A response to: ‘Cleaning House and Cleaning Hearts’
(Ravindra Svarupa das)
by Krishnakant
| “I
did indeed receive ‘The False Dawn of Guru Reform’, for which I
thank you warmly. I found it highly informative and
thought-provoking and I look forward to seeing how the various parts of
ISKCON will respond.” - Professor James Beckford, Dept of Sociology, University of Warwick, UK |
| “I
have received your paper which I found very interesting and useful
in understanding the differences that exist at the present time with the Hare Krishna
Movement.” – Professor John Saliba, Religious Studies Dept. University of Detroit Mercy, USA |
| “Thank
you. Yes, I received the paper which was interesting to
read. Best wishes – Marcus.” – Rev. Marcus Braybrooke, President, World Congress of Faiths |
INTRODUCTION:
Whoever is right or wrong over this issue it is surely reasonable to expect factual information to be relayed accurately, and for honest, open debate and freedom of speech to be tolerated in its resolution. The Society’s official mouthpiece aimed specifically at the academic community, entitled ‘ISKCON Communications Journal’ (ICJ), itself recommends the following behaviour in dealings with members of other faiths:
“Always
be honest and truthful. This is the basis for trust in
successful relationships. (…) Listen to and value presentations by
members of other faiths with respect. Give members of other faiths the
opportunity to freely express their sincerely held beliefs and
convictions.” (ICJ, Vol 7., No.1) |
If such behaviour is expected towards members of other faiths, then what to speak of members of the same faith. As we shall examine, ISKCON leaders have fallen well short of the above standards in their approach to the guru controversy. As one serious observer put it:
"Still
there are sceptical voices claiming that ISKCON, like the famous
Janus, has two faces - the smiling face in dialogues with their
external partners, and the strange, repressive face towards its own
members - preaching wine to the dialoguing world and water to their
devotees." (Ulrich Dehn, ICJ, Vol 8. No. 1.) |
It has been officially conceded by ISKCON’s leadership that many of the
movement’s earlier problems were precipitated by the ‘Guru system’
implemented in ISKCON immediately following the departure of Srila
Prabhupada, when a number of the new successor ‘Gurus’ fell
spectacularly from grace. ISKCON’s leaders have subsequently made
numerous efforts to assure both the movement, and the outside academic
community, that these problems were largely resolved following a series
of 'Guru reforms' executed in the mid-80's. The most authoritative and
comprehensive communication of this message was via an academic paper
written and presented by the current Chairman of ISKCON's Governing
Body Commission (GBC), Ravindra Svarupa Das. He presented his paper,
entitled Cleaning House and Cleaning
Hearts: Reform and Renewal in
ISKCON, at the Vaishnava Academy conference held in Wiesbaden,
Germany
in January 1994.
ISKCON in Germany at the time was under threat of government repression
as a “cult”, and the previous excesses of ISKCON’s ‘Gurus’, during the
‘Zonal Acarya’ period
(1978-1986), had greatly damaged its image. This
conference was thus staged as part of a defensive strategy, attended
not only by academics but also state church functionaries who advised
the German government on "the sect issue." Subsequently Ravindra
Svarupa’s paper was published in the ISKCON
Communications Journal,
which is sent to religious scholars and academics who interact with the
Movement. This paper has thus become the de rigueur official account
for how the 'Guru issue' in ISKCON was resolved, not least since the
author was himself the principal architect of these very reforms.
Ravindra Svarupa's paper charts the course taken, both in evidential
and historical terms, by the 'Guru reform' movement that he headed from
1985-1987, which ostensibly provided the 'solution' to the 'Guru
system' which had operated within ISKCON for the previous 8 years. This
was the so-called 'Zonal Acarya'
system, whereby 11 disciples of Srila
Prabhupada seized control of the movement via the unauthorised division
of ISKCON into 11 separate geographical 'Guru zones'. In his paper
Ravindra Svarupa outlines the dynamics and rationale behind the 'Guru
Reforms' he engineered via five central assertions:
- That the 'Guru-Reform' was based on implementing Srila Prabhupada's expressed instructions on the Guru.
- That the 'Ritvik'[2] alternative had to be rejected because it was not 'traditional'.
- That Srila Prabhupada wanted a GBC system in opposition to a single Acarya system.
- That Srila Prabhupada's own Guru had also wanted a GBC system in opposition to a single Acarya system.
- That the 'Guru Reform' solved the 'crisis' which the 'Zonal Acarya' system had created.
In this essay we shall argue that these five central assertions, which form the basis of ISKCON’s current ‘Guru’ system and which have been largely accepted by the academic community as factual, are actually entirely false. We will thus demonstrate that this 'Guru reform' was itself constructed on a platform of five fallacies at least as serious as those which underpinned the ill-fated ‘Zonal Acarya’ system in the first place. We shall substantiate our position by presenting evidence drawn largely from the same above - mentioned paper by the current GBC Chairman which is actually being challenged. (Material drawn from the paper Cleaning House and Cleaning Hearts: Reform and Renewal in ISKCON will henceforward be referred to as CHCH, and Ravindra Svarupa shall be referred to throughout as the 'author').
