Widespread Anti-ISKCON Thought and the Autocratic Acarya
BY: KRISHNA DASA
The GBC unanimously approved the paper "Srila Prabhupada: The founder Acarya of ISKCON." The paper is said to be "thoroughly researched and based on sastra and historical facts." As I pointed out in my last article, the GBC considers it anti-ISKCON, and to be Ritvik to "eliminate an actual GBC and rely on the charismatic, autocratic single acarya." The author of the paper, Ravindra Svarupa Prabhu, writes:
[PADA: OK this makes no sense at all?
(A) The GBC unanimously agreed to promote Ravindra Swarupa and his recent "Guru Tattva" paper.
(B) Simultaneously, some of the GBC thinks that Ravindra Swarupa's idea of making Srila Prabhupada the main "single acharya" focus for ISKCON is "like the ritviks" because its "Srila Prabhupada centered." And thus Ravindra Swarupa's paper takes too much emphasis off the GBC and its gurus.
(C) That means, the GBC does not "unanimously approve" of his paper? At the same time, the GBC posted the Ravindra Swarupa paper as their official main thesis on Guru Tattva on the GBC's managed web sites -- like Dandavats.
(D) Simultaneously, the GBC has condemned the author of their paper, Ravindra Swarupa das, for his being too tyrannical in running Philadelphia temple, and as such the GBC has removed Ravindra from the post of managing because of his chronic mis-managing. He is our best author, but he is not qualified to manage a paper bag?
How can all of these contrary ideas be true simultaneously?]
Ravindra Swarupa: "The advantage of a governing board is that power is more dispersed, and the members act to check and balance each other. The institution is inherently more stable: If at some time there is no single outstanding charismatic leader, the institution continues. On the other hand, the existence of two or more supremely qualified leaders can be smoothly accommodated. With a governing board they become an asset — the more the merrier. But if there is a single head, two or more highly qualified leaders will leave all but one under-engaged or unfulfilled, a condition that will foster schisms.
[PADA: The GBC gurus project has already "fostered schisms." Many of their gurus have had a long and dark history of big and bitter disagreements over all kinds of issues, causing their acharyas to be -- monitored, on probation, censured, suspended, removed, and even excommunicated. There has been, in addition to all these schisms, the Sridhara Maharaja schism, the Narayana Maharaja schism, the Fakir Mohan schism, the BV and BP Puri schism, the Kirtanananda schism, the Mahanidhi schism, and so on and so forth, and more recently -- the Hrdayananda schism, ad infinitum.]
RS: Thus a governing board is more stable, stronger and far more resilient than a single acarya.
BY: KRISHNA DASA
The GBC unanimously approved the paper "Srila Prabhupada: The founder Acarya of ISKCON." The paper is said to be "thoroughly researched and based on sastra and historical facts." As I pointed out in my last article, the GBC considers it anti-ISKCON, and to be Ritvik to "eliminate an actual GBC and rely on the charismatic, autocratic single acarya." The author of the paper, Ravindra Svarupa Prabhu, writes:
[PADA: OK this makes no sense at all?
(A) The GBC unanimously agreed to promote Ravindra Swarupa and his recent "Guru Tattva" paper.
(B) Simultaneously, some of the GBC thinks that Ravindra Swarupa's idea of making Srila Prabhupada the main "single acharya" focus for ISKCON is "like the ritviks" because its "Srila Prabhupada centered." And thus Ravindra Swarupa's paper takes too much emphasis off the GBC and its gurus.
(C) That means, the GBC does not "unanimously approve" of his paper? At the same time, the GBC posted the Ravindra Swarupa paper as their official main thesis on Guru Tattva on the GBC's managed web sites -- like Dandavats.
(D) Simultaneously, the GBC has condemned the author of their paper, Ravindra Swarupa das, for his being too tyrannical in running Philadelphia temple, and as such the GBC has removed Ravindra from the post of managing because of his chronic mis-managing. He is our best author, but he is not qualified to manage a paper bag?
How can all of these contrary ideas be true simultaneously?]
Ravindra Swarupa: "The advantage of a governing board is that power is more dispersed, and the members act to check and balance each other. The institution is inherently more stable: If at some time there is no single outstanding charismatic leader, the institution continues. On the other hand, the existence of two or more supremely qualified leaders can be smoothly accommodated. With a governing board they become an asset — the more the merrier. But if there is a single head, two or more highly qualified leaders will leave all but one under-engaged or unfulfilled, a condition that will foster schisms.
