Problems of succession
Social · asked by user [] · 2008-05-31 · 19 answers
Max Weber:
'93Perhaps the most critical test of a group'92s routinization is the way it handles the issue of succession. When the charismatic leader dies, the group may quickly disperse. However, many people have a vested interest in the survival of the group [They care about the mission, and they'92ve invested their time, energy, and money] and will seek to ensure its viability. But who will provide the group with leadership? And how will that decision be made?
'93The transfer of power to the next designated leader has important implications for the subsequent evolution of the group. First, the charisma which was once identified with a personality must be associated with the religious ideology and with the religious organization. The group, the body of beliefs, and perhaps a written record (scripture) become sources of veneration. The more stable source of authority in itself changes the character of the group. Second, a decision-making process [whatever it may be] must be sacralized as the divinely appointed method of choosing a successor. . . . In any event, the followers must recognize the new leader or leaders as the legitimate heir(s) to leadership. Otherwise, the group may be torn by schisms as various splinter groups identify different persons as the rightful leader.
'93The new leader or group of leaders is not likely to possess the same sort of unquestioned authority that was vested in the personhood of the original leader. Some of the awe and respect will have been transferred to the teachings and to the continuing organization itself. The rules and values of the group must be attributed with transcendent importance in and of themselves. Commitment is now to the organization and to the ideology of the movement, and the authority of the new leader(s) may be restrained by these stabilizing forces. No longer are the sayings of the leader taken as true simply because that person said them. They must be evaluated in the light of what the original leader said and did.'94
any comments?
'93Perhaps the most critical test of a group'92s routinization is the way it handles the issue of succession. When the charismatic leader dies, the group may quickly disperse. However, many people have a vested interest in the survival of the group [They care about the mission, and they'92ve invested their time, energy, and money] and will seek to ensure its viability. But who will provide the group with leadership? And how will that decision be made?
'93The transfer of power to the next designated leader has important implications for the subsequent evolution of the group. First, the charisma which was once identified with a personality must be associated with the religious ideology and with the religious organization. The group, the body of beliefs, and perhaps a written record (scripture) become sources of veneration. The more stable source of authority in itself changes the character of the group. Second, a decision-making process [whatever it may be] must be sacralized as the divinely appointed method of choosing a successor. . . . In any event, the followers must recognize the new leader or leaders as the legitimate heir(s) to leadership. Otherwise, the group may be torn by schisms as various splinter groups identify different persons as the rightful leader.
'93The new leader or group of leaders is not likely to possess the same sort of unquestioned authority that was vested in the personhood of the original leader. Some of the awe and respect will have been transferred to the teachings and to the continuing organization itself. The rules and values of the group must be attributed with transcendent importance in and of themselves. Commitment is now to the organization and to the ideology of the movement, and the authority of the new leader(s) may be restrained by these stabilizing forces. No longer are the sayings of the leader taken as true simply because that person said them. They must be evaluated in the light of what the original leader said and did.'94
any comments?
user [2] · 2008-06-02
Problem:The sum total of fallible (and respectable nonetheless) members of the GBC acts as an infallible body, even to the point nominating of sannyasis, gurus, temple presidents, etc etc
Solution:
GBC acting as per job description by Srila Prabhupada.
user [254] · 2008-06-02
"Solution:GBC acting as per job description by Srila Prabhupada."
Please describe the job description that Srila Prabhupada designed for the GBC. First one must understand what their job is before making an assessment of how well they are adhering to it whether individually or collectively.
user [2] · 2008-06-02
I posted separate question for that. Thank you, Swarup Prabhuhttp://www.pariprashnena.com/discussion/665/what-is-gbcs-job-description
user [265] · 2008-06-03
[quote][cite] mishra:[/cite]Problem:The sum total of fallible (and respectable nonetheless) members of the GBC acts as an infallible body, even to the point nominating of sannyasis, gurus, temple presidents, etc etc
Solution:
GBC acting as per job description by Srila Prabhupada.[/quote]
GBC took on the job Prabhupada had. Was he infallible in his nominations of sannyasis, gurus, temple presidents, etc? Hardly. More than 90% of his sannyasis fell down, as well as most gurus and temple presidents. Do not expect GBC to do much better.
user [2] · 2008-06-03
SP did not nominate gurus, nor temple presidents, neither was this his idea. He wanted that to happen naturally. In regard to sannyasis you take for granted that he started from zero null nada.Your trying to equate GBC judgment and management with SP'b4s is the most gross offense towards the pure devotee.