|
The author concludes his paper by noting that the 'Guru reforms' he instituted, and which led to the current structure of ISKCON with its some seventy-plus Gurus working under a GBC, was justified because:
| "we
now have a movement organized the way Srila Prabhupada wanted it." (CHCH) |
However the author admits in the same paper that a central feature of this organisation, the existence of a multitude of successor ‘Gurus’ to Srila Prabhupada, is not actually based on any specific 'wants' which can be attributable to Srila Prabhupada at all:
"On
May 28, 1977, during what turned out to be Srila Prabhupada's
terminal illness, the Governing Body Commission deputed a committee of
seven members to question their spiritual master about the delicate
matter of guru succession: How would the function of initiating guru be
carried out in ISKCON after Srila Prabhupada's departure? In response
to this question, Srila Prabhupada said he would select some disciples
to begin immediately performing all of the activities involved in
giving initiation — approving the candidate, chanting on the beads,
giving the name, and so on — acting as an officiating priest (rtvik) on
Srila Prabhupada's behalf." (CHCH) |
Here the author states that Srila Prabhupada's answer to how initiations would be carried out after his departure, would be that he would select “ritviks”. Ritviks are priests who act as representatives for the existing Guru, and thus operate as the alternative to successor Gurus. The author asserts, however, that Srila Prabhupada also made it clear that such ritviks could become successor initiating Gurus in their own right:
"Those
so initiated during Srila Prabhupada's physical presence would
be Srila Prabhupada's disciples. After his demise, however, those same
officiating gurus to be selected by Srila Prabhupada would, if
qualified, become gurus in their own right. Those whom they initiated
would be their own disciples, and Srila Prabhupada would be their
grand-spiritual master." (CHCH) |
Let us look at the section of the conversation the author refers to above which allegedly proves that, after his demise, Srila Prabhupada would become 'grand-spiritual master' as his qualified disciples initiated their own disciples:
| Tamal Krsna Goswami: | No.
He is asking that these ritvik
acaryas, they
are officiating, giving diksa[3], (there)... the people who they
give diksa to, whose
disciples are they? |
| Srila Prabhupada: | They are his disciples. |
| Tamal Krsna Goswami: | They are his disciples |
| Srila Prabhupada: | Who
is initiating ... his grand-disciple
... |
| Satsvarupa dasa Goswami: | Then we have a question concerning ... |
| Srila Prabhupada: | When
I order you become guru, he becomes regular
guru. That's all. He becomes disciple of my disciple.[4] |
It is hard to see from the above how the author arrived at his conclusions, since there is no mention of either Srila Prabhupada's demise, nor the need of the selected ritviks to become qualified. Rather, mention is made only of the need for a specific ‘order’ to become an initiating (diksa) Guru. In the absence of such an order we are left only with the author's own admission: that Srila Prabhupada's response to the question of how initiations would go on after his departure was that he would recommend some ritviks to perform initiations. The fact that no such order exists is admitted by the author when he states that the authority for the ritviks to become Gurus came not from a direct order from Srila Prabhupada, but rather only from the GBC’s 'understanding' that this was the case:
"In
July, Srila Prabhupada selected eleven members of the GBC (then
twenty in number) to begin acting at once as officiating gurus. Thus
the GBC understood Srila Prabhupada to have chosen the first initiating
gurus to succeed him." (CHCH) |
The reader might note that this is the same GBC that also ‘understood’ that they were meant to operate a ‘Zonal Acarya’ system for nearly a decade. This lack of a specific order from Srila Prabhupada is again confirmed by the author when he argues that there was an 'indirect' and 'oblique' designation of the Gurus, with simply an 'expectation' on Srila Prabhupada's part that they should become Diksa Gurus:
"In
response to the question of initiation after his departure, Srila
Prabhupada gave a list of "officiating gurus," designating them in an
indirect or oblique manner. He expected them to become "regular gurus"
in the future, but there was no "hand-picking of successors," no laying
on of hands or anointing with oil, no transfer of power to some special
and exclusive group" (CHCH) |
Unless the author is able to read minds it would be impossible for him to know for certain what Srila Prabhupada 'expected', since he has previously admitted that these expectations were at best indicated in an 'oblique' manner. This nebulous theory is accompanied by the following remarkable assertion:
"Yet
they were pressing for a selection of successor gurus, the
ultimate position to the ambitious. Hamsadutta and Kirtanananda had
already been rebuked by Srila Prabhupada for receiving guru-puja "in
the presence of the spiritual master," a serious transgression. Without
any indication from Srila Prabhupada in this manner, there would likely
have been chaos. Yet Srila Prabhupada clearly did not want to give his
sanction to unfit people, a spiritual error. So he selected them
without endorsing them." (CHCH) |
But the author has already admitted that the only selection made was for 'ritviks':
"In
July, Srila Prabhupada selected eleven members of the GBC (then
twenty in number) to begin acting at once as officiating gurus." (CHCH) |
We completely agree with the author that a selection of ritviks is not necessarily an endorsement of their efficacy as ritviks. Unfortunately for the author’s case it is patently not a selection of Gurus either! Indeed the author goes on to admit that his 'Guru reforms' were in reality based on little more than his 'conviction' that ISKCON must continue to have Gurus:
"It
was my conviction that we could retain in ISKCON the full-fledged
position of guru, as delineated by the Scriptures, a position that did
not essentially involve being the autonomous autocratic head of an
institution, did not essentially disallow discussion, consultation,
revision and adjustment, and did not forbid collegial decision-making
as a kind of lese majesté." (CHCH) |
This admission that the 'Guru reform' process was not guided by any specific order from Srila Prabhupada, is further elaborated by the author:
"The
first effort of the "guru reform movement" was to urge a
strengthening commitment to spiritual purification on everyone's part.
