ISKCON Constitution

Live from his hideout deep behind the former Bamboo Curtain, David Jorm riffs on life in China and the re-introduction of varnasrama social organisation in a modern context.

David Jorm on China and Varnasrama (ogg, 5 MB)

It's not often that the ISKCON GBC and Srila B.V. Narayana Maharaja agree, but they seem to see eye to eye on this issue.

Lack of retirement planning for leaders is a major problem in ISKCON.

It's all good to say: "Leaders and officials in ISKCON should all be volunteers!"

However, in practice, what will happen is that people will give large sections of their life to ISKCON, and not receive a pension or contribution to a retirement fund in return. Two things result from this:

1. These officials have no support in place for their old age. This may lead them to give up their service for something more economically feasible, to divert funds illegally for themselves, or to just end up on skid row.
2. Being in the position guarantees them at least a place to live and some facility and security, so they'll hang on to it as long as they can. This means that new blood doesn't come through the organization.

Personally I am going to pay my staff market or slightly below market rates, just like American Protestant churches such as New Spring and Northpoint do.

My thought this morning:

Preachers should be compassionate. Administrators should be just.

When mercy replaces justice in a land, the people are left unprotected by the rule of law.

One of the great things about our modern political systems is that they are based on the idea that everyone should be protected by the rule of impartial law. There are no favorites, no elites who can act with impunity.

Of course the real deviates from the ideal in a number of cases, such as police violence, or political corruption, but these are recognized as deviations from the system, not part of it. Police are prosecuted, politicians jailed. No-one is above the law. We no longer have as a given "the divine right of Kings" - the idea that the King (or someone) is above the law, that the King makes the law, rather than that the law makes the King.

That system lead to many abuses of power, and continues to lead to abuse of power whenever it is implemented in an organization, whether it's a country or a cult.

When we suspend the fair and impartial rule of law, whether it's in the name of mercy, favoritism, or corruption, we remove this protection from the society and it's back to the bad old days of "it's all about who you know".

So by all means preachers, be merciful. But if you play the role of an administrator, be just. That is mercy.

Back in the day, shortly after Srila Prabhupada left this world, when the GBC found out that Jayatirtha Swami was taking LSD they went to Srila B.R. Sridhara Maharaja. Srila Sridhara Maharaja told them: "This is your first test, your first decision, your first pronouncement. People will judge the tenure of your administration based on this decision. Will your administration be characterized by justice or mercy? That you must decide."

The GBC decided on "mercy", and rather than applying an impartial and just measure they opted to cover up what was happening and try to restore Jayatirtha. The result was a disaster, and the reverberations of that decision are being felt even now.

Perhaps the GBC members were thinking: "What if that were me? What would I like to receive? Justice or mercy? Of course I'd like the mercy, so I'll give that."

Whether they were thinking that or not, this interpretation is inevitable.

When we look at advanced devotees such as Pariksit Maharaja, however, we see something else. When he was cursed to die he accepted this as his destiny. Due to his karma he had become implicated in the situation, and to get out of his karma he had to surrender to the Lord, not try to fight his way out.

Administrators administer justice for the purification of the individual and the protection of the social body. As an administrator as you do that you accept that in the same position, having performed the same actions you deserve and must receive the same treatment.

One of the big problems in ISKCON is that as a society it is not run on the impartial rule of law applied justly across the board. Its management structures are more akin to feudalism or tribalism.

Recently I've been discussing the role of the GBC (as both a global body and a local managerial person) with a friend. He expressed to me that it depends on the person in the position.

That's backwards. The person should perform the duties of the position, the duties of the position should not match the person. It is not a hereditary position where you're stuck with whoever you get, or a reward for long service where it gets given to anyone who sticks around long enough to get it.

At least not if it's meant to be a serious organization.

What do you think? Am I out of it, or on to something?

In the different yugas different conditions prevail.

