Pariprashnena — Q&A Archive

Another translation (by Ramanand Prasad) of this verse: 3.35 Ones inferior natural work is better than superior unnatural work. Death in carrying out ones natural work is useful. Unnatural work produces too much stress.

I other words, it is better to do lower work (like being a sudra) which is natural for you than attempt to perform higher work (like being a brahmana) which is not natural for you.

from the same translation: 18.47 Ones inferior natural work is better than superior unnatural work. One who does the work ordained by ones inherent nature (without selfish motives) incurs no sin (or Karmic reaction).

Most Gita translations I have encountered translate these two verses along that line of reasoning.

Hare Krishna,

Baladev Vidybhushana makes this point in his purports to both 3.35 and 18.47: (paraphrased) One should not execute their dharma beyond the sanction of the Vedas. If you do, you are transgressing the instructions of scripture and therefore incur sin.

Sridhar Swami makes the same point: The duty of another is fraught with fear for oneself for, being prohibited, it leads to hell. (purport 3.35) And conversely, Doing duty ordained by ones own nature, one occurs no sin. (purport 18.47)

Visvanatha Cakravati Thakur refers the reader to the Srimad Bhagavatam 7.15.12 which lists following anothers dharmic principles as one of the branches of adharma.

So my understanding is that the issue is not to do with who can do the job better but, as always, its about following scriptural injunctions. The bottom line is that it is a sin to do prescribed duties other than your own because the scriptures dont allow it. As Srila Prabhupada says in his purport to 3.35 "...the principle of following the authorized direction is always good for the performer."

However, there are two situations mentioned in the Vedas by which one can perform work outside of your prescribed duty without incurring sin:
1. Exceptional circumstances. (Described in detail by Mahapita Bhishmadev in the Mahabharata.)
2. When one is situated in pure unalloyed devotional service. (See Gita 3.18)

You write that "it seems although one could do it better, his duty is to mind his own business, and leave others to do theirs, no matter how bad it goes." I think this is an an unfounded misconception. If someone is actually better at a type of work which is also their prescribed duty, it is impersonal and neglectful if they sit back and wait until they get a chance to show their ability. To perform prescribed duties means to get up and do that thing you are good at, not wait for some time in the uncertain future. For example, you mention the kshatriya...a kshatriya doesnt wait for someone to give him the chance to show his strength, administrative skill and ability to lead and protect, he just shows it. He doesnt need or wait for permission to do this as it is simply a natural expression of his activities. And if he doesnt show his ability, even though he has the power to, he is considered to have neglected his prescribed duties and has accepted anothers occupation, which as 3.35 and 18.47 tell us, is sinful and does not lead to liberation. So I think both the types of people you mention are impersonal and neglectecful - both the one who is acting in a higher position than qualified for, and the one who is not acting despite having the qaulification.

[quote][cite] deena:[/cite]Hare Krishna,

....a kshatriya doesnt wait for someone to give him the chance to show his strength, administrative skill and ability to lead and protect, he just shows it. He doesnt need or wait for permission to do this ...[/quote]

What about following a chain of command as part of a ksatriyas duty? Why did Bhima not smash Duryodhana when Draupadi was being insulted? Or, considering a brahminical activity, why does a knowledgable junior devotee defer to a senior devotee who is present when a question is asked? A similar question can be raised about why an advanced disciple does not give initiation in the presence of his guru. Each of these examples seems to be a situation where a qualified person restrains himself from doing a duty that he is capable of doing, due to deference to a person in a superior position.[br /] [br /]

Its interesting that this question came up just a few hours after Krishna Kirti Prabhu posted a blog entery on the same subject ( http://www.siddhanta.com/index.php?q=node/65 ). I wonder if theres some connection.

Yes, Pandu, this question is connected to what Krsna Kirti posted on his blog. But I had this question hounting me for quite some years, and Im really thakfull to Krsna Kirti that his points triggered it to surface again.

Krsna Kirti writes his points in connection to women in varnasrama. His point is that although woman may be qualified to do the job of men, they should restrain themselves nevertheless, and remain with duties prescribed to them by varnasrama.

I like his explanation, but am trying to extrapolate it to men as well. Why just restrain woman, children and so on, but men can do all nonsense they like. I thought that if we expose men to responsibilities of svadharma nd svabhava, then it may put our expectations regarding women in better perspective.