The second effort was to persuade the GBC to dismantle the "zonal acarya system"
efficiently and decisively. We were able to put forward
two proposals to the GBC, which, taken together, would dismantle the
system. The first was to make the process of receiving authorization to
initiate radically more open. Initially, the "initiating acarya standing committee" had the power to appoint new gurus; in 1982, it was
changed to a three-fourths vote of the GBC. Up until 1986, only some
half-dozen new gurus had been added (and a couple removed). From my
perspective, the central intent of this proposal was to eliminate a de
facto "property requirement" for becoming an initiating guru. Since a
guru had to have his exclusive initiating zone, one or more of the
established gurus had to lose territory to create a zone for any new
gurus. " (CHCH) |
Here it is made clear by the author that the reform ‘proposals’ were not in response to any direct instructions from Srila Prabhupada, but simply political measures by which they could bring about the 'dismantling' of the existing system. The 'reform leaders' simply needed to 'fix' a state of affairs they did not agree with, and they thus had to take whatever measures were materially expedient to achieve their goal:
"The
guru zones became more unified than ISKCON as a whole, which was
becoming increasingly fragmented, turning into a kind of amphictyony of
independently empowered leaders. The paradigm of the reform movement,
in contrast, envisioned ISKCON temples in which the disciples of many
different gurus could all work together for their common cause.
The unifying personality was to be the founder-acarya of the
institution, Srila Prabhupada, the master of all subsequent gurus and
disciples. This could be achieved only by eliminating the implicit
property requirement for being a guru, something that would happen if
the authorizing process were opened up and the number of gurus
increased." (CHCH) |
Here the author reveals that the ‘Guru system’ in operation today in
ISKCON is the result of whatever measures the 'reform leaders' decided
were necessary in order to achieve their new “paradigm”. Thus a political solution was sought, engineered solely to devolve more
power
to those who wanted it, rather than a spiritual solution based on the
actual orders of the Founder-Guru of ISKCON, Srila Prabhupada.
By the author’s own admission then, today’s ISKCON is replete with
‘Diksa Gurus’ as a result of
his personal 'conviction', and the GBC's
'understanding', and not through any explicit order to this effect from
the Founder; who we must remember only selected ritviks to continue
initiations within the institution.
Recently in the ICJ Anuttama Das, ISKCON Communications Director, who
takes on much of the responsibility for interacting with the public on
behalf of ISKCON, is quoted from a previous issue of the ICJ, wherein
he also perpetuates the false 'Guru appointment' idea:
"The
traditional model in most Indian religious traditions is a
hierarchical organisation, with the concentration of power in the hands
of one individual, the guru, or acarya.
Shortly before passing away, my
teacher, Prabhupada, established a Governing Body Commission, a group
of people to oversee the ISKCON organisation. After his death in 1977,
there was a series of crises with some of the topmost, hand-selected
leaders who had been appointed as gurus." (ICJ, Volume 8, No.1, Anuttama Das) |
As we have seen above, not only is this 'hand-picked appointment of Gurus' false, but it is not even agreed on by the author:
"Those
so initiated during Srila Prabhupada's physical presence would
be Srila Prabhupada's disciples. After his demise, however, those same
officiating gurus to be selected by Srila Prabhupada would, if
qualified, become gurus in their own right. […] In response to the question of initiation after his departure, Srila Prabhupada gave a list of "officiating gurus," designating them in an indirect or oblique manner. He expected them to become "regular gurus" in the future, but there was no "hand-picking of successors," no laying on of hands or anointing with oil, no transfer of power to some special and exclusive group" (CHCH, emphasis added) |
Thus we have the Chairman of ISKCON stating quite categorically that there was no 'hand-picking' of Guru successors, and that they would only emerge if qualified. This however completely contradicts ISKCON's Communications Director's version of "hand-selected leaders who had been appointed as gurus", and merely strengthens the case for less suppression and repression, and more honest and open-minded dialogue on this issue.