In Satya yuga, the "age of truth", conditions are such that the balance of power lies with the brahmanas. Everyone is a paramhamsa in this age and there is no varnashram, so everyone is a brahmana. In this age the process of self-realization is meditation.

In Dvapara-yuga, the "second age", which usually follows Satya-yuga, the process of self-realization is Deity Worship. In this age the balance of power lies with the Ksatriyas.

In Treta-yuga, the "third age", the process of self-realization is Vedic sacrifices. The balance of power lies with the vaisyas.

In Kali-yuga, the "age of dissent", the process of self-realization is congregational chanting of the Holy Name and the balance of power lies with the "common assistants", as Srila Prabhupada refers to them in ISKCON's 1966 Constitution (clause N.1).

The "wisdom of the crowd" (the community) produced more analysis of Resolution 311 in one week than the GBC produced at all. It also correctly predicted the outcomes of the Resolution.

There is a powerful lesson in this.

ISKCON's GBC practically has no budget. However, they have potentially at their disposal a human resource that a multi-million dollar organization could never afford.

If they can figure out how to engage with it.

The inevitable happened and Resolution 311 died on the delivery table.

Resolution 311 was an ISKCON GBC resolution that recommended that the BBT annotate Srila Prabhupada's as a strategy to deal with two issues facing ISKCON today: weak preaching and outreach, and internal cultural issues.

H.H. Jayadavaita Swami released an official statement from the BBT on his blog.

The statement is credible. It's got sound logic and shows evidence of a process of investigation and consideration behind it. It acknowledges the drivers behind the GBC's recommendation, but then rebuffs their proposed solution as inappropriate and "unwise".

The statement is actually a chastisement of the GBC. The Resolution should never have been made. As I pointed out in several places, aside from being unwise and inappropriate, it was an obvious suicide charge from the word go - a last desperate move by an encircled and confused body.

The obvious questions now are:

• How was such a doomed resolution ever made and published?
• Why were the implications of making this resolution (the public backlash, the disconnect from and division of the society's membership, and the loss of leadership credibility of the GBC) not analyzed and identified ahead of time?
• Now that this resolution has failed to address the internal and external issues that ISKCON is facing, how is the GBC going to respond without making another monumental misstep?
• How is the GBC going to address its leadership capability deficit?
• How is the GBC going to address its loss of leadership credibility pursuant to Resolution 311?

Making a mistake as a leader or a leadership body does not have to be a negative thing. It can be turned into a positive event, if you learn from those mistakes.

Sincere followers are not unforgiving. They do not expect invulnerable and perfect leaders. If they are treated as partners on a common mission then they appreciate commitment to the common mission and an obvious (and effective) effort to increase in service to that mission.

Within the last year I went through a leadership test of my own. By a combination of factors I made a misstep. As a result there was a disconnect with the people I lead, and a loss of confidence, similar to the situation with Resolution 311.

Coming out of this involved sitting down in a face-to-face meeting with the people I lead and addressing the situation. People want to know that you understand how the mistake was made, and that adjustments have been effected to avoid falling into the same trap again. Leadership, and life, is a learning experience. People need to have confidence to follow you.

Here is what I would do if I were on the GBC:

Form an independent commission headed by H.H. Jayadvaita Swami (who just won the confidence of everyone who was concerned about this resolution) to investigate the process that gave rise to Resolution 311, and to give recommendations about how this debacle could have been avoided, and similar debacles can be avoided in the future.

Adopting this approach is actually the first step to a mode of operation that would have avoided the whole thing in the first place.

I believe that what we are seeing here is something that I see throughout ISKCON's management model: a lack of asking for advice from independent observers and analysts.

ISKCON is filled with potential advisors who don't have managerial posts, but it seems that managerial rank is a prerequisite to taking part in the decision-making processes. This effectively robs the GBC of the majority of the brain power of the organization.

Without going through an public post-mortem process the GBC cannot restore leadership credibility before going on to actually address the issues that Resolution 311 sought to address, and remain pressing in the current leadership vaccuum.