So, as per examples given by Pandu, and by quotes in Bhagavad Gita, it seems quite clear, that cultured man will restrain himself in areas which are outside the scope of his duties. Now, this leads to some interesting conclusions.

Just as disciple will not initiate while his guru is still present, and woman will not try to accept positions which are meant for men, similarly devotee is expected to be silent, when he sees some lacking in ISKCON society. For example, temple president may be doing something wrong, but one should not attempt to take over his duties, even if one would perform better, but rather one must perform his own duties, although there may be faults in that.

Such logic is maindblowing for me. What if there is child abuse... in ISKCON, CPO deals with that. So after they give their whatever judgement, it should be followed, and nobody should think that it should have been done differently. Or if BBT decides to change Srila Prabhupadas books, that is their prescribed duty, and we should do our own duties. Or in case of building TVP, if those whos duty is to raise some money and design TVP came with some decision, we should not attempt to contradict that, even if we would be able to make better TVP. And so on, I could make some nice GBC examples, but I think you get the point.

If somebody is appointed for duty, then even if we think we would do it better, still we should stick to our own little faulty business. That would explain many things in vedic culture, and even nowadays in India and other traditional cultures. Of course, nowadays, such things are being misused to exploit others. But putting exploitation aside, does it make sense to just go with the flow, do what you consider your duty, and let others do what they consider their duty?

[quote][cite] deena:[/cite]You write that "it seems although one could do it better, his duty is to mind his own business, and leave others to do theirs, no matter how bad it goes." I think this is an an unfounded misconception. If someone is actually better at a type of work which is also their prescribed duty, it is impersonal and neglectful if they sit back and wait until they get a chance to show their ability. To perform prescribed duties means to get up and do that thing you are good at, not wait for some time in the uncertain future. ....[/quote]

But what if that work is not your perscribed duty. Like, being GBC, or TP, or BBT Trustee is clearly quite exclusive perscribed duty, and only those who are selected have that duty. So nobody else can have a say, without being seen as fault-finder? It seems to me so.

For example, this also gives all empowerment to Ambarisa prabhu and his TVP design, as you say, to "get up and do that thing you are good at, not wait for some time in the uncertain future".

Somehow it doesnt fit together....

If you read the verses immediately preceding 3.35 the sense becomes more clear. Krsna is telling Arjuna to engage in his particular dharma despite its faults (like killing relatives) and not renounce violence like a brahmana mendicant (whose dharmaappears to be without fault). Krsna is saying that death while doing his proper dharma is safe (no sin for executing his own dharma) while if he dies pretending to be somebody else is risky.

Reading Gita we have to always remember it is a conversation between Krsna and Arjuna, not an abstract philosophical dissertation.

Kula-pavana: Im trying to find connection between autocratic GBC leadership and Krsnas instructions. Im trying to explore idea, that whatever is happening is ISKCON, is exactly what Krsna wants.

Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakura said: "The world stands in no need of any reformer. The world has a very competent person for guiding its minutest happenings. The person who finds that there is scope for reform of the world, himself stands in need of reform. The world goes on its own perfect way. No person can deflect it but the breadth of a hair from the course chalked out for it by providence."

This is clear for the area of social and political reforms, like what Gandhi attempted. But, what if it is valid also for reforms within vaisnavism? Im observing efforts of numerous devotees, over many years, to change things in ISKCON, but it just doesnt happen. So Im thinking maybe things are exactly as they are supposed to be, because "world stands in no need of any reformer", and "It is far better to discharge ones prescribed duties, even though faultily, than anothers duties perfectly".

Clearly Krsna is trying to convince Arjuna to fight, and fighting was a thing to do for Krsna. Arjuna is called parantapa, because he was able to give trouble to the enemies, cause great suffering to the enemies. Parantapa means one who gives trouble to the enemies. But, it was his prescribed duty.

What about all those in ISKCON, who are fighting against nonsense in ISKCON? Is this their prescribed duty? Maybe not? Like the other day some devotees asked on Pariprashnena, how to deal with corrupted leaders, throwing devotees out of temple, or keeping in temple drug addicts...

Like me, for example. I know I try to fight against some ISKCON nonsense. But analyzing my prescribed duties, Im family man, so I need to take care of my family, wife and kids. I also need to invite guests and help with preaching. Maybe a few duties more. But no fighting against nonsense is prescribed for me.

