Pray Tell, GBC: Why? Why? Why!
BY: RAVANARI DAS
Aug 20, 2012 — USA (SUN) — One of our readers recently called into question our motives for contributing to the Sampradaya Sun. This is understandable, since my writings tend to take the form of critiques of certain GBC policies and activities. Many new and naive members of ISKCON consider that our GBC is sinless and is therefore beyond reproach. No, that is the reason we have a GBC in the first place; it is there for the purpose of discussion and acting upon the conclusions drawn at such level-headed tete-a-tetes. My reader wanted to know whether I have an axe to grind with the GBC. Well, had no one spoken up during the days of eleven bogus acharyas, then that system would still be in place. It is noteworthy that the few brave voices that were raised in the beginning were silenced, some with violent assaults or murder by thug enforcers of some pretensive paramhamsas.
Just as much as the GBC (is supposed to) thrash out issues through discussion, it is my firm conviction that an unbiased free press, one that operates within proper limits, can be a healthy approach to ascertaining the truth of a matter. One who lives by the truth should not be afraid of it and this is all the more true for those who live by the Supreme Absolute Truth Personified. This is the value and necessity of brahminical discussion based upon guru, sadhu and shastra. And this asset of intelligent reasoning among peers is necessary in such an era as the one in which we find ourselves now: a time when there is no qualified acharya whose vision and decisions are absolute.
Of course the books are there, and the GBC members may have read them, but sometimes it appears as though their behavior shows that understanding of the Purports by His Divine Grace may be lacking. This is shown when they behave in a way that violates the instructions of Sri Guru, and there are dozens if not hundreds of instances of GBC deviations that deserve to be corrected to this day. This should be ISKCON's priority.
In life, it is quite natural that people prefer praise over criticism. As journalists, we understand that criticism if one-sided or based upon envy is certainly offensive and is therefore not real journalism at all. Such writings as those that try to tear down the good works of others are aparadha, plain and simple, and the web has all too much of that. In fact, what is really surprising about my many articles that have questioned some of the GBC's questionable policies, is that my opinions have been criticized so infrequently. The overwhelming result is enthusiastic praise. I am quite sure that others who write for the Sun have the same experience: Such written opinions that take a bold stand against GBC deviations away from the eternal parampara receive quite a bit more approval than the infrequent voice of dissent. Yet, I have been questioned and I must answer. I must answer if only to set an example for our Great Men of Silence, the GBCs who feel that they are above criticism and therefore have no need to respond.
My critic wanted to know if I was simply taking pot shots at GBC members for the fun of it, like shooting clay pigeons at the county fair. No, I told him, I am not some sadist in the dress of a devotee. I take no pleasure in criticizing ISKCON's body of elders and wish I had not been called upon to do it at all. I have my own life to lead. But as a member of ISKCON, I cannot agree either with the GBC's tacit conclusion that their opinion alone stands as supreme, especially when so many of their gross violations of siddhanta stand as glaring examples. Our wish is to write on behalf of Srila Prabhupada who—I am sure—would wince at the mockery the GBC has made out of his instructions over and over again.
Our real motivation for airing criticisms of the GBC has all along been to establish a dialogue with ISKCON's so-called leaders. There is no bridge between ISKCON's haves (its upper crust elite) and the Society's have-nots, whose backs bear the burden for the privileged. Since the editorial policy of the Sun is by and large journalistic, and therefore liberal enough to present both sides, the truth is supposed to eventually surface through healthy discussion in a public forum. Our call is but for a fair dialogue here in the Sun with the GBC, either individually or collectively or both.
We do not claim to be absolute in our opinion. And neither do we identify at all with the many Ritvik sites (including the misguided www.prabhupadavision.com or those which include any input at all from personalities like Puranjana or Pratyatosa) that are hell-bent on making one-sided and vicious attacks because they have not understood what Krishna consciousness is.
No, I replied to my critic, I do not find taking the GBC to task enjoyable at all. I do not like it because—in the absence of a qualified acharya—the GBC is supposed to act as the de facto acharya. In other words the GBC, according to my understanding, is the decision-making body that functions until such a time as when a qualified pure devotee arises once again. The Hare Krishna Movement must be led in a way that will please the Founder-Acharya, whose works—we all agree—can never be equalled. Our efforts are therefore to see that the genuine goals of Krishna consciousness are kept in focus.
Our purpose from the beginning has always been to establish a dialogue with the GBC. We wish to give them an opportunity to respond to widespread criticisms of their policies, some of which have devastated wholesale an entire generation of innocent devotees, one unfortunate vicim at a time. It is the GBC that over time has created one blunder after another, alienating almost each and every one of Shrila Prabhupada's beloved and loving initiates. Today anyone who calls himself a GBC member must be ready to explain why that was allowed to happen, even while the GBC meets once or twice yearly.
Are all of Prabhupada's disciples in Maya, fallen victim to some devious apasampradaya, or does the problem lie with the ISKCON leadership? Does the GBC know that for every voice that criticizes them openly, both within the movement and at its fringe, there are literally thousands of critics who agree with those criticisms, albeit quietly? The truth of the matter is that the GBC's approval rating is hardly a scant 15 or 20%. Neither have the editorials that I (and many others) have written in the Sun made the GBC into victims. Rather the GBC is a victim of its own policy of stone-like silence whenever it adopts hell-bent policies that can only serve to destroy ISKCON from the inside out. Therefore, all we ask for, nay plead for, are some answers.
It is certainly a shame that the GBC has to be cajoled and prodded in such ways as we have been forced to do just to try to break their wall of silence. Unfortunately, the more deafening the GBC's silence, the sharper must be the barbs to invoke a response. It is true that yelling at a deaf and dumb mute accomplishes nothing. However, a mule which refuses to move receives the severest of thrashings. As a result of its silence, the GBC today appears less like King Yudhisthira in his long-suffering tolerance, and more like the secretive CFR or Illuminati of some New World Order of their own creation. They are seen as the Bilderbergs of ISKCON, limousine-loving gentry who could care less what Prabhupada's rag-tag army of mahatmas think of them. And the amazing thing is that all that would be required to silence our reasonable criticisms is some dialogue and some reasonable answers to those challenges we have issued here in the Sun. Are they so guilty that they can't respond?
The Sun's readers, including our critic, should know that we wish the GBC—both individually and as a group—all well. It is our hope that the real mission of propagating yuga dharma in the form of sankirtan yagna can once again be restored to the glory it saw during the blessed period when Srila Prabhupada personally held the reins in the 1970's. And that depends upon a proper and devoted GBC.
We do not enjoy seeing the GBC as "hapless victims of a rogue press" while they pose as silent, selfless sufferers against a "relentless band of literary assailants" like our wretched selves. Rather, we request the GBC to respond individually and/or as a group to some essential questions which future parts of this article will pose. And Sun Editor Sriman Rocana das Prabhu has assured me that he will print any and all reasonable and realistic responses, even at my own expense (for dialogue, even when unpleasant, can be the means of ariving at the truth).
So there you (and my critic) have it. That is my motivation for my Sun editorials, pure and simple.