[PADA: The GBC gurus project has already "fostered schisms." Many of their gurus have had a long and dark history of big and bitter disagreements over all kinds of issues, causing their acharyas to be -- monitored, on probation, censured, suspended, removed, and even excommunicated. There has been, in addition to all these schisms, the Sridhara Maharaja schism, the Narayana Maharaja schism, the Fakir Mohan schism, the BV and BP Puri schism, the Kirtanananda schism, the Mahanidhi schism, and so on and so forth, and more recently -- the Hrdayananda schism, ad infinitum.]
RS: Thus a governing board is more stable, stronger and far more resilient than a single acarya.
[PADA: What? A governing body of conditioned souls, who are making schisms, including violent schisms where people are being sometimes assassinated, is stronger and better than an actual acharya? The three stooges are better than Jesus?]
*** But what if there are a number of exceptionally empowered—let's call them "self-effulgent"— acaryas on that board? Will they pull things apart? No: If they are indeed elevated in Krsna consciousness, then they will be certain to exemplify the principle of cooperative service at the lotus feet of Srila Prabhupada and make the governing board all the stronger.
[PADA: OK except acharyas do not need to participate in Governing Body Committees? Do we find that the associates of Lord Chaitanya had "Governing Board Meetings"? A Governing Body for the Church is meant to mange the Church on behalf of the acharya, as a Committee that manages on behalf of the acharya, the committee is not the acharya itself.]
*** Where is the sastric evidence for this? Where in sastra does it say that a group of self-effulgent acaryas are unable to cooperate with each other in the event that one of them is appointed head a spiritual institution?
[PADA: This was the original problem the GBC had with Jayatirtha in 1979, he is deviating, but he is an acharya. The other acharyas have had to criticize their acharyas like Jayatirtha, but no one is allowed to criticize the acharyas? Yes, good question, where do we find in shastra that the acharyas are banning and excommunicating other acharyas? And why has this question never been answered since 1979?]
*** Self-effulgent acaryas are more competent to lead other self-effulgent acaryas than conditioned souls are.
[PADA: What! Self effulgent acharyas are more competent to lead other self effulgent acharyas, than conditioned souls, in a managerial body? Self effulgent people do not need to form a managerial committee, since they are not "managers"? And the post-1978 GBC as a group has proven itself to be full of mistakes, illusions, cheating propensity, and no small amount of lusty desires, why are they still saying they are "the managers of acharyas"? Good questions! Same questions we were asking in 1978-1979, which lead to our being booted out by the "managers of the acharya"!]
*** If the GBC is comprised of at least some conditioned souls then the resolutions passed may be faulty. Under these conditions, the self-effulgent acaryas would be following bogus resolutions.
[PADA: Right, folks like the GBC think the acharyas make mistakes and deviate, and then there is going to be a committee to "reform the acharyas when they deviate." This makes no sense at all, conditioned souls are going to form a committee to manage the acharyas, and reform the acharyas when they deviate? Right, how come none of this is ever allowed to be discussed?]
*** On the other hand, a self-effulgent acarya is perfectly able to instruct another self-effulgent acarya, and his instructions would be totally in line with Krsna's desire. Self-effulgent acaryas are self-satisfied, free from ambition, and blissful by nature. They don't need a GBC in order to get along with each other and ensure that they are suitably engaged.
[PADA: Correct, acharyas are not working under the supervision of a managerial committee, why has hardly no one esle ever brought this out a long time ago, this is what we were asking in 1979.]
*** The paper also says we need a "clear and incisive understanding" of why it is a deviation to eliminate the GBC and rely on the charismatic autocratic single acarya.
[PADA: We need to rely on the vani of the acharya, and not rely on the defective resolutions of committees, that should be self-evident? Why is this even a question?]
*** Perhaps the GBC can provide us with this clear understanding. I am struggling to think of a good reason why the GBC is allowed to dictate terms to a self-effulgent acarya.
[PADA: Hee hee, the 1986 guru reformers biggest mistake, they thought they are going to dictate to, reform, and fix and repair the acharyas. What!]
*** In the GBC paper, "Understanding ISKCON's Lines of Authority" we find the statement: "Certainly a spiritual master may be more spiritually advanced than any given GBC member or any other ISKCON manager (while there may also be cases where the local GBC or ISKCON manager may be more spiritually advanced than a particular spiritual master). Nevertheless, concerning the spiritual management of the Society, as we have already clearly shown, Srila Prabhupada invested authority in the full GBC and its individual members and in other ISKCON managers."
"If a disciple has the mistaken conviction that his or her spiritual master is above the full GBC and ISKCON's laws and policies, that should be corrected by the spiritual master and other authorities."
[PADA: Hah hah, the GBC is comprised of spiritual masters, and when the spiritual master deviates, he is -- under the control of the people who -- were voted in by the spiritual master who is deviating?]
*** This statement is problematic. The disciple may believe his spiritual master to be fully self-realized. How is it possible for the disciple to accept that the GBC is above the spiritual master?
