Shouldering the Burden, Part Two
BY: ROCANA DASA
May 16, 2010 — CANADA (SUN) — Today we would like to offer further comments on the recent SAC paper, "Balancing the Roles of the GBC and the Disciple in Guru Selection". In this segment, I'll focus on what I consider to be the essence of the issue, and of the paper itself, which is introduced under the heading, "A Suggestion for Balancing the Responsibilities".
One of the problems not brought out in the paper is the fact that the GBC, primarily consisting of gurus, don't really want to open up this issue. Why should they? The way they've defined the diksa guru in relationship to the institution is that it is a status role, a position of power -- and it's the ultimate power. So the GBC present themselves to the movement as being the ultimate managing authority, but in reality it's the guru with his disciples who have the ultimate power, especially if they're concentrated in an important zone. The gurus don't want any competition in their respective areas, and they've designed their program so that competition is not welcomed, or is very carefully managed.
In the last section of their paper, we find the SAC's essential philosophical statement on balancing the role of guru and disciple, which they have supported with various quotes. Of course, the very fact that an institutional body had to go to a "sastric committee" called SAC is a situation for which there is no sastric support. Where is the sastric evidence that this is a bona fide way of dealing with philosophical issues?
The opening paragraph under the heading, "Suggestion for Balancing the Responsibilities" states:
"The mandate given to SAC by the EC puts the question of guru choice in terms of the relative responsibilities of the individuals and the institution. This reflects the underlying fact that Srila Prabhupada wanted us all to carry out our practice of Krishna consciousness within the framework of an institution, the International Society for Krishna Consciousness, in which the ultimate managerial authority is the Governing Body Commission. This means that the GBC has an interest in the qualifications of the gurus chosen by individual members of the Society. And therefore the GBC has, through decisions taken over the past thirty years, come up with the present system for a devotee accepting the role of a guru. But, if SAC reads the mandate for this paper correctly, the GBC also wishes to emphasize the traditional responsibility of the prospective disciple in evaluating the qualifications of a guru."
The SAC's essential statement in this paper is: "the underlying fact that Srila Prabhupada wanted us all to carry out our practice of Krishna consciousness within the framework of an institution, the International Society for Krishna Consciousness, in which the ultimate managerial authority is the Governing Body Commission."
But where is the sastric verification for this statement? There are no quotations from Srila Prabhupada saying this. Given that Srila Prabhupada's program was to take Krsna Consciousness all around the world via distribution of his books, we know that there will be innumerable circumstances in which people, after reading his books, will not be able to go to a local ISKCON temple and be under the authority or guidance of a GBC. Nor did we ever hear Srila Prabhupada say that his followers must join the ISKCON institution in order to execute Krsna Consciousness. That's a ridiculous notion, yet the whole premise of what the SAC is saying is, that you have to join ISKCON and you have to be under the jurisdiction of the GBC.
So regardless of all the sastric references we find in the SAC paper to verify certain points, there is no substantiated sastric evidence in support of their core statement -- the thread from which all their suggestions hang. There are no quotations from Srila Prabhupada verifying this supposedly absolute fact that any and all who come in contact with Srila Prabhupada, primarily through his widely distributed books, must join the institution going by the name ISKCON in order to please Srila Prabhupada and get the blessings of the Holy Name.
In the next paragraph of this section, we read:
"The GBC desires to exercise some control over who represents ISKCON as initiating gurus. The SAC proposes, however, that the present system does not provide effective safeguards, and at the same time it stifles initiative. In other words, applying for the guru post and approaching devotees for recommendations does not sit well with truly humble Vaishnavas. And it's the truly humble who are most worthy to become our Society's gurus."
We should note that one of the members of the SAC is a female devotee, HG Urmila devi dasi, who has waited for years to be authorized as an ISKCON diksa guru, but the GBC have refused to grant her that authority. Regardless, she sits on the committee that the very same GBC is going to for philosophical guidance on what is the single most important issue within ISKCON: guru-tattva. No explanation is offered for this confusing set of circumstances.