|
We have seen above that the 'selection of ritviks' by Srila Prabhupada
to continue initiations in ISKCON (as his response to the question of
Guru succession after his departure) is central to the author's case -
that a multiple Guru succession was supposed to have occurred after his
departure. The author attempts to justify his rejection of a literal
acceptance of the order for ritviks to continue giving initiations
after Srila Prabhupada’s departure, on the basis that this would be an
unacceptable change to the tradition:
"Among
those who focused on the lack of qualified people to be gurus,
some thought the solution was to devise a way to continue the movement
and yet eliminate the position of guru as far as possible. Initiations
would continue, but the guru would be considered some sort of
apprentice or merely a formal ecclesiastical functionary. To my mind,
these people were proposing an essential change in the tradition, not
merely an adaptation to new circumstances." (CHCH) |
Here the author describes the adoption of a system using an 'ecclesiastical functionary', which would be akin to a ritvik priest, as constituting an 'essential change' in the tradition. This is a highly self-contradictory position for the author to take since he has, elsewhere, also stated that it was the ritvik system itself which better reflected tradition:
"Two
deviations from Prabhupada's order - the "zonal acarya" system and
the "posthumous ritvik"
system - rest on adherence to the traditional
idea of leadership. Each in its own way presumes that genuine
authoritative leadership for the movement is found only when an
autocratic figure becomes recognised by his compelling, charismatic
presence or "self-effulgence", and who can then personify the
institution."[5] |
Above, the author confesses that the “ritvik system” is actually based on the 'traditional' idea of leadership. Returning to CHCH, we see the author again confirms that the existence of a sole 'charismatic' and 'autocratic' Guru, which results from a ritvik system, is again appealing to the 'traditional model' of religious leadership:
"The
problem arose when the conception of guru was implicitly based on
a traditional model of an inspired, charismatic spiritual autocrat, an
absolute and autonomously decisive authority, around whom an
institution takes shape as the natural extension and embodiment of his
charisma. Indeed, Srila Prabhupada himself was such a guru. […] The acarya in this last sense denotes a prominent and traditional form of religious leadership in India: in which a single, charismatic individual attracts others to him and by a natural process an institution forms about him. In this typically premodern style of leadership, the organization is very much a personal extension, a veritable embodiment, of that charismatic individual. (Srila Prabhupada is often quoted as having said that ISKCON was "his body.") (CHCH) |
He then goes on to contrast these traditional models of organisation with the 'GBC model' which he sought to institute as part of the reforms, and makes it clear that it was these 'reforms' which constituted the radical departure from tradition:
"The
problem arose when the conception of guru was implicitly based on
a traditional model of an inspired, charismatic spiritual autocrat, an
absolute and autonomously decisive authority, around whom an
institution takes shape. Yet starting in 1970, Srila Prabhupada had
worked diligently to establish a quite different sort of leadership
structure in ISKCON, a structure he repeatedly emphasized that would
continue after him. This is a model of management found in distinctly
modern institutions, that of a corporate board of directors, called in
ISKCON "the Governing Body Commission. […] The acarya in this last sense denotes a prominent and traditional form of religious leadership in India […] ISKCON, however, represents a departure from this archaic form of organization. Srila Prabhupada repeatedly stressed his intention that ISKCON would not, after his departure, be managed by a single acarya, but rather by the board of directors, the Governing Body Commission, that he formed and began to train in 1970. Srila Prabhupada's intention, and his departure from the tradition of the institutional acarya, is shown in a striking way in his will. Traditionally, it was in the first article of his will that an acarya named his successor, passing on his institution to his heir as if it were his personal property. The first article of Srila Prabhupada's will reads: "The Governing Body Commission (GBC) will be the ultimate managing authority for the entire International Society for Krishna Consciousness." (CHCH) |
So the author makes it clear above that the ritvik system, which he rejected because it was not traditional, is what actually better represents the traditional model! On the other hand he also admits that the GBC/Guru model, introduced through his reforms, is in fact not in line with tradition at all; “ISKCON, however, represents a departure from this archaic form of organization”. At present, ISKCON would also appear to represent a departure from the explicit instruction of its founder to run the more ‘traditional’ ritvik system.
|
The author contends that the GBC system operates in stark opposition to the traditional single Acarya system:
"I
was able to present a paper that combined analysis and polemics to
argue that in violation of the desires of Srila Prabhupada, the
traditional post of the "institutional acarya" had been established in
ISKCON and that this acarya system was essentially in conflict with the
GBC system so carefully established by Srila Prabhupada. […] Srila Prabhupada repeatedly stressed his intention that ISKCON would not, after his departure, be managed by a single acarya, but rather by the board of directors, the Governing Body Commission." (CHCH) |
In the most recent publication of the ICJ he makes the same claim:
"I
am very much dedicated to the principle of the GBC; its
establishment and the implementation of the principle behind it was a
major achievement of Prabhupada’s. In my opinion, the GBC is a good
model of leadership. In its formation, Prabhupada took some ideas from
Western corporate structure, the GBC being the name of the Board of
Directors of the Indian Railroad, a British corporate institution. But
Prabhupada also talks of how the idea of co-operation, cohesiveness and
working together is fundamental to the notion of sankirtana; this idea
of basing leadership on the notion of sankirtana is in contrast with
the older, more traditional, hierarchical Indian model of a single,
self-effulgent acarya who
heads an institution. This sankirtana style
of leadership and management is what Prabhupada wanted." (ICJ, Volume 8, No.1, 'Restoring The Authority of The Guru', Ravindra Svarupa Das ) |
It is curious that the author should so consistently and strongly argue that there is some sort of impenetrable dichotomy between management via a single acarya, and management via a GBC. After all, the author himself fully concedes that the management of ISKCON via a GBC system had already been in place since 1970 (a full 7 years before the physical demise of Srila Prabhupada):
"Yet
