Social: Problems of succession

Max Weber:
“Perhaps the most critical test of a group’s 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’ve 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?
“The 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.
“The 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.”

any comments?

"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.

mishra: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.

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.

mishra: Your trying to equate GBC judgment and management with SP´s 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.

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 can't 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.

mishra:Double standard? yes, pure devotee and conditioned souls. For you seems all one.

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 it's 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 Prabhupada's Last Will. Based on available records, this is the way he intended it to be.

mishra:Blaming again and again Srila Prabhupada...

Where???

"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?

mishra:

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.

Does that mean that you could do better under those circumstances? That is to criticize the pure devotee

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.

mishra:... 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.

I agree that GBC's 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 Prabhupada's 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 don't 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.

mishra:its funny... our conversation reminds me when I find buddhists or similar impersonalist on sankirtan. you can't have a conversation, cause they twist every argument ad infinitum... maybe just my mind :)

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...