And my varna, well, I may hammer nails and stuff, dig holes in the garden, so I may be sudra by nature. I may be having my business for maintenance, so Im like vaisya by nature. And present me with some nonsense, and I will fight trying to protect others, so Im like ksatriya by nature. And I will study and teach sastra, make yajnas, worship deities, so Im like brahmana by nature. But Im really none of above exclusively, it is a nice mixture, so typical kali-yuga sudra describes me just nice. So where do I fit in the fighting against nonsense in ISKCON, exposing wrongdoers, corrupted TPs and drug addicts in temple?

Also we see in example of TVP discussion, how Tattvavit Prabhu is sweeped away by statements like: "Let HG Ambarish prabhu continue with the momentum for the current design. It is time to stop the politics from devotees that can'92t raise that kind of laksmi, nor project manage on this scale'85". Clearly his raising questions regarding TVP design is seen as "making politics", possibly "fault finding" and "criticizing". Why? Because it is not his prescribed duty to poke his nose into TVP temple design. Nobody asked him to do so. He is messing with others business. They say, he should be silent, because he "can'92t raise that kind of laksmi, nor project manage on this scale". Now, seeing the matter through "It is far better to discharge ones prescribed duties, even though faultily, than anothers duties perfectly.", they may be right to discredit him like this. And "The world stands in no need of any reformer." confirms the same - mind your own business, do your own duty, and leave others to do their duty, even if all are useless, still Krsna is in control of everything.

I cannot help but returning to this same apathetic conclusion, because it explains everything that is happening in ISKCON leadership, and explains why "they" are allowed to come up with any nonsense, and "we" are expected to follow, cooperate and obey, or hit the highway.

Krishna had no need for Arjuna to kill his opponents at the Battle of Kuruksetra, yet He wanted Arjuna to do it. Otherwise Arjuna could have gone away and Krishna could have killed everyone through the other soldiers or by the forces of nature or by His own hand or by blinking or simply by His slight desire. The whole point of Bhagavad-gita is to teach us, through Arjuna, the importance of devotional service.

By serving Krishna, His devotees are glorified, which in turn pleases Krishna. If ISKCON leaders do not conduct ISKCON in a way that would be pleasing to Srila Prabhupada, it gives Srila Prabhupada a bad name, the opposite of glorification, and thus displeases Krishna. Being a devotee means endeavoring to please Krishna; so therefore if we want to be devotees it is our responsibility to do what we can to make sure that ISKCON glorifies Krishna and Srila Prabhupada, not simply by our words but more importantly by our activities. Krishna can do all this Himself, quite easily, and in one sense whatever He wants done is already done by Him, but He wants us to do it because it raises us up to the transcendental platform of devotional service.

[quote][cite] Giri-nayaka das: But what if that work is not your perscribed duty. Like, being GBC, or TP, or BBT Trustee is clearly quite exclusive perscribed duty, and only those who are selected have that duty. So nobody else can have a say, without being seen as fault-finder? It seems to me so. For example, this also gives all empowerment to Ambarisa prabhu and his TVP design, as you say, to "get up and do that thing you are good at, not wait for some time in the uncertain future".
Somehow it doesnt fit together....[/quote]

Prabhu, one point you keep repeating is this question of "Nobody else can have a say as it is not their duty." Considering things carefully, you will find that in many cases it is your duty to say something when you see it. (Of course, it is a science on how to go about doing that.) This is also sanctioned by scripture. If you see a fire in a forest, should you not attempt to put it out? Of course. Is there any example of someone who has been considered sinful for protesting injustice? Not one. On the other hand, is their anyone in history who has been persecuted for protesting injustice? Billions.

In terms of the GBC, or TP, or BBT Trustee you mention, they have been invested with an organisational power and it is their right and responsibility to use it. They can take advice from others as they see fit. Their actions may or may not be agreeable to you and it is reasonable for you to approach them if you see a problem with something that is going on. But even though it can be your duty to speak up, you cannot expect that people will act on it, even if you are right. There is a nice verse that encompasses this attitude: "karmany evadhikaras te ma phalesu kadacana, ma karma-phala-hetur bhur ma te sango '92stv akarmani, "You have a right to perform your prescribed duty, but you are not entitled to the fruits of action. Never consider yourself the cause of the results of your activities, and never be attached to not doing your duty." (Gita 2.47)

The decision of how far you want to take a particular issue should be made in consultation with scripture, respected others, your own intelligence and take into consideration your own capabilities and level of influence on the situation, the parties involved, and the short and long term consequences of acting and not acting.