starting in 1970, Srila Prabhupada had worked diligently to
establish a quite different sort of leadership structure in ISKCON, a
structure he repeatedly emphasized that would continue after him." (CHCH) |
The author has also admitted above that this would be the system that ‘would continue after him’. The author convincingly substantiates this assertion by referring to the Last Will and Testament of Srila Prabhupada:
"The
first article of Srila Prabhupada's will reads: "The Governing
Body Commission (GBC) will be the ultimate managing authority for the
entire International Society for Krishna Consciousness." (CHCH) |
"Each temple will be an ISKCON property and will be managed by three executive directors. The system of management will continue as it is now and there is no need of any change."[6]
Thus the author agrees that the GBC system, as established in ISKCON in 1970, would be that which continues in ISKCON after Srila Prabhupada's departure. However this system was run in conjunction with a single institutional Acarya system, not as an alternative to, or in opposition with it. This is also admitted by the author when discussing the running of ISKCON whilst Srila Prabhupada was on the planet:
"The
problem arose when the conception of guru was implicitly based on
a traditional model of an inspired, charismatic spiritual autocrat, an
absolute and autonomously decisive authority, around whom an
institution takes shape as the natural extension and embodiment of his
charisma. Indeed, Srila
Prabhupada himself was such a guru. […] The acarya in this last sense denotes a prominent and traditional form of religious leadership in India: in which a single, charismatic individual attracts others to him and by a natural process an institution forms about him. In this typically pre-modern style of leadership, the organization is very much a personal extension, a veritable embodiment, of that charismatic individual. (Srila Prabhupada is often quoted as having said that ISKCON was "his body.") (CHCH, emphasis added) |
The author admits here that Srila Prabhupada himself was a traditional single institutional Acarya, and further that he had set up ISKCON to be an organisation which is simply the extension of such an institutional single Acarya. An observation that is further strengthened by the author's description of the environment generated under the leadership of a traditional institutional Acarya:
"The
paradigm of the institutional acarya envisioned a zone unified and
made coherent by a common devotion and submission to a single person." (CHCH) |
There is no one in ISKCON, including the author, who would disagree that this was exactly how the whole of ISKCON operated during the time Srila Prabhupada was physically present on the planet. And yet as we have seen, the author has conceded that at this time the organisation was also managed by the GBC, and further that this is the system which should continue to manage ISKCON. This means that, contrary to the author's assertion, the GBC system does not conflict with a single institutional Acarya system. Both features can and have operated side by side under Srila Prabhupada’s direction. It is also clear from the Will that this is the system that was intended to continue to manage ISKCON even after the single acarya disappears. Indeed, the author has even conceded that the GBC was set up simply to manage on behalf of the single institutional Acarya, Srila Prabhupada, and not as a mechanism in opposition to rule by a single institutional Acarya:
"As
time went on he tried to turn as much management over to the GBC as
possible, intervening only when there were crises." (CHCH) |
This makes it very clear that the GBC is simply an executive, not a
legislative body in nature. It exists solely to implement the
instructions of the Acarya,
and in this way act simply as an instrument
by which the rule of the "supreme authority" - the institutional Acarya, Srila Prabhupada
- can be instituted. The GBC has no other
function than to 'execute' the will of the institutional Acarya who has
appointed the GBC expressly for this purpose, and this situation was
not to change at any time, regardless of Srila Prabhupada’s presence.
This is clearly spelt out in a document that was used to incorporate
the GBC in 1970:
My duty was to first appoint twelve (12) persons to my free choice amongst my disciples and I do it now and their names are as follows […]
These personalities are now considered as my direct representatives. While I am living they will act as my zonal secretaries and after my demise they will be known as Executors. […]
The purpose of the Governing Body Commission is to act as the instrument for the execution of the Will of His Divine Grace."[8]
"Srila
Prabhupada's intention, and his departure from the tradition of
the institutional acarya, is shown in a striking way in his will.
Traditionally, it was in the first article of his will that an acarya named his successor, passing on his institution to his heir as if it
were his personal property. The first article of Srila Prabhupada's
will reads: "The Governing Body Commission (GBC) will be the ultimate
managing authority for the entire International Society for Krishna
Consciousness." (CHCH) |
The author is correct that the GBC acts as the instrument that replaces the traditional system of successor Acarya. It does not however replace the system of rule via a single institutional Acarya, for its very purpose is to maintain the rule of the single institutional Acarya in the absence of the traditional successor. The author is therefore left in the invidious position of having provided himself the most compelling evidence that the system of governance in ISKCON was to continue with the same institutional Acarya system, and indeed the same institutional Acarya, which had governed ISKCON before the Acarya's departure in 1977. The very existence of the GBC becomes the evidence that the institutional Acarya, who had founded an organisation to be the embodiment of his charismatic self, had no intention of handing Acarya-ship over to anyone else, as is done traditionally, but intended instead to retain this position for himself. Thus the organisation would continue to be managed on the basis of his rule in absentia, in exactly the same manner as when he was present. Thus nothing was to change. For the GBC was expressly set up to represent a single institutional Acarya, not replace him - a fact which only emerges when the GBC's very raison d'etre, as given in its constitutional incorporation in 1970, and its official definition as resolved in 1975, are presented. Items which were surprisingly omitted by the author in his paper.
Thus in summary the author has conceded that after Srila Prabhupada departed he was not to be replaced by a successor Acarya, but a GBC. A GBC which itself is simply the instrument by which the single institutional Acarya manages, and an instrument which does not change its function after the Acarya departs. Thus the author has erred in falsely assuming that the absence of a successor Acarya means the absence of a single Acarya. An error which can only be made if one ignores the purpose and function of the GBC.
