content it is similarly unqualified.

When the position papers come out I'll have something to consider. In the meantime, I'm just at a loose end.

So why has Sita-pati gone from "GBC apologist" to lecturing the GBC? It exceeded its authority (influence) with me by issuing this resolution in this way.

A predictable outcome.