If you have no power within an organisational structure, and those who do have power within the structure have already made their minds up about a certain course of action, words and advice will not do anything. Take the example of Tattva-vit. He does not have any organisational power so ultimately his advice and speaking up may or may not be listend to depending on how those who hold the power decide. Tattav-vit has also accepted this.

Keep in mind we are dealing with organisational structures and positions that does not neccessarily involve spiritual qualifications. It involves politics which means that morality and ethics are often put aside in order to ensure the achievement of personal and organisational goals. In such an environment, friends can appear as enemies and vica-versa.

[quote][cite] Pandu das:[/cite][quote][cite] deena:[/cite]Hare Krishna,

....a kshatriya doesnt wait for someone to give him the chance to show his strength, administrative skill and ability to lead and protect, he just shows it. He doesnt need or wait for permission to do this ...[/quote]

What about following a chain of command as part of a ksatriyas duty? Why did Bhima not smash Duryodhana when Draupadi was being insulted? Or, considering a brahminical activity, why does a knowledgable junior devotee defer to a senior devotee who is present when a question is asked? A similar question can be raised about why an advanced disciple does not give initiation in the presence of his guru. Each of these examples seems to be a situation where a qualified person restrains himself from doing a duty that he is capable of doing, due to deference to a person in a superior position.[br /] [br /][/quote]

Karna submitting himself to Duryodhana is another example of a superior warrior submitting himself.

Bhima, (and all the Pandavas) considered himself subordinate to Yudhishtira according to the custom based on age and did not save Draupadi even though he wanted to. They did not consider themselves permitted to act without Yudhishtiras permission, despite their personal opinion.

So the question comes again, why restrain oneself even though capable?

Deena, if I understand your points properly, you are saying the following: Go, protest injustice. You are capable of protesting, so it is your perscribed duty. You will surely not be seen as sinful. But nevertheless you will surely be persecuted for protesting injustice, like billions of others were persecuted in the past. But dont matter. It is you perscribed duty, and you have a right to do it. And if you are capable to protest, why restrain yourself. Do it!

Im not trying to put words in your mouth. Im just collecting impressions i got while reading your points.

Clearly, it makes sense what you are saying, it is logical. When you see a fire, you call for help. But, do you put on a firebrigade dress and sit on firebrigade car?

We are talking duty here, not abilities. Original premise of this thread is, that even if one is capable of doing something, one should restrain from that, if that action lies outside of scope of his duties.

You quated "karmany evadhikaras te ...", but that is again about perscribed duty, not ability.

If perscribed duty follows ability, then why above quotes, which reject ability, and instead focus on perscribed duty?

Personally, Im all for protesting. Ive been doing that extensively. But, after years of being reminded, that Im poking my nose into things that are not my concern, Im starting to think, that maybe protesting injustice is not something to be done. Im just trying to see things from another perspective. So this area of prescribed duty is interesting.

Clearly prescribed duties are valued above abilities. Could a reason be, so that we do not entangle ourselves unnecessary in this world? Like, one person can be quite capable to do so many things, but SHOULD HE do all those many things? Clearly not. The less you do socially, the more time you have for spiritual life.

From above quotes it seems to me, that one should forget about it all, just do your duty, spend as little time for it as possible, nevermind if is imperfectly done, and dont bother expanding your scope of duties. Let others so their duty, even imperfectly, and if you think you would do it better, forget about it, dont entangle yourself. If you do your own part, even imperfectly, then it is not sinful. Forget about the work of others, world is in no need of reformer, and it goes on perfectly by Krsnas arrangement, dont bother interfering. Just do your own duty, even keeping that on minimum you will be entangled enough. And to free yourself from that entanglement, you can do your duty, but forget about results of your action. Be a free man, and chant Hare Krsna all the time.

Deena, to tell you the truth, this last version seems much more inviting that the one I collected above from your presentation. Although you call for action (fight, Arjuna), it could be argued, that fighting was Arjunas prescribed duty, not ours.