[PADA: Good progress! The GBC has made a parallel lines of authority paper, that the spiritual master is subordinate to the committee, but this makes no sense, the acharya is subordinated to the managers?]
*** The GBC's are elected according to their ability to manage, and not according to whether or not they are tattva-darsi, seers of the truth. Those who are not tattva-darsi cannot meaningfully correct a spiritual master who is tattva-darsi.
[PADA: Our 1979 point is now being revived!]
*** For many ISKCON devotees, their primary relationship is with their spiritual master and not the GBC. They do not accept that the GBC is above their spiritual master. This means they are also anti-ISKCON, though the GBC haven't explicitly said so.
[PADA: Right, the disciples of Jayatirtha all ran off with him when he blooped, and they formed a drug cult, because they are trained to be loyal to the individual guru and not to ISKCON. Good!]
The Svetasvatara Upansisad states: yasya deve para bhaktir / yatha deve tatha gurau / tasyaite kathita hy arthah / prakasante mahatmanah
"Only unto those great souls who have implicit faith in both the Lord and the spiritual master are all the imports of Vedic knowledge automatically revealed."
It is clear from this sloka that the members of ISKCON need to have full faith in their authority in order to understand Vedic knowledge. During Srila Prabhupada's manifest lila his position was absolute and ultimate, and he was the current link in the parampara. The ideal authority has all these three attributes.
At present, however, the GBC do not recognise the existence of such an authority. Srila Prabhupada is no longer considered the current link in the parampara for those aspiring for initiation. ISKCON gurus are not the ultimate authority for their disciples. Finally, it is clear from the comments made by senior devotees, that the GBC is not recognized as an absolute authority, free from imperfection. I guess these senior devotees are also to be considered anti-ISKCON.
So we have a spiritual vacuum----neither Srila Prabhupada, the ISKCON gurus, nor the GBC can be simultaneously considered a current, absolute and ultimate authority. The emergence of an autocratic self-effulgent acarya would remove this spiritual vacuum. The GBC, however, consider such a concept anti-ISKCON.
Why did Srila Prabhupada and Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati favour establishing a GBC instead of appointing a single acarya? Was it because it is an inherently better system, or was it because they saw no suitable successor? The GBC seems to think it is the former, but they have not presented good arguments. Nor have they offered a solution to the problems I have discussed in this article.
[PADA: Good, there is basically, no recognized authority in current ISKCON. People do not accept Srila Prabhupada as their current authority, they do not accept their current GBC authority -- since this is so full of defects, hence, its a headless horseman. Agreed. The Prabhupadanugas are the only group who recognize as the current authority, Srila Prabhupada.
Hah, that is the secret message of Ravindra's paper, its "too much ritvik" because even Ravindra is being forced to admit, Srila Prabhupada is the only authority that will be recognized by the larger mass of people, whether in our out of ISKCON, in the final analysis. ys pd]
[PADA: OK except acharyas do not need to participate in Governing Body Committees? Do we find that the associates of Lord Chaitanya had "Governing Board Meetings"? A Governing Body for the Church is meant to mange the Church on behalf of the acharya, as a Committee that manages on behalf of the acharya, the committee is not the acharya itself.]
*** Where is the sastric evidence for this? Where in sastra does it say that a group of self-effulgent acaryas are unable to cooperate with each other in the event that one of them is appointed head a spiritual institution?
[PADA: This was the original problem the GBC had with Jayatirtha in 1979, he is deviating, but he is an acharya. The other acharyas have had to criticize their acharyas like Jayatirtha, but no one is allowed to criticize the acharyas? Yes, good question, where do we find in shastra that the acharyas are banning and excommunicating other acharyas? And why has this question never been answered since 1979?]
*** Self-effulgent acaryas are more competent to lead other self-effulgent acaryas than conditioned souls are.
[PADA: What! Self effulgent acharyas are more competent to lead other self effulgent acharyas, than conditioned souls, in a managerial body? Self effulgent people do not need to form a managerial committee, since they are not "managers"? And the post-1978 GBC as a group has proven itself to be full of mistakes, illusions, cheating propensity, and no small amount of lusty desires, why are they still saying they are "the managers of acharyas"? Good questions! Same questions we were asking in 1978-1979, which lead to our being booted out by the "managers of the acharya"!]
*** If the GBC is comprised of at least some conditioned souls then the resolutions passed may be faulty. Under these conditions, the self-effulgent acaryas would be following bogus resolutions.
[PADA: Right, folks like the GBC think the acharyas make mistakes and deviate, and then there is going to be a committee to "reform the acharyas when they deviate." This makes no sense at all, conditioned souls are going to form a committee to manage the acharyas, and reform the acharyas when they deviate? Right, how come none of this is ever allowed to be discussed?]