Credibility is one thing, capability is another. The 311 Commission is not just a PR exercise. Broken processes leading to bad decision-making have to be fixed. Whether you supported Resolution 311 or not, the BBT's rebuff of Resolution 311 is a concrete demonstration that the GBC is confused and weak.

To convoke such a commission would take strong leadership and accountability, two things that are currently missing at the GBC level. Continuing to hide behind committees and the anonymity of "the GBC" provides excellent cover for no-one to own the responsibility for the Resolution 311 debacle, and for ISKCON's "supreme managerial body" to continue with the same dysfunctional dynamic of decision-making.

"Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me."

The GBC just let everyone down, supporters and opponents of Resolution 311 alike. As the saying has it: "I lost my caste, and I'm still hungry." The GBC alienated half of the society and effectively did it for nothing for the other half.

Seriously, what are you going to do about this? You (who is going to own this?) need to publicly learn from this misstep. You need to apologize to the people you lead and really make the change.

Continuing with the same processes, however, guarantees the rise of other more effective organizations in ISKCON, and in the absence of a clear, credible leadership institution these organizations will include extremist ones. (There is my next projection for you - really it's elementary).

The balance of power has been leaking out of the GBC steadily for some time now. Resolution 311 will go down in history as either the turning point, or the tipping point.

You heard it here first.

The Spider represents a centralized organization. It may have many limbs, but cut off the head and it's a deathblow.

A Starfish, on the other hand, typifies a decentralized organization. "Its center is everywhere and its circumference is nowhere". Cut a starfish into pieces and it will grow into many more starfish.

If you are a centralized organization facing off against a decentralized organization there are three winning strategies you can adopt, according to Ori Brafman and Rod A. Beckstrom, authors of "The Starfish and the Spider: The Unstoppable Power of Leaderless Organizations":

• Decentralize yourself
• Force your opponent to centralize
• Attack the ideology of the opposing organization

The worst thing that you can do is consolidate and increase your own centralization.

An example of the first strategy in action ("Decentralize yourself") is the increasing use of special forces to combat decentralized military organizations. Their effectiveness is uncontestable. During the Rhodesian Bush War of 1970-1980 the Selous Scouts, an special forces unit that used the same decentralized organization and tactics as the insurgents, was responsible for inflicting more than 60% of enemy casualties inside the borders of Rhodesia.

The increasingly decentralized nature of conflict in the modern world is also uncontestable. As one Navy SEAL said in the video Prahlad showed me last night: "What's changed? We used to fight behind enemy lines. Now there are no lines."

Given the evolving constitution of ISKCON, and its increasingly decentralized nature, one of the best things that the GBC can do to retain and increase its influence in the long term is to also increase its decentralization. H.H. Sivarama Swami has consciously or intuitively grasped the importance of this dynamic. Rather than speaking only with a single voice, the members need to speak with many different and diverse voices. There can be difference on details, but on the essential issues there will be concordance. This will be powerful.

In areas that are unclear there can be an ongoing conversation, rather than the appearance of an official policy and a unified position which is actually undermined when GBC members interact individually with members of ISKCON.

The "threat of uncertainty" is especially hard for a centralized organization. A centralized organization is defined by its position. If it doesn't have a position on something, if the members don't agree, it's almost like the organization doesn't really exist, or at the very least its legitimacy and credibility are undermined. A decentralized organization, on the other hand, is defined by its processes. Uncertainty and lack of agreement do not threaten the identity of the organization. Chaos, complexity, and uncertainty are all accommodated in an ongoing dialog.

The Vedic civilization is a decentralized one and the dynamics of the Vedic culture are the processes of a decentralized organization. Loose coupling takes place at all levels. Although monarchy might appear to be centralization, the dynamic of decentralization is there: autonomous Kingdoms are loosely coupled into Empires. The same dynamic extends all the way down to individual life.