Krsna didnt expect women to fight on Kuruksetra, "fight, o lady, it is your prescribed duty..." But here, on Pariprasnena, mataji was advised to fight, go public, make politics.... And although we know that she will be "persecuted for protesting", like everybody else before, still we adviced her to do so. Thats wrong. It is not her duty to fight, she should be allowed to be happy serving Krsna, her kids, husband, relatives, guests.... But, we push her on the battlefield, saying "yes, yes, go, go, it is you right, go and die!" This is our cowardness, and a proof ouf our uselessness. No wonder nobody is listening to us. :)

============
Pandu: By serving Krishna, His devotees are glorified, which in turn pleases Krishna. If ISKCON leaders do not conduct ISKCON in a way that would be pleasing to Srila Prabhupada, it gives Srila Prabhupada a bad name, the opposite of glorification, and thus displeases Krishna. Being a devotee means endeavoring to please Krishna; so therefore if we want to be devotees it is our responsibility to do what we can to make sure that ISKCON glorifies Krishna and Srila Prabhupada, not simply by our words but more importantly by our activities. Krishna can do all this Himself, quite easily, and in one sense whatever He wants done is already done by Him, but He wants us to do it because it raises us up to the transcendental platform of devotional service.
============

This is one view that you describe here, the one we usually follow, that ISKCON leaders are doing things wrong, giving bad name to Srila Prabhupada, displeasing Krsna, and it is our responsibility to do what we can to make sure that ISKCON glorifies Krishna and Srila Prabhupada.

OK. The usual strong statement of WE know about THEM. Now put your statement into perspective of: "It is better to engage in ones own occupation..." and "The world stands in no need of any reformer...."

You say: Krishna can do all this Himself, quite easily, and in one sense whatever He wants done is already done by Him, but He wants us to do it because it raises us up to the transcendental platform of devotional service.

This "He wants us ", this is quite an extrapolation. Krsna can do it all, clearly. But He wants US to do it? Hmmmm.... No, He wants his devotees to do it! And He arranges for his devotees to do the job. There is GBC, and entire leadership. Plenty of devotees to do the job, and "US" is not there. So, if Krsna, who can do everything, put Gauri in Gurukula, and Braja Bihari, or whoever, in charge of CPO and all big devotees on GBC, why would we think that it is up to "US" to do it better now?

Why is it "our responsibility to do what we can to make sure that ISKCON glorifies Krishna and Srila Prabhupada, not simply by our words but more importantly by our activities"? One could say this is responsibility of leadership to organize and maintain, they are devotees just fine, and it raises them up to transcendental platform of devotional service just fine.

We can protest, and we can be persecuted for that. We can go that way. But we need not. It is not our prescribed duty. We can be silent, and let the world go its own perfect way, under Krsnas control. We can be silent, and let ISKCON go its way, whatever it may be. And if even entire world "has a very competent person for guiding its minutest happenings", then one could even more say so for ISKCON.

So why bother poking our nose into areas, which are already well covered by other devotees? If you put your hand into fire, it burns, and natures lesson is clear "Dont put your arm in the fire, be carefull, avoid being too close for too long". Isnt constant persecution of those who tried to protest, a lesson enough, that this is not to be done? Better do your own duty, even imperfectly, and be happy?

Are we maybe trying to be special, and be able to walk on fire? And then convinvce everybody that walking on fire is good, unless youve done that, youve done nothing....?

Haribol Giri-nayaka,
First I want to say thanks for your approach to this dicsussion. We may or may not agree but I appreciate the opportunity to discuss these things.

I am saying, When you see a fire, go and put it out if you can. If you cant, go and tell someone who can. And if you cant do either of these, its better for you to save yourself and avoid the fire. I am not advising someone jump on a firebrigade car at the first sign of smoke.

As I wrote before, the decision of how far you want to take a particular issue should be made in consultation with scripture, respected others, your own intelligence and take into consideration your own capabilities and level of influence on the situation, the parties involved, and the short and long term consequences of acting and not acting. This is the only reasonable way as I see it because each situation is different with different considerations to take into account. Mahajana Bhismadev spends some time explaining in the Mahabharata how duties in any given situation are difficult to ascertain because depending on the circumstances, piety can sometimes be impeity, and impety can actually be peity. (See also Gita 4.16-17) One essential question could be, "Is it a Krishna conscious act?"

On the original premise of, even if one is capable of doing something, one should restrain from that if that action lies outside of scope of his duties, Bhaktivinode Thakur has written [praphrased] that a servant will never enter the Kings quarters and hes condemned if he does. But he will be glorified if he enters the Kings quarters for saving the life of the King. A servant who doesnt enter the Kings quarters when needed will be condemdned. In other words, there is a time and place for everything, and it requires discretion.