There are many other principle philosophical positions the SAC couldn't sastrically substantiate in their paper, and we'll address some of them in future segments of this commentary. One of the most glaring omissions is the absence of sastric references allowing or condoning an institution to approve, let alone to appoint, diksa gurus.
There is no sastric support for the ISKCON scenario in which the ultimate managing authority is passing institutional laws that mandate diksa guru are ultimately subordinate to the collective wisdom of the GBC body, which is composed primarily of other ISKCON diksa gurus. A majority of these gurus believe that they have a God-given mandate and divine responsibility to make sure that all diksa gurus are approved by them and are ultimately obedient to the GBC.
Obviously, such a system is inherently vulnerable to politics. It essentially means that everyone has to agree with everything they do, and all the laws they enact, and their position on all controversial philosophical matters. To be labeled "not in good standing" as a devotee is grounds for instant excommunication, and one can be labeled like this simply for publicly disagreeing with the GBC. At the same time, this "ultimate philosophical authority" is not even willing or capable of formulating its own philosophical positions, but instead engages the SAC committee to do so on its behalf.
In essence, the GBC believes it has a right to dictate how Krsna Consciousness must be practiced. But even Srila Prabhupada would never state that Krsna Consciousness can only be executed in his way, in his style, in his mood, only within the context of his ISKCON institution. The ultimate managing authority that was hypothetically in charge during the Zonal Acarya period was, by their own admission in due course of time, sastrically unsound. Yet if you complained about the fact that it was sastrically unsound during the Zonal Acarya period, you were ousted, and to this very day, you're "outside of ISKCON", in the GBC's opinion.
In my opinion, and in the minds of many of my friends, we do not accept the way the GBC has created, for their own benefit, an oligarchy that is distinctly different from the vision Srila Prabhupada articulated and created during his ISKCON lila period. My spiritual identity consists of being a disciple of HDG A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Srila Prabhupada, which by heritage makes me a member of Srila Prabhupada's ISKCON. Yet my disagreement with the present GBC disenfranchises me, thus robbing me of my membership privileges.
So this modern GBC, the ultimate managing and philosophical authority, is kindly giving the individual candidates for initiation full responsibility to choose from their array of hand-picked diksa options. But the point is made loud and clear that the GBC cannot be held accountable for what could be a bad decision.
According to sastra and Srila Prabhupada, the disciple and guru must examine one another for a minimum of one year. Srila Prabhupada, as an empowered Sampradaya Acarya, established his own practical diksa initiation program, but this unique program cannot be imitated by "regular diksa gurus", especially if they are still serving within the Sampradaya Acarya's preaching organization -- the ISKCON that Srila Prabhupada was the undisputed "in-charge" of, both as the one and only diksa guru throughout his ISKCON lila period and as the Founder-Acarya.
During the ISKCON period of his nitya-siddha pastimes, Srila Prabhupada was executing the direct order and declared mission of Lord Caitanya Mahaprabhu to spread Krsna Consciousness throughout the world. And in that context, under those circumstances, he is obviously in an elevated transcendental mood that can't be reproduced by neophytes. Unfortunately, there is a distinct lack of appreciation for Srila Prabhupada's lila, which is directly connected to Yuga Avatar, Lord Caitanya's lila. All the side players, which include Srila Prabhupada's disciples, diksa gurus, sannyasis and GBC, are simply playing a bit part in this lila.
Obviously, in Srila Prabhupada's post-1970 ISKCON, many of the disciples could not examine him personally for one year. However, you could evaluate Srila Prabhupada very easily, because you were reading his books and following his program. And the temple presidents or local leaders effectively evaluated you on Prabhupada's behalf, based on how you followed the program. Srila Prabhupada personally initiated me and others in first and second initiation on the very same day. But there is no official GBC recognition of Srila Prabhupada being on the Sampradaya Acarya level, nor is there any explanation by the GBC of how and why his program differs from the one they are qualified to conduct on his behalf.