It is for this reason that the Vedic civilization is able to sustain such a wide diversity of lifestyle and religious practice within it.

Coming to grips with this dynamic will give the Governing Body significant influence in the evolving International Society for Krishna Consciousness.

Otherwise, an underfunded and overstretched centralized bureaucracy is going to increasingly find itself outflanked and enveloped by a more nimble, loosely-coupled and decentralized "organization" that spontaneously forms around issues, and then melts away again into the mist of the night.

H.H. Bhakti Caru Swami recently had a heart attack. Afterwards he underwent a change in direction. The focus of his preaching has shifted and he is speaking more openly about the broader issues of constitutional evolution of ISKCON, rather than sticking to the narrower party line of maintaining existing systems.

• Businesses for Krishna: "Until we are ready to engage qualified devotees according their ability, it is better that they work outside and gather experience."
• Role of Women: What man can do today women can also do that quite easily. And in some cases they can do it even better. That is why it has become natural that women are doing what a man is meant to do. And that is why in today’s world, women are striding side by side with men. My point is that we have to go along with the time, the trend, the way the things are in today’s world. That is why if sometimes women are able to do something we have to give them that facility. It is not that because you are a woman you have to stay at home. Many women will stay at home and will be happy doing that, but there will be many others who will want to go out and do things. So those who have that urge, the facilities and opportunities should be given to them.
• Role of Women: Ultimately what is Krishna consciousness? Krishna consciousness is providing you the facility to do whatever you like to do for Krishna. The ksatriyas are warriors who like to fight-so Krishna says, “OK, fight for Me.” The businessmen like to do business-the leaders of society say, “OK, do it for Krishna.” So Krishna consciousness is for everyone. When you create that facility then everyone will be engaged in Krishna consciousness. We simply have to provide that opportunity and facility for them to do whatever they are doing for Krishna’s pleasure. That is the purpose of varnashrama, daiva varnasrama. Whatever you like to do, according to your nature, do it for Krishna.
• How to Help Achieve Vision: Ultimately it is not just helping me, it is helping the entire society and entire world. We are just giving guidelines–this is what needs to be done. And when one understands the necessity and acts accordingly, that is how the help will come. That will be the help. To get something done, we need basically two things-men and money...Those who are coming to serve Krishna, they are not there to somehow just complete the job and make the money for themselves. They are working harder than anyone else should because of their sake of their love for Krishna. So that is how he is helping. Different devotees are coming forth and helping.
• Q&A April 2008 Today’s youth are not searching for a positive alternative. Rather they are trying to find a place in the society. The goal of their life is not to renounce everything in search for spiritual life, rather their goal of life is to achieve success by accumulating wealth and power. Therefore in order to attract them there is a need to set up establishments where they can be effectively engaged.

This is "I've just realized that I could leave at any moment and I no longer care about what other people think, or about keeping this under my control. It has to grow and evolve" talk.

Very refreshing.

Here is a page from a contemporary edition of the Talmud, a central Jewish scripture.

In the center is the Babylonian Gemara, the core of the text. Surrounding it are various commentaries, such as the Rushmie and the Tosafat.

These are commentaries written by rabbis, which over time have become an integral part of the tradition. As my Hebrew sastric advisor explained it to me, over time these commentaries would always be on the bookshelf and the table when the Talmud was being read and studied, so it become logical to integrate them into the same book.

The process by which a commentary is elevated to canonical status is one of meritocracy - by being absorbed into the tradition through universal use and acceptance by the community. This is in contrast to the evolution of the Christian Bible, with its executive insertions and deletions by synodic councils.

Visit the original source page of this image for more information on the layout and the commentaries that have been incorporated over time.

Personally I feel that an organic integration of a credited commentary that starts out as a standalone and is accepted over time is a healthier dynamic for us to follow, rather than the politicized scriptural process adopted by the Christian church.

Such an organic dynamic will help keep our community together, and will also dampen unhealthy excesses.