Seen in this light, it now becomes clear that the selection of ritvik priests by Srila Prabhupada to continue initiations in ISKCON, as demonstrated under 'Fallacy 1', is an arrangement that is not just consistent with a system of corporate governance based around the GBC, but is actually absolutely essential; for the single institutional Acarya would need the instrument of ritviks to ensure that he would continue to be able to function in his capacity as the single institutional Acarya in the same manner in his absence, as for when he was present. As the author confesses:
"The
problem arose when the conception of guru was implicitly based on
a traditional model of an inspired, charismatic spiritual autocrat, an
absolute and autonomously decisive authority, around whom an
institution takes shape as the natural extension and embodiment of his
charisma. Indeed, Srila
Prabhupada himself was such a guru." (CHCH, emphasis added) |
A system of selecting future directors which could only be in place if
the instrument of ritviks,
and not successor Gurus, was also in place.
Otherwise the pool of potential directors would dry up in 50 or so
years.
In conclusion, as derived from the author's own words, rather then
being an alternative to the model of rule via an institutional Acarya,
the GBC is actually the modus operandi for rule by the single
institutional Acarya. Thus
not only was Srila Prabhupada the single
institutional Acarya for
ISKCON whilst he was present, but this
arrangement was further institutionalised for the lifetime of ISKCON
via the creation and designation of a GBC as permanent "ultimate
managing authority" for ISKCON, supplemented by the selection of Ritviks via the July 9th
directive.
|
The Guru of Srila Prabhupada, Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakura, had also established his own organisation, The Gaudiya Matha, for which he was also the single institutional Acarya. The author attempts to bolster his argument for the false dichotomy between the single institutional Acarya and the GBC, by alleging that the Gaudiya Matha came to grief because it also incorrectly attempted to install a single institutional successor Acarya, instead of a GBC system of management. In this way the author tries to lend historical credence to his model of the GBC/multiple successor guru paradigm by invoking effectively the authority of Srila Prabhupada's Guru, who it is implied had also authorised a GBC system instead of a single successor Acarya:
"Other
accounts, from Gaudiya Matha sources, say that a Governing Body
Commission was formed and operated for a while before the attempt to
establish an acarya at the
head of the institution shattered the
organization. In any case, it is clear that the previous generation
came to grief on the same issue that confronted ISKCON: of forming a
unified preaching mission that did not depend on the direction of any
one individual but rather on a collegial body, functioning
cooperatively. […] Indeed, the acarya first established over the main body of the Gaudiya Matha suffered the same fate as that which befell a number of the ISKCON acaryas: after being raised so high, he fell down from the principles of Krishna consciousness. From Srila Prabhupada's perspective, all these spiritual problems must be considered as the consequence of the disciples' disobedience of the order of the spiritual master. Learning from that failure, Srila Prabhupada set up a governing body and watched over its operations as it tried to manage the society." (CHCH) |
"Two
deviations from Prabhupada's order - the "zonal acarya" system and
the "posthumous ritvik"
system - rest on adherence to the traditional
idea of leadership. Each in its own way presumes that genuine
authoritative leadership for the movement is found only when an
autocratic figure become recognised by his compelling, charismatic
presence or "self-effulgence", and who can then personify the
institution. […] In the event, the Gaudiya Matha leaders disregarded this order, and instead they reverted to the traditional single-acarya rule to which they were, after all, culturally habituated."[13] |
| "But
the idea of successor acarya, whether one or many, and the idea of
GBC are incompatible."[14] |
Thus it is clear that the arrangement that was set up in the Gaudiya Matha, far from supporting the author's idea of a GBC that would take the place of a single institutional successor Acarya, was actually the opposite, where the single institutional successor Acarya would eventually take the place of the GBC.
It is interesting to note therefore that the use of a GBC in the Gaudiya Matha was an arrangement different to both the author's false paradigms for the Gaudiya Matha and ISKCON (whereby the GBC was supposedly intended to permanently replace the single instutional Acarya), and also to the manner in which a GBC was created in actuality for ISKCON - to continue the rule of the existing single institutional Acarya.
|
In CHCH, the author sets out the problem that the movement was facing in the mid-1980s:
"Within
ten years of assuming the role of living exemplars and via
media to God for thousands of new devotees, six of them had quite
spectacularly plummeted, and ISKCON's survival was in doubt." (CHCH) |
He then confidently states that the reforms he enacted solved the problems the movement was facing:
"Although
ISKCON's crisis of leadership and authority was precipitated
by the falldowns and deviations of some of the gurus, that crisis was
to a large extent resolved by a structural revisioning and reordering
of the institutionalization of gurus in the society. […] It has taken time for confidence in ISKCON to be restored." (CHCH) |
However the truth is that actually none of this happened. The movement has continued to haemorrhage ever since these 'reforms' were instituted, with the now expanded number of Gurus also continuing to fall down and deviate. This has occurred to such an extent that ISKCON today truly does find itself at the edge of a precipice. The movement has less manpower now than it ever did at the height of the so-called 'zonal Acarya' crisis. The crisis of confidence was never really restored, but just temporarily covered over. On the contrary, it has simply worsened. The Gurus in the movement themselves have stated in recent months that the movement is in a 'mess', 'critical condition', and that the status of the leadership is 'rock bottom'. Indeed the current situation is best summed up by the author himself who stated in a confidential internal memo issued in May 2000 that the movement is 'disintegrating':
"How
will we deal with our polarized and disintegrating society; how
will we confront our conflicting moral claims?"[15] |
Leading Academic Also Aids The Deception
In one of the ICJ articles quoted above, ISKCON's leading academic, Hrdyananda Dasa Goswami, a visiting scholar at UCLA with a Phd from Harvard, also puts forward the false idea of multiple Gurus working under a GBC, rather than a GBC working under the directives of a single institutional Guru. He does this in his response to a challenge made by Dr. Rahul Peter Das, a noted academic who also contributes to the ICJ (Dr. Rahul Peter Das had questioned how the absolute and divine nature of the traditional 'vedic' Guru could be subject to the democratic forces inherently present in an ecclesiastical managerial body such as the GBC). Goswami opens by stating the issue at stake:
"Yet
the basic issue remains: can the ‘Hindu’ or ‘Vedic’ guru
authentically function under the authority of a governing body, however
constituted? I will argue that he or she can, to some extent. I base my
argument on a rather broad overview of Vedic civilisation, in the
traditional, not the academic, sense of the term ‘Vedic’." (ICJ, Volume 8, No.1, "The Role of The Guru in a Multi-Guru Society," Hrdayananda Goswami") |
Goswami in response then puts forward a series of arguments that have absolutely no relevance to the topic in hand. He tries to demonstrate the validity of the subordination of Gurus to a GBC by arguing that:
a) Gurus are always subordinate to the laws of God;
b) Gurus always operate in line with scripture and saintly persons;
"Returning
to our cosmic village, we find that even the great acaryas,
what to speak of the ‘ordinary’ gurus, must obey the law of God.