The comments made in the SAC paper essentially suggest that Srila Prabhupada was technically transgressing sastra and tradition during his ISKCON lila period, and because of the lack of proper explanation, the paper borders on being offensive in that regard.
The regular ISKCON diksa gurus being presented to newcomers in modern ISKCON are asked to follow all the sastric and traditional parameters -- except for the decidedly non-traditional parameters like institutional rubber-stamping of gurus. Accepting the GBC as the ultimate managing authority is not just a requirement for the rank and file devotees, it also means that the diksa gurus must adopt the GBC positions on controversial issues relevant to Vaisnava siddhanta. These include the present diksa guru GBC stamp-of-approval program, the post-samadhi editing of Srila Prabhupada's books, diksa re-initiation within the institution if an ISKCON guru of choice falls down, the approval of sannyasa candidates, indifference to blatant Zonal Acarya-ism, and so on.
Of course, we know that many ISKCON diksa gurus do not accept the book changes (although they don't make a public issue of the fact), and the GBC does not challenge their diksa status an account of their opinions. We also know that some ISKCON gurus and sannyasis have come up with their own positions about the GBC's role. For example, as we pointed out in a recent article, HH Hanumatpresaka Swami made this statement:
"I accept the GBC as the Ultimate Managing Authority for ISKCON as stated by Srila Prabhupada in his Will with their authority ultimate and limited to management. I accept the elevated Brahmanas, Goswamis as the Ultimate Spiritual authorities in that context and Srila Prabhupada as their absolute monarch."
Of course, if Hanumatpresaka Swami were to decide that he does not accept the book changes, and he made a public issue of it, what would the GBC's reaction be? Would the Swami discover that he does not have the degree of independence reflected in the statement above, to not accept the GBC on philosophical matters? Or would the GBC simply accept such a public demonstration by one of their own authorized diksa gurus, who feels free to disagree with their official philosophical positions in public? This takes us into the realm of ISKCON politics, and we can easily imagine the machinations that would go on behind the scene should such an issue rise to the surface and become a public debate.
Institutional dynamics aside, ultimately, the most important criterion for every ISKCON diksa guru should be their acceptance and proclamation of Srila Prabhupada as the Sampradaya Acarya. If the guru's sincere intention is to train the seekers of diksa, then these individuals must preach an accurate philosophical differentiation between themselves and Srila Prabhupada. This isn't just about a difference in mood or preaching technique, it's a siddhantic perception.
During Srila Prabhupada's ISKCON lila period, one of main reasons his Godbrothers criticized Srila Prabhupada was that as disciples, we reciprocated with Srila Prabhupada on the level of a Sampradaya Acarya. Elaborate and daily guru-puja ceremonies were a part of the morning program. Few if any of the disciples had grasped Srila Prabhupada's status, but they acted spontaneously and by Chaitya Guru's design. If the leaders had realized the obvious, they wouldn't have tried to imitate the Sampradaya Acarya by engaging in their Zonal Acarya program.
The SAC report doesn't mention the Gaudiya Matha and B.V. Narayana camps by name, or any of Srila Prabhupada's Godbrothers' organizations. More importantly, the SAC paper doesn't address the reality that so many of Srila Prabhupada's disciples have separated themselves from actively being involved in ISKCON due to their differences with the way the GBC are managing. Some do not accept the book changes, the diksa guru program, and so many other aspects of modern day ISKCON, yet they still consider themselves part of Srila Prabhupada's original ISKCON.
What is acknowledged by the SAC, under the heading "Empowerment", is that Srila Prabhupada's disciples have been given a mandate by Lord Caitanya and by their own Spiritual Master, Srila Prabhupada, to take responsibility in the Sankirtan spirit to accept disciples. Sastrically speaking, Srila Prabhupada's disciples are not required to be under the jurisdiction of the GBC of the institution. Many of Srila Prabhupada's disciples are purely preaching Srila Prabhupada's message and are inline with his mission. Yet the SAC's recommendations to the GBC essentially incorporate the notion that ISKCON should exclude these disciples of Srila Prabhupada from being recognized as bona fide diksa gurus because they are not in "good standing".
