Blog

By Kesava Krsna dasa

Let’s face it; nobody in this material world likes to be bossed around. There is one experimental reality show called ‘Survivor’ in which contestants get stranded in some remote place far removed from modern civilization. Working in tribes, the members have to compete and cooperate at the same time. There is a process of elimination as fellow tribe members vote off those deemed as threats to their ambition to win the ultimate million dollar prize.

Those individuals, who display natural leadership traits and get things done around the camp, are usually the ones to get voted out ‘ people do not being bossed around. The canny ones however, keep low profiles; yet manipulate things to their advantage and improve their chances of winning.

This scene is quite far removed again from how things play out in the devotee community, yet Iskcon needs leaders. But how to choose them based upon what criterion has often been a thorny issue. Are we looking at spiritual advancement? Are we demanding expertise and administrative abilities? Do we consider those high in the popularity stakes? How about those with strong personality types? Or even those who are together and balanced and so on.

If we look back at our disciplic succession we will find unlikely leaders and acaryas who may not fit our modern day portrayal of leadership as required by Iskcon. Our largely vaidhi and sadhana based lifestyle would probably not accommodate them.

If we take Srila Gaura Kishora Dasa Babaji Maharaja for instance, would he fit in comfortably into one of our temples as a leader? He isn’t just a leader, but an acarya recognizable by those possessed of pure spiritual vision. Yet his penchant for seclusion, constant chanting and avadhuta behavior may not endear him very much to those who see with external vision. In fact, hardly anyone would recognize his true worth, and his apparently unproductive contribution to the temple may result in his sadly being asked to leave the temple.

His leadership is borne of sheer purity and renunciation, and he performed spiritual life in his siddha-deha in tune to the asta-kaliya times of the day. He wasn’t a coordinator or anything like that, but his command would be sacrosanct to Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakur who coordinated and organized thousands of disciples.

From the above example we can see that being a leader is not all about organizing, coordinating and administrative work. Needless to say, those who are vaisnavas are above all other designations. If a sannyasa or brahmana is a leader of the various orders of life, this role is fulfilled more by exemplary behavior, giving wise counsel, advising, teaching and so on.

When the sannyasa and brahminically minded devotees engage in affairs of management more suited for a ksatriya administrative type, even though vaisnavas can bypass the varna and asrama roles, it does not bode well for any prospect of implementing varnasrama-dharma within Iskcon. We either stick with what we are doing now, or forget about varnasrama talk for a couple more decades.

It usually happens if someone excels in a particular service, they become party leaders or departmental heads. Then we get some individuals who are competent or educated, will also be given a chance to manage. Then the vexing question must arise, does the position being held equal the spiritual advancement of the devotee? We can turn the question around and ask, does one have the spiritual qualifications for a certain managerial or important position?

The questions are raised because in many cases there seems to be a fixation on awarding outward results with responsibility, as opposed to apparent meager results shown by more inward brahminical devotees. Yet both types are leadership material in their own rights. Then we could have a scenario where a less spiritually qualified person is dictating to a more spiritually qualified devotee under his care, which has happened before.

So really there are two types of leaders under discussion, and they are not always being occupied in the right places. The GBC can be likened to a collective king or monarchy, but we do not have an advisory council for this body. Do we need one?

Not too long ago there were times when Srila Prabhupada countered and overruled certain policies endorsed by the then GBC. Was he not playing the sagely advisory role then, even though it was his solemn right to do so? In other words, the sannyasis and brahminical devotees who are presently managing the GBC affairs which could be done by trained sober ksatriya devotees can find their rightful place in an advisory council for the GBC.

This is not to say the GBC loses its power. It still retains the ultimate managerial authority. In politics the general politicians run the country. But they do not decide on every single bit of legislation that passes before them. The important ones are passed on to the upper chamber, or upper house (House of Lords) for the wise experienced men to deliberate and pass judgment. It goes back to parliament, or in Iskcon’s case, the GBC, where it is passed into law or whatever. By the way, this British system has endured for centuries, so something must be right.

Such a system in Iskcon will provide equitable employment for the brahmanas and sannyasis in the upper house of the advisory sagely committee, and the naturally gifted ksatriya devotees to run the GBC. Should this ever happen it will kick start the implementation of varnasrama-dharma at it would have started from the top.

There has been talk of a leadership academy to help train future leaders in Iskcon. While nothing can compensate for real ‘tread of the mill’ training learnt through the local temples with a little outside ‘pundit’ management know-how, nothing can beat following the core principles set by Srila Prabhupada. We want the right devotees to be in the right places.

If any insinuation of exclusivity is attached to the academy it will brew resentment and other unwanted feelings. In the military and corporate world the officers and management have their own canteens, bathrooms and other amenities separate from the gentry. We cannot emulate their ways.

While doing service in management, if it is taxing enough to interfere with basic hearing and chanting, we cannot always plead for Srila Prabhupada’s example of managing Iskcon and doing many other things too. He was after all a self realized soul. For him, managing or living in a grass hut were the same, his equilibrium stayed intact. For a Sadhaka busily engaged in management while trying to be self-realized, can be a slower way if the basics are compromised.

The devotees within Iskcon try to develop humility and glorify other devotees. This very liberal behavior can empower a leader among us who must have his senses under control. The humility of the devotees can cause a leader to abuse his position. It should go without saying that choosing the right devotees for leadership positions is a serious duty.

The ideal blend of being together and organized, and spiritually serious should put one up for candidature. It may be difficult to detect unwanted motivation in a leader until some unpleasant behavior is exposed. But then, if it comes to choosing between someone who wants to be a leader and someone who doesn’t, would it not be better to go for the reluctant leader?

Ys, Kesava Krsna dasa.

Source: http://m.dandavats.com/?p=18218