I see it is a recurrent theme in you Prabhu to blame SP for all the misgivings, blunders and disasters made by his disciples during His lila and after His passing. Take care.
user [265] · 2008-06-04
[quote][cite] mishra:[/cite]Your trying to equate GBC judgment and management with SP'b4s is the most gross offense towards the pure devotee.
I see it is a recurrent theme in you Prabhu to blame SP for all the misgivings, blunders and disasters made by his disciples during His lila and after His passing. [/quote]
I do not blame SP for the blunders of his disciples. Show me where I do that. What I was trying to point out above is that devotees use a double standard when it comes to evaluating Srila Prabhupada and evaluating others. I do not think much about the GBC as most of these guys do not know what they are doing and a lot of them are plain frauds. Neither Prabhupada nor the GBC shouldbe expected to be 100% successful in their nominations or other managerial decisions. The history proves that point. If you cant blame Prabhupada for the blunders of his disciples, why do you insist on blaming GBC for the blunders of people they appointed? Use the same criteria and the same rules for everybody - otherwise it is just old wives talk, however well inentioned.
user [2] · 2008-06-04
Double standard? yes, pure devotee and conditioned souls. For you seems all one. Interesting twist, Did you look lately, you claim to be part of Prabhupadas movement which he single handle built from zero. I do not cease to be amazed how some people dare to call them followers of SP. Truly amazed.If you do not understand what I am saying, what can I do?
user [265] · 2008-06-04
[quote][cite] mishra:[/cite]Double standard? yes, pure devotee and conditioned souls. For you seems all one. [/quote]We are talking about managerial standard, evaluating managerial decisions based on the visible and verifiable results. You seem to have one standard for evaluating managerial decisions of GBC (can do no right) and another for Prabhupada (can do no wrong), who himself established GBC the way it is now and gave it its powers.
You said:
-----------------------
Problem:
The sum total of fallible (and respectable nonetheless) members of the GBC acts as an infallible body, even to the point nominating of sannyasis, gurus, temple presidents, etc etc
Solution:
GBC acting as per job description by Srila Prabhupada.
----------------------------
Prabhupada was initially deciding who can get sannyasa, who can be a temple president (read his letters for proof), and who was to be a guru. Now that authority is in the hands of GBC, as per Srila Prabhupadas Last Will. Based on available records, this is the way he intended it to be.
user [2] · 2008-06-04
Blaming again and again Srila Prabhupada... Fools dare where angels do not.Prabhupada gave so much mercy to fallen souls and that cannot be equated to rajo guna management, philosophical deviation, etc etc by the GBC.
btw, show me one letter SP appoints temple president please, and even if one exists prove that that was his general practice.
user [265] · 2008-06-05
[quote][cite] mishra:[/cite]Blaming again and again Srila Prabhupada... [/quote]Where???
user [2] · 2008-06-05
[quote][cite] Kula-pavana:Was he infallible in his nominations of sannyasis, gurus, temple presidents, etc? Hardly. More than 90% of his sannyasis fell down, as well as most gurus and temple presidents. Do not expect GBC to do much better.[/quote]
Does that mean that you could do better under those circumstances? That is to criticize the pure devotee
[p]
Now show me ONE letter SP appoints temple president, please
user [265] · 2008-06-05
"Now, considering the European situation in a meeting between Myself, yourself and Bhagavan das, I think Madhavananda should become president of London and Prabhavisnu should become president of Amsterdam and you can arrange this." (Letter to Hansadutta, 12/31/74)happy now?