Another one of the principles of guru-tattva that the SAC has not considered in its paper is our philosophy on Chaitya guru, and the fact that the first guru everyone has is Supersoul in the heart. When you are looking for guru, Krsna will bring you to a guru. Supersoul will determine what type of guru you'll get, and whether or not that guru will prove to be insincere or imitating, or demonstrating some other fallen condition. ISKCON has 40 examples of such gurus, but they apparently believe that the GBC stands as an institutional intermediary of sorts, between the jivatma and Supersoul in the matter of choosing a guru.
Another one of the things the SAC paper doesn't make clear is that the responsible diksa candidate not only can't go outside of ISKCON, they're can't go outside the institution in search of information and advice as part of their due diligence. For example, they can't read anything in the Sampradaya Sun about the history of other fallen gurus, nor can they read current news stories about activities diksa gurus as engaged in that their godbrothers are criticizing. Of course, an intelligent disciple would search out exactly that sort of information, taking advantage of technology and personal relationships to find articles and get advice on the history of fallen gurus in ISKCON, so they can understand what to avoid.
Candidates should not only be free, but should be encouraged to talk to the disciples of these fallen gurus, asking them what it was like to fall in love with, and dedicate years of your life in service to a person who they were made to believe, by the guru and the institution, was completely bona fide. But ISKCON wishes to prevent such inquiry and disclosure. They don't want the candidates for initiation to know that suddenly, many of these gurus just disappeared. Some not only left ISKCON, they left Srila Prabhupada, they left the Sankirtana movement. And if the candidate digs deep enough, they'll find that in many cases, for many years the GBC knew that the guru was in a fallen condition, even as he was initiating more and more disciples.
So if candidates today follow the instructions of the GBC and the recommendations of this SAC paper, then prior to their being initiated, they accept that they essentially have no right to know if one of the ISKCON approved diksa gurus is already known by his peers to be fallen. That knowledge will not be shared with the candidate, who is also prevented from going to outside, independent sources to gather information on their guru candidate. The GBC and SAC would have us believe that this is a fair, just, and philosophically sound system.
What the SAC actually advises is that after the fact – after the initiation has already occurred – that's when the GBC should be more proactive. In other words, because the individuals on the GBC are, in most cases, gurus and sannyasis and they have a personal relationship with each other, we can all expect that the buddy system kicks in when its discovered that diksa guru in the club is having trouble which disqualifies him from being a diksa guru. But nothing is done to prevent them from continuing to take new disciples, until such time as the crisis becomes so severe that it can no longer be hidden. We have personally seen this circumstance so many times. Even locally, we have had both Jagadisa and Vipramukhya. For many years these two individuals were initiating, and it was easy for any of the godbrothers, what to speak of the GBC, to see that they weren't qualified… that something should be done to warn everyone. But no, the GBC didn't do that, and many people continued to get initiated, with the inevitable results.
So although the GBC and the Sastric Advisory Council don't recommend that candidates for initiation carefully study the history of the institution and its diksa gurus, including one's favored guru candidate, at the Sampradaya Sun we think it is a very important exercise to engage in. We consider it our service to the devotees to present relevant information, and we know that many newcomers are taking advantage of these resources. We often have individuals come to us for advice, saying, "I want to get initiated by this person". We suggest that the candidate first become educated on controversial issues, then ask the guru: "Well, how do you feel about the book changes?", or "What's your position on re-initiation, and the ISKCON guru system as it stands?" By engaging in open, well informed dialogue, decisions can be based on a more complete understanding of the guru and his philosophical positions in ISKCON, and that serves the candidate for initiation as well as the guru, and Srila Prabhupada's movement.
(To be continued…)
Shouldering the Burden (Part One of this Commentary
