Sentiment, is it so bad?
Posted June 18, 2003
In reference to the various articles concerning the SPL etc, and the rittvik contreversy in general there should be at some point the introduction of the principle of GBC authority. After all at the heart of such authors of Dhira Govinda and others there is an obstinate rebellion on some level in regards to accepting the GBC as the ultimate authority in ISKCON. I am not sure if this would change any minds but if there is someone listening I would be very interested in a serious dissertation on the reason Srila Prabhupada founded the GBC and how it can function in a practical way as the ultimate arbitrator if we carry the faith to allow it to be so.
In the few discussions I have had with persons actually propounding the Ritvik deviation there is always the underlying mistrust of the the GBC system. After all if we accept the GBC system of managment in relation especially to philosophy then how can we continue to argue (at least to the general mass) the argument that they are wrong. If they are wrong then that means Srila Prabhupada is wrong being he established the GBC as the ultimate arbitrator and that means at some point in time we have to accept their authroity. That means when a resolution is passed that it becomes our rule of service until they change it. In order to change it would mean that we approach the GBC in a loving mood and then cooperatively introduce new concepts for their purusal. Still in the interim, just like in the military we have to accept their resolutions as absolute, not just he ones we agree with. Other wise we are denying their authority. This is actually a request for some greater mind than mine to elucidate this crucial point. What does it mean to follow the GBC as Srila Prabhupada instructed us? Could someone please address this issue for the benefit of us all.