[…] Srila Prabhupada taught the traditional view that one should confirm spiritual teaching through three authorities: guru, sadhu and sastra — one’s own guru, other saintly persons, and sacred scriptures. Thus the guru functions within a cultural economy of checks and balances." (ICJ, Volume 8, No.1, "The Role of The Guru in a Multi-Guru Society," Hrdayananda Goswami") |
The first point is self-evident - and indeed is what defines a Guru. For no one would expect a Guru to teach that which is different to God, for then he would not be a Guru but a cheater. However there is great deal of difference between being subordinate to God, and being subordinate to an ecclesiastical managerial body, or GBC, which is the proposition under discussion. In theory most people would agree that an ecclesiastical body could be fallible and relative, whereas ‘the law of God’ would be infallible and absolute.
- The essence of the argument put by Dr Das is ‘how can one justify the absolute and infallible entity, the Guru, acting under that which is both fallible and non-absolute, the GBC?’
The very fact that a Guru always acts and represents the laws of God and scripture is what makes the Guru absolute. It is not evidence of how the absolute nature of the Guru can be subordinated by a managerial body. To argue that one absolute entity functions under other absolute entities merely strengthens the argument that absolute entities do not act under fallible and relative ones. It certainly does not provide evidence for the proposition that they do.
The argument that the Guru will operate in line with scripture and sadhus (saintly
persons), again is not evidence for the regulation of
the Guru by a managerial body. The sadhus do not regulate the Guru, nor
does the Guru function under their authority. Rather the reference
points of scripture and sadhu merely provide a means by which the
authenticity of the Guru can be established, for the bona-fide Guru
will not speak differently to scripture or saintly personalities. Thus
it is not that the bona fide Guru functions ‘within a cultural economy
of checks and balances’, but rather these checks and balances can be
used by the seeker as a means to establish if a Guru is genuine. The
bona-fide Guru can not be subject to 'checks and balances', for by
definition, if he is bona-fide, there is nothing to check and balance.
Therefore the following conclusion put forward by Goswami is false:
"Within
the cosmic village of Bhagavatam culture, the guru, and even
the great acarya, functions
within a system of constraints established
by dharma, sastra (scripture)
and the examples and teachings of
recognised saints (sadhus).
Thus, ISKCON’s system of requiring the guru
to abide by, and within, a social reality governed by the GBC does not
intrinsically violate the tradition in which the Society finds its
legitimacy." (ICJ, Volume 8, No.1, "The Role of The Guru in a Multi-Guru Society," Hrdayananda Goswami") |
For there is an intrinsic difference between the absolute reality as
represented by God and the Guru on the one hand, and an ecclesiastical
managerial body on the other. Indeed if the two are equated, then it
would provide further evidence of the 'catholicisation' of ISKCON,
whereby it would be claimed the GBC operated on the absolute platform
in the same way as the college of Cardinals become supposedly empowered
to elect an infallible pope. Furthermore, a Guru that speaks
non-differently to other saintly persons is not intrinsically the same
as that Guru being guided by and abiding under their authority. To
appreciate how this proposition of Goswami ultimately leads to
absurdity, one only needs to note that there is no bar in ISKCON to
anyone being a member of the GBC, either due to sex, race or their
position in the authority hierarchy. Thus we are now faced with the
theoretical possibility of the Guru 'abiding' under the aegis of his
own disciple, who just happens to be a competent manager and has been
appointed to the GBC. Indeed, according to ISKCON Law 3.5.1, GBC
deputies, many of whom are disciples of the current Gurus, are already
considered 'GBC members'.
Thus Dr Rahul's argument on the issue of the authority of the Guru not
being subordinated to a GBC stands. Rather, as we have seen earlier, it
is the GBC which is subordinated to the authority of the Guru.
