Shouldering the Burden
BY: ROCANA DASA
Apr 28, 2010 — CANADA (SUN) — We'd like to offer comments on the recent paper from the ISKCON Sastric Advisory Council (SAC), entitled "Balancing the Roles of the GBC and the Disciple in Guru Selection". The SAC does a very thorough job in their paper, as they are deputed to do, and the GBC are made to appear as if they're dealing with this issue. Of course, the GBC wouldn't have had to turn this issue over to the SAC if they weren't having some significant problems at their level. They're obviously having difficulty amongst themselves resolving the sticky issues surrounding the GBC's position within the disciplic succession, and this SAC paper is an effort to help get the situation under control
In their paper, the SAC is quoting the previous Acaryas, with numerous references to their instructions in scripture, primarily the Hari Bhakta Vilasa, and they deal with what Srila Prabhupada had to say. So as far as sastric evidence, it has been addressed in the paper. One of the problems is that they are having to apply the siddhanta in an institutional context. They are at least making the appearance of maintaining Srila Prabhupada's institution, but they are having some serious difficulties in doing so.
As soon as you add the institutional dynamic to the guru-disciple equation, all sorts of social dynamics and issues of human behaviour arise. With the exception of Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati, this is really the first time in recorded Vaisnava history that we find such an situation. I've made many comments in past articles on the freedom of speech aspect, and they are also relevant here: is this a society, or is it a religion? Is ISKCON a branch of the Gaudiya Matha? What is ISKCON, exactly, as it's envisioned by the GBC?
From the standpoint of living in a modern society, I've often used the comparison of how a society deals with the concept of marriage. In the marriage scenario, the government tries to protect us, just as the GBC want us to believe that they're trying to protect the citizens of ISKCON from persons who are not qualified to be gurus. They want to first qualify and accept, or approve the gurus. But like in marriage, there are no guarantees. The GBC is just saying that according to their very superficial research and analysis, they've concluded that a person is ISKCON certified to be a guru. They don't guarantee what level of spiritual advancement the guru is on, however.
Likewise, the government has put certain limits on marriage: you must be over a certain age, it's between male and female, no marrying immediate family, etc., but that's about as far as they can go. They would like to go a lot further, and in some of the more demoniac societies, they do. Some governments say that people of different ethnic groups can't be married, or they try to do genetic engineering through marriage, not according to varnasrama principles, but according to material agendas.
In the Vedic context, there are strict principles governing marriage, much like the guru-disciple relationship. Of course, under the varnasrama system, all societal roles are clearly defined and everyone within the society strives to maintain their position: brahmana, kshatriya vaisya, and sudra. The same holds true for the asramas -- brahmacari, grihasta, vanaprastha and sannyasa. In ISKCON, what Srila Prabhupada meant by establishing varnasrama essentially started with everyone striving to be strict about their position within his society, the International Society for Krishna Consciousness. During Srila Prabhupada's lila period, there was a great deal of overlapping of roles, akin to an army-like scenario, with a mood of 'do the needful'. Although we were not strictly following varnasrama, the commander in chief, Srila Prabhupada, was dictating and leading by example.
Of course, Srila Prabhupada is the Sampradaya Acarya, a nitya-siddha come to fulfill the mission assigned to him by Lord Caitanya, and following the past Acaryas. He was empowered to achieve this task, and he personally led us. But we didn't really recognize, appreciate or understand Srila Prabhupada's position. As he said in a lecture I recently listened to, our business is to understand who is Krsna, not to imitate Krsna. So in the same way, our business is to understand Srila Prabhupada and his position, and then we can act accordingly. We should understand who is Krsna and serve him, and we should understand who is Srila Prabhupada, and serve Prabhupada.
ISKCON today is neither under the direct personal supervision of the Sampradaya Acarya, nor is it functioning according to the rules of varnasrama. Unfortunately, what ISKCON has now become will be very difficult to dismantle or undo, at least in our lifetime. The poison tree that grew up during the Zonal Acarya period was never chopped down or dealt with philosophically, and now it is very unlikely that it can be undone.