On your point about ability vs duty, I think that ability is intimately connected with prescribed duty. Is there any record of a person having a prescribed duty that is not within their natural ability? No. Rather, ones natural ability (guna and karma) determines the prescribed duty.

In terms of the Mataji, I would not advise her to fight. I wrote that she should first confirm what everyones position is and then decide what to do. I think this is a very reasonable proposal.

[quote][cite] Giri-nayaka das:[/cite]============

Why is it "our responsibility to do what we can to make sure that ISKCON glorifies Krishna and Srila Prabhupada, not simply by our words but more importantly by our activities"? One could say this is responsibility of leadership to organize and maintain, they are devotees just fine, and it raises them up to transcendental platform of devotional service just fine.
[/quote]
It is our responsibility to serve those whom we love, and we develop our love by service. If we love Srila Prabhupada and want to increase our love, we serve him. If we want to be devotees, we have to act as devotees. Thats all there is to it. Our activity will be according to our nature, chant only or chant and engage in other services. The challenge is that if you think you can only chant, then you had better chant entirely without offenses. Dont artificially renounce work.[br /][br /]

"Sraddha is confident, firm faith that by rendering transcendental loving service to Krsna one automatically performs all subsidiary activities. Such faith is favorable to the discharge of devotional service." (Cc. Madhya 22.62 http://vedabase.net/cc/madhya/22/en ) Such faith is ideal, but not to be imitated. "BG 3.5: Everyone is forced to act helplessly according to the qualities he has acquired from the modes of material nature; therefore no one can refrain from doing something, not even for a moment. BG 3.6: One who restrains the senses of action but whose mind dwells on sense objects certainly deludes himself and is called a pretender."[br /][br /]

[quote][cite] Giri-nayaka das:[/cite]We can protest, and we can be persecuted for that. We can go that way. But we need not. It is not our prescribed duty. We can be silent, and let the world go its own perfect way, under Krsnas control. We can be silent, and let ISKCON go its way, whatever it may be. And if even entire world "has a very competent person for guiding its minutest happenings", then one could even more say so for ISKCON. [/quote]

It is not Krishnas position to work. The work is done by His devotees. Devotional service is available to everyone. If we want to be Krishnas devotees, we just work for Him. If something needs to be done, and its not being done and you are capable, then do it. Try not to offend anyone, to the extent possible. Im not the best person to advise how to avoid offenses. 8^([br /][br /]

[quote][cite] Giri-nayaka das:[/cite]So why bother poking our nose into areas, which are already well covered by other devotees? If you put your hand into fire, it burns, and natures lesson is clear "Dont put your arm in the fire, be carefull, avoid being too close for too long". Isnt constant persecution of those who tried to protest, a lesson enough, that this is not to be done? Better do your own duty, even imperfectly, and be happy?
[/quote]

If something is already well covered, then of course leave it alone, or say, "Thank you for your very nice service." However, if there is some shortcoming, then you can help. A sincere devotee just wants the service to get done, not that it is necessarily done by him. If you see my child crossing the street into oncoming traffic, please protect her from harm. Its my duty, but if Im not watching, then please do it. If Im there and handling the situation, do not knock me over trying to be the hero.

[quote][cite] Giri-nayaka das:[/cite]Kula-pavana: Im trying to find connection between autocratic GBC leadership and Krsnas instructions. Im trying to explore idea, that whatever is happening is ISKCON, is exactly what Krsna wants.

Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakura said: "The world stands in no need of any reformer. The world has a very competent person for guiding its minutest happenings. The person who finds that there is scope for reform of the world, himself stands in need of reform. The world goes on its own perfect way. No person can deflect it but the breadth of a hair from the course chalked out for it by providence."
[/quote]

Does it mean that the efforts of BST to reform Gaudiya Vaishnavism were a waste of time? IMO not at all. We should do our duty and leave the rest to Krsna. If you believe that your duty is to get involved in something than by all means do it, but do not be discouraged if it seems like it was a waste of time. The autoctratic GBC was put in place by SP. He even made them GBCs for life. From the perspective of 30 years in Iskcon, IMO that was a mistake. But it is what we have now and we have to deal with it the best we can. My advice to all devotees is: ignore the GBC. Manage the temples locally and if the local GBC wants to manipulate things, just ignore him (or her). This is precisely the way some temples I know operate today and IT WORKS. They are in power because we let them have power over us.