Parallel Lines of Authority – Novi Sad, Serbia – July 1, 2008

There has been some discussion of late about something called “parallel
lines of authority.” This refers to the two lines of authority that ISKCON
now finds itself with: gurus on one side and the GBC-Regional Secretary-TP
on the other side. Sometimes (often) these two sides give contradictory
advice/instructions to the regular devotees.

There are some on the GBC with strong opinions about this. In fact there is
even a GBC strategic subcommittee that meets regularly to talk about this
matter and how to resolve things nicely respecting the guru’s relationship
with the disciple but at the same time enacting some legislation that
“makes” the guru “toe the line,” if he wants to avoid some disciplinary
measure.

Frankly I find the whole discussion humorous and irrelevant, and have some
opinions of own about the matter (as I usually do!).

I was also asked about the controversy on the second day of my EC seminar in
Serbia. So, in order to really bring some detailed analysis into the
discussion I decided to devote part of yesterday’s seminar on Empathic
Communication (you can listen to it on my website under Empathic
Communication-Serbian seminar-day 3) to this conflict and use the conflict
to illustrate several different points about Empathic communication as well
as deal with the above subject matter.

We previously had some discussion on “domination cultures” in which people
do things because they “have to” do them and their motivation is generally
fear, guilt, desiring reward, or some other thing which disconnects them
from the joy of doing what they are doing. Authority, the use of authority
and the method of dealing with authority is discussed in this context.

The first thing I did was to define the conflict, and describe the
conflicting parties for the attendees at the seminar. On side (sounds like a
boxing match) is the GBC line of authority (GBC-TP). On the other side are
the gurus. I also stated that people like me were doing quite well as we
had both positions, so whatever was decided by the GBC really would not
affect us (except when we were out of “our” territories).

Then on a flip chart I drew two parallel lines from the two sides. I
described that what people were concerned about was more appropriately
described as diverging lines not parallel lines!

Then I dealt with the word “authority” which certainly has its negative
connotations. When I hear the word authority I immediately feel tense and
words such as boss, dictator, etc, come to mind. I do recognize this is
because of my basic need for autonomy (to be myself, make decisions for
myself). I shouldn’t blame the word for my feelings!

There is a need though to define what we mean by using the word “authority.”
Do we mean absolute boss? What do we mean? I felt the need to use a
substitute word for authority and also to define what the authority’s
attitude and service is or should be.

How did Prabhupada instruct the GBC line to act? How did Prabhupada instruct
the Guru’s to act? What are the responsibilities? What are the priorities?
What are the mentalities? What is the attitude that should be taken towards
subordinates.

Here is an interesting instruction Prabhupada gave to the GBC side;
“Krishna Consciousness Movement is for training men to be independently
thoughtful and competent in all types of departments of knowledge and
action, not for making bureaucracy. Once there is bureaucracy the whole
thing will be spoiled. There must be always individual striving and work and
responsibility, competitive spirit, not that one shall dominate and
distribute benefits to the others and they do nothing but beg from you and
you provide.” Letter to: Karandhara — Bombay 22 December, 1972

In another letter Srila Prabhupada states:
“Without being jolly, one cannot make any tangible progress in Krsna
Consciousness”

So, in my book to be independently thoughtful and jolly requires that we
meet all of our needs both spiritual and material. By needs I mean basic
needs, not the flickering desires that may enter into our minds.

As far as guru’s are concerned Prabhupada said that the guru should engage
the disciple in Krishna consciousness according to the disciple’s
psychophysical needs, which is basically the same thing as Prabhupada’s
instructions to the GBC line of authority.

So, in other words both lines are encouraged to be facilitators of the
devotees spiritual progress (keeping in mind their physical and
psychological needs too).

What does this mean practically? That the first priority of all ISKCON
persons in authority positions should be to see to the care of those who
have taken shelter of them. Consideration of projects, buildings, money,
etc, should all come after the caring facilitation and always be in line
(never opposed) to the caring empathy.

The greatest assets of our society are the people. We often wonder why
ISKCON seems to have a revolving door in which most of the people who come
in end up leaving sometime later. Here is the answer. The priorities of
those in responsible positions were often misplaced.

When we accept the paradigms that Srila Prabhupada intended for us to have
in relation to gurus and other leaders, we will see that if each is
following their respective defined rolls, there will be little room for
disagreements about guidance and if some disagreement arises it can easily
be worked out rather than having to resort to some legalistic undertaking
that doesn’t at all touch the heart of the matter.

It is important to take the time to help those who have taken shelter of you
realize their needs, and facilitate them in bringing them in line with their
Krishna conscious path as to maximize their spiritual advancement and allow
them to steadily (for their whole lives) make progress.

Also those who are advising a particular individual should take the time to
meet with each other and talk about the real interest of the individual,
putting aside their own plans and projects for the moment. In this way the
conflict will be resolved easily and lovingly and we will be showing
Prabhupada our love through cooperation.

This reminds me of a story from the Bible.
Two women approached King Solomon to resolve a conflict. Each was claiming a
baby as hers. King Solomon wisely said to them that it was easy to resolve
the conflict. He could simply cut the baby in two and each would have half a
baby. The real mother cried out and insisted the other lady take the baby.
The “so-called” mother said to Solomon that his proposal was very good.

He immediately understood that the real mother was one who loved the baby so
much that she was willing to forgo her own happiness for that of the baby’s.
He then gave the baby to her rather than to the lady who was more concerned
with being right and thus satisfying herself.

Those who care for their dependents are the real authorities.