The problem ISKCON is having is obvious when we read this latest SAC paper. If you want to be a guru, it's not simply a matter of being authorized by virtue of meeting sastric requirements of a bona fide diksa. One must instead get approval from the institution, and there's a whole bureaucratic procedure to go through that is not only time consuming, but also politicized. The diksa gurus have to negotiate the politics of dealing with the GBC, if they are not themselves also a GBC.
The other side of the problem is that the aspirant is not free to choose someone as diksa, and try to invoke their permission for become their disciple. Of course, in ISKCON parlance they are free – free to chose from among the "authorized diksa gurus". If the aspiring disciple should settle on a diksa who's not ISKCON certified, of course, both parties would have to wait, and go through a whole bureaucratic procedure. Meanwhile the disciple wonders why their preferred diksa wasn't certified in the past, and why other devotees haven't wanted them as guru.
The derailment of the so-called Reform Movement, and the reason I left the movement, was because they allowed the Zonal Acaryas to keep all their disciples, regardless of the fact that by their own admission, the initiates had been coerced into accepting their guru, based on nothing but the zone they'd joined in. Taking advantage of the infrastructure Srila Prabhupada had put in place, the Zonal Acaryas put their preachers on the streets to recruit for them. Likewise the bhakta program became a recruiting tool, and the temple authorities, right up to the GBC, favored the Zonal Acarya. The new disciples were told that it was through the Zonal that they could approach Srila Prabhupada -- that of all Srila Prabhupada's disciples, they were the only ones who had a clear pipeline to Prabhupada.
Even though the Zonal Acaryas finally admitted that all this was completely wrong, even though they had eclipsed the GBC, had taken over the movement, and some of their ranks had fallen down, thus disproving their initial assertions that they were uttama-adhikaris – regardless, they would not give up their real power. They instead engaged in very tough negotiations with devotees like Ravindra Svarupa and Bir Krsna, having eliminated the more radical reformers like myself, Bahudak, and others, who disagreed even with the notion of negotiating with the Zonals. Our position was that unquestionably, all the disciples had to at least be given an opportunity to make a choice. After a certain period of time, like a year, they would be free to get initiated again if they wished, because they really weren't initiated at all. Their so-called initiation was sastrically unsound, and coerced, therefore they had to be given a second chance -- an opportunity to free themselves from this obligation.
As we know, the Zonal Acaryas did not accept this, and threatened that they would leave the movement. Harikesa, Bhagavan and Jayapataka we know with certainty threatened to leave and break apart ISKCON, but I'm sure the Zonals all got together and agreed upon this approach. They threatened that the reformers would have to take full responsibility for breaking up Srila Prabhupada's movement. Their strategy of putting that great burden on the shoulders of the reformers worked, because Ravindra Svarupa, Bir Krishna and their associates were already compromised in the situation, themselves wanting to share in the power.
In the cover-up that followed, the rank and file were made to believe that only a 'small adjustment' was needed – these Zonals were reported to be OK… not intoxicated, not contaminated… therefore you needed to remain their disciple. And in fact, you were obliged to remain their disciple. So all these Zonal Acaryas had a huge advantage in their zones. Their people were in charge of the temples, the system had already been established, and they weren't going to reinvent it.
When somebody came to the temple, the disciples of the Zonal Acarya would preach to them and recruit them as new disciples of their guru. When a Zonal Acarya fell down, as in the case of Bhagavan, Indradyumna Swami rose to the top and replaced him. Sivarama Swami rose to the top in England when Jayatirtha fell down. These princes of the Zonal Acarya kings inherited many disciples, and all at once they became the focus, the cynosure of everyone's eyes in their zone.
Once again, we see that the SAC and the GBC are putting a huge burden on someone else's shoulders – this time, on the devotees who have to make a decision in regards to picking a guru from the stable of authorized diksas. The candidates must also try to wrap their head around the concepts presented by the SAC, who wants them to be convinced that this whole system is sastrically sound, although that's impossible.