user [265] · 2008-06-05
"Yes, Srutakirti he is a good boy, so he can be made the President as you suggest." (Letter to Gurukrpa, 8/26/75)"Regarding Washington temple yes Brisakapi can be now recognized as the temple president." (Letter to Rupanuga, 9/25/75)
"Recently I visited Africa and I could see that the management was not going on properly. So now I have given Nava Yogendra sannyasa order and am sending him back to Africa. He will be the president of the Mombassa temple, so please help him to make our mission there very solid." (Letter to Mr. and Mrs. Bhatia, 11/23/75)
"Madhudvisa Swami has come here from Australia and as he is free I am sending him to New York. I have discussed with him how I want my rooms to be. As things have generally not been so well managed there I have asked him to be ad-hoc President of New York Temple until the coming GBC meeting." (Letter to Rupanuga, 1/23/76)
The deed for the property and temple should be made in favor of His Divine Grace A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada, founder-acharya of the International Society for Krishna Consciousness. It cannot be dedicated to any of the office bearers. So I suggest that you become the president of the temple and Upendra become the secretary, and either your brother or your wife can become treasurer. There is no need of trustees." (Letter to Vasudeva, 6/30/76)
you want more?
user [265] · 2008-06-05
[quote][cite] mishra:[/cite][quote][cite] Kula-pavana:Was he infallible in his nominations of sannyasis, gurus, temple presidents, etc? Hardly. More than 90% of his sannyasis fell down, as well as most gurus and temple presidents. Do not expect GBC to do much better.[/quote]
Does that mean that you could do better under those circumstances? That is to criticize the pure devotee
[/quote]
No, I could not do better. I am merely pointing out, that in both cases you are often dealing with things outside your control. This has nothing to do with criticizing a pure devotee. You see what you want to see.
user [2] · 2008-06-05
it is clear from the texts that SP merely approved not arbitrarily appointed Temple Presidents. So clear.And the scope of mistakes of the GBCs cannot be reduced to trivial "things outside your control".
Just take a look all this GBC 30 years: philosophical deviations, women children and cow abuse, etc etc, right under their noses, many times with complacence, just to get the movement "out of trouble" and "sterilized". You know that many leaders that participated in those blunders are still very influential. This management is what you compare to SP management and THAT, my friend is offense. Good luck.
user [265] · 2008-06-05
[quote][cite] mishra:[/cite]... the scope of mistakes of the GBCs cannot be reduced to trivial "things outside your control". Just take a look all this GBC 30 years: philosophical deviations, women children and cow abuse, etc etc, right under their noses, many times with complacence, just to get the movement "out of trouble" and "sterilized". You know that many leaders that participated in those blunders are still very influential. This management is what you compare to SP management and THAT, my friend is offense. Good luck.[/quote]
I agree that GBCs dismal record over the last 30 years goes far beyond things outside their control. Still, they are dealing with similar realities Prabhupada was dealing with.
And as to the charges of being an offender: I do not think Srila Prabhupadas management system was perfect, thats all. There were quite a few things that could have, and should have, been handled differently. That is my personal opinion. If you find that offensive, that is just too bad.
and you are completely deluding yourself by saying: "it is clear from the texts that SP merely approved not arbitrarily appointed Temple Presidents. So clear." You just dont know the facts and reject things that do not fit into your pet theory. There were many times when Srila Prabhupada did not follow his own DOM guidelines. He had a perfect right to do so, but we have no right to change historical facts in our myth-making.
user [2] · 2008-06-05
its funny... our conversation reminds me when I find buddhists or similar impersonalist on sankirtan. you cant have a conversation, cause they twist every argument ad infinitum... maybe just my mind :)user [265] · 2008-06-05
[quote][cite] mishra:[/cite]its funny... our conversation reminds me when I find buddhists or similar impersonalist on sankirtan. you cant have a conversation, cause they twist every argument ad infinitum... maybe just my mind :)[/quote]Prabhu, I actually respect you a lot. It is just that we see some things differently. We are all complex individuals. I have studied Iskcon history in some detail over the last 29 years and I have my own opinion on why and how we are where we are as a movement. Dandavat pranams...
user [265] · 2008-06-12
Sampradaya Sun is running a very good series of articles on DOM and its practical implementation (or lack thereof) during Prabhupadas timeshere is one of them: http://www.harekrsna.com/sun/editorials/06-08/editorials3030.htm
What emerges is a rather complex picture, very much along the lines I indicated above.