*** On the other hand, a self-effulgent acarya is perfectly able to instruct another self-effulgent acarya, and his instructions would be totally in line with Krsna's desire. Self-effulgent acaryas are self-satisfied, free from ambition, and blissful by nature. They don't need a GBC in order to get along with each other and ensure that they are suitably engaged.
[PADA: Correct, acharyas are not working under the supervision of a managerial committee, why has hardly no one esle ever brought this out a long time ago, this is what we were asking in 1979.]
*** The paper also says we need a "clear and incisive understanding" of why it is a deviation to eliminate the GBC and rely on the charismatic autocratic single acarya.
[PADA: We need to rely on the vani of the acharya, and not rely on the defective resolutions of committees, that should be self-evident? Why is this even a question?]
*** Perhaps the GBC can provide us with this clear understanding. I am struggling to think of a good reason why the GBC is allowed to dictate terms to a self-effulgent acarya.
[PADA: Hee hee, the 1986 guru reformers biggest mistake, they thought they are going to dictate to, reform, and fix and repair the acharyas. What!]
*** In the GBC paper, "Understanding ISKCON's Lines of Authority" we find the statement: "Certainly a spiritual master may be more spiritually advanced than any given GBC member or any other ISKCON manager (while there may also be cases where the local GBC or ISKCON manager may be more spiritually advanced than a particular spiritual master). Nevertheless, concerning the spiritual management of the Society, as we have already clearly shown, Srila Prabhupada invested authority in the full GBC and its individual members and in other ISKCON managers."
"If a disciple has the mistaken conviction that his or her spiritual master is above the full GBC and ISKCON's laws and policies, that should be corrected by the spiritual master and other authorities."
[PADA: Hah hah, the GBC is comprised of spiritual masters, and when the spiritual master deviates, he is -- under the control of the people who -- were voted in by the spiritual master who is deviating?]
*** This statement is problematic. The disciple may believe his spiritual master to be fully self-realized. How is it possible for the disciple to accept that the GBC is above the spiritual master?
[PADA: Good progress! The GBC has made a parallel lines of authority paper, that the spiritual master is subordinate to the committee, but this makes no sense, the acharya is subordinated to the managers?]
*** The GBC's are elected according to their ability to manage, and not according to whether or not they are tattva-darsi, seers of the truth. Those who are not tattva-darsi cannot meaningfully correct a spiritual master who is tattva-darsi.
[PADA: Our 1979 point is now being revived!]
*** For many ISKCON devotees, their primary relationship is with their spiritual master and not the GBC. They do not accept that the GBC is above their spiritual master. This means they are also anti-ISKCON, though the GBC haven't explicitly said so.
[PADA: Right, the disciples of Jayatirtha all ran off with him when he blooped, and they formed a drug cult, because they are trained to be loyal to the individual guru and not to ISKCON. Good!]
The Svetasvatara Upansisad states: yasya deve para bhaktir / yatha deve tatha gurau / tasyaite kathita hy arthah / prakasante mahatmanah
"Only unto those great souls who have implicit faith in both the Lord and the spiritual master are all the imports of Vedic knowledge automatically revealed."
It is clear from this sloka that the members of ISKCON need to have full faith in their authority in order to understand Vedic knowledge. During Srila Prabhupada's manifest lila his position was absolute and ultimate, and he was the current link in the parampara. The ideal authority has all these three attributes.
At present, however, the GBC do not recognise the existence of such an authority. Srila Prabhupada is no longer considered the current link in the parampara for those aspiring for initiation. ISKCON gurus are not the ultimate authority for their disciples. Finally, it is clear from the comments made by senior devotees, that the GBC is not recognized as an absolute authority, free from imperfection. I guess these senior devotees are also to be considered anti-ISKCON.
So we have a spiritual vacuum----neither Srila Prabhupada, the ISKCON gurus, nor the GBC can be simultaneously considered a current, absolute and ultimate authority. The emergence of an autocratic self-effulgent acarya would remove this spiritual vacuum. The GBC, however, consider such a concept anti-ISKCON.
Why did Srila Prabhupada and Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati favour establishing a GBC instead of appointing a single acarya? Was it because it is an inherently better system, or was it because they saw no suitable successor? The GBC seems to think it is the former, but they have not presented good arguments. Nor have they offered a solution to the problems I have discussed in this article.
[PADA: Good, there is basically, no recognized authority in current ISKCON. People do not accept Srila Prabhupada as their current authority, they do not accept their current GBC authority -- since this is so full of defects, hence, its a headless horseman. Agreed. The Prabhupadanugas are the only group who recognize as the current authority, Srila Prabhupada.
Hah, that is the secret message of Ravindra's paper, its "too much ritvik" because even Ravindra is being forced to admit, Srila