Today, if someone in ISKCON wants to become a diksa disciple and they have family, a job or other attachment which prevents them from moving from place to place, looking for a guru, then they have to wait until a guru shows up at the local temple. Either that, or they have to save up their money and go on pilgrimage, or to Mayapur. If they want Radhanath, they'll have to travel to Radhanath's zone, or Bhakti Caru Swami's, or Sivarama's zone. Either that, or they will have settle for one of the lesser known gurus who happens to be more accessible.
In the temples of the 'big gurus', you can be sure that nothing has changed from the Zonal Acarya days, and no other gurus are permitted to actively initiate in their zone. I'd like to see the statistics of the exceptions to that rule. And really, this is the problem the SAC is having to deal with.
The big players bring in hundreds of disciples every year, and need staff to keep track of them all. And why do all the devotees want to be initiated by these big gurus? Because they're notorieties, like rock stars. That's obvious. The big gurus rely on peer pressure to help drive more disciples to them. They have their agents out there, recruiting for them at all the temples and big events, and their recruiters get a great deal of prestige by bringing more new candidates to their guru than the other disciples. It's now all driven by status.
Of course, this whole program is a complete deviation from the varnasrama conclusion. Lord Caitanya says that He wants everyone to become guru. Even the sannyasis are supposed to be gurus. In Vedic culture, the sannyasis were obliged to travel. They were not to associate with householders and lowly persons, therefore they did not typically become diksa gurus. In ISKCON we have the example of Srila Prabhupada, the Sampradaya Acarya, a sannyasi who could initiate and do very great things during his lila. But in average, normal circumstances, the guru has an asrama. The aspirant goes there and spends a year, or a long stretch of time living at the asrama. You served the guru in that context, and the guru was typically a householder. He and his wife were very strict brahmanas, Vaisnavas, who had created some facility and allowed people to come and serve with them. And you can imagine how after one year of living together, you would get to know the guru, and the guru would get to know you.
So taking on a diksa disciple is like giving birth to a child. That's why I use the scenario of marriage to describe it. It's a very natural arrangement. Jut as it's natural for a man and woman to get together and have children under the sanctity of marriage, it's also natural for one who's spiritually inclined and serious to want to find a guru.
But here in ISKCON, we have a big overlapping. We have sannyasis who never stay in one place for very long, outside of their home asrama. They don't want to deal with issues that involve householders. In many cases they're also GBC members, and have to deal with international management, traveling to all sorts of conferences and special events, ratha yatras and festivals. In other words, they are not suitable to serve as diksa gurus. They're too distracted. Being the guru is not just one of many jobs you're multi-tasking, and neither is it the mystical process they're trying to make it out to be in ISKCON today. You get those beads, you get that name, and you just read Srila Prabhupada's books, and you'll automatically, magically, make advancement, because now you're initiated. Before the ceremony you weren't initiated, and you didn't have a chance.
Well, that's not the Vedic conclusion, not the philosophy. The philosophy is that you learn, like going to university, like going to an asrama and living with the guru for an extended period of time. Both parties have an opportunity to call it off. They're living together, and if that anticipate something less than a rewarding eternal relationship, even far beyond marriage, then they're free to move on. This is the Vedic conclusion. This is what sastra says. This is what the Sampradaya Acaryas said. Instead, what we have in ISKCON is a short-sighted popularity contest.
The disciple needs much more than simply a rubber-stamped, ISKCON-approved diksa guru. When doubts and problems arise in your life, you want to submit to the guru for direction, asking questions and getting personal answers that are significant and meaningful. But that is not possible under the present scenario in ISKCON. Instead, it has become a superficial, mystical process.
So this is not initiation, this is not sastra, this is not approved by the Acaryas. It's all just imitation of the Sampradaya Acarya. That's what it amounts to. So many of these imitation Sampradaya Acaryas are still controlling ISKCON, and still preventing sincere devotees from submitting and surrendering to sastra, and therefore to Srila Prabhupada.
(To be continued)