The argument that Srila Prabhupada did empower the GBC to be the
'ultimate managing authority' governing ISKCON is not in itself
evidence that genuinely absolute, and thus intrinsically autocratic,
Gurus would be subordinate to such a body. For a start we must first
question whether any of these Gurus should even exist in the first
instance. We note that ISKCON guru apologists always like to start any
discussion on the subject by assuming, a priori, that gurus other than
Srila Prabhupada must exist within the movement. Yet this is the very
issue under contention. In this way they assume that which must be
proven. The valid argument put forward by Dr Rahul is yet more evidence
against the proposition that Srila Prabhupada appointed both a GBC and
Guru successors. A proposition which is so untenable that ISKCON
leaders have been forced to contradict themselves and each other, as
has been highlighted throughout this paper.
It is almost inevitable that as more and more members of the
academic community become aware of these glaring discrepancies, these
issues will have to be looked at more honestly. Especially if ISKCON is
to attract the credibility it so transparently craves.
CONCLUSION:
We have demonstrated the following:
- The 'Guru reforms' which took place in ISKCON in the mid-1980s, and
on which the current Guru system in ISKCON is based, was a political
exercise with no basis or authority from the Founder of ISKCON, Srila
Prabhupada.
Rather, the basis for these reforms were contradictory and without substance.
- That these reforms succeeded only in replacing one unauthorised Guru
system with another, and in doing so continued to suppress the ritvik system that was actually chosen by Srila Prabhupada for ISKCON's
future, even though ironically these reforms were based on this very
selection.
- That the ISKCON leadership is not presenting an accurate account of
these reforms, either to the movement's membership, or to the academic
community that interacts with the movement.
In this paper we have quoted heavily from the author's paper. We make
no apologies for this since we felt it important that these conclusions
be substantiated by the words of the architect of the reforms in
question. And with the words being those of the current ISKCON Chairman
broadcast officially to the academic community, these conclusions
cannot be easily dismissed by ISKCON's leadership as just another
heretical opinion. Rather, if the movement is to have any credibility
left, it will need to embrace these conclusions. The movement may be
able to keep its dependent Temple residents in a state of confusion and
ignorance over these issues, through banning, expulsion and
suppression, but it cannot expect to fool the entire academic
community; a community which ISKCON's leadership has been trying
assiduously to cultivate in an effort to improve the movement’s image.
We shall finish by quoting the ending of the author's paper:
"Our
work of reform and renewal continues. It has to be perpetual. As
part of that work, ISKCON is beginning to look back at itself, engaging
in its own process of honestly coming to terms with its past. Only by
so doing can it have a viable and progressive future." (CHCH) |
As we hope this critique has demonstrated, the process of reform and
renewal has not yet even begun. Nor has the movement ever honestly come
to terms with its past. Rather, it continues to live in denial, albeit
in an extremely sophisticated and scholarly manner. Indeed, CHCH is
trumpeted to the scholarly community as a supposedly honest and frank
exercise in self-criticism. But elaborate academic conferences will not
hide the simple fact that one unauthorised Guru system has simply been
replaced by another. This is the real painful truth of the matter. And
what we have seen is a consistently self-serving and inaccurate
rendition of the facts surrounding Srila Prabhupada’s instructions for
how initiations should continue within his movement. The academic
community has been cleverly fed a tissue of lies dressed up as
convivial soul-searching, whilst dissenters are surreptitiously muzzled
in the background.
We are, however, fully in agreement with the author's final sentence.
Only when the movement truthfully confronts its past, and implements
the real desires of Srila Prabhupada, can it have a 'viable and
progressive future'. We hope those who interact with the movement
will urge the ISKCON leadership to start this process by addressing the
conclusions presented in this essay. Only by doing so, we believe, will
the true dawn of reform bless ISKCON with all success.
The author of this paper welcome your feedback and can be contacted by
email at the following address:
[1] Spiritual Master / Guru
[2] A ritvik is an officiating priest who performs the spiritual
ceremony of initiation on behalf of the Initiating (Diksa) Guru.
[3] Diksa is
the process of initiating a disciple with spiritual
knowledge. The person who establishes this sacred and eternal bond with
the disciple is called the Diksa Guru, or Initiating Guru. Prior
to his passing in November 1977, Srila Prabhupada was the sole Diksa Guru for ISKCON. There can also be many other Gurus who assist the
disciple through relevant instructions. These are known as Siksa or
instructing Gurus.
[4] Conversations With Srila Prabhupada, volume 33,
Bhaktivedanta Book
Trust, 1991, pp 269-270
[5] Allegiance to Guru, to ISKCON and to Prabhupada,
Ravindra Svarupa
Das, 1998
[6] Second Article of Srila Prabhupada’s Last Will and
Testament
[7] Definition of GBC, Resolution 1, GBC minutes 1975
[8] The Direction of Management, 28th July, 1970
[9] Op cit.
[10] Statement 3, Srila Prabhupada’s Last Will and
Testament
[11] Letters from Srila Prabhupada, volume IV, The
Vaisnava Institute
in association with Bhaktivedanta Book Trust, 1987, pp. 2476-2478
[12] Conversations With Srila Prabhupada, volume 6,
Bhaktivedanta Book
Trust, 1989
[13] Allegiance to Guru, to ISKCON and to Prabhupada,
Ravindra Svarupa
Das, 1998
[14] Under My Order, Ravindra Svarupa Das, 1985
[15] Ravindra Svarupa Das, from a memo to the rest of
the Governing
Body Commission of ISKCON, May 2000
| Return to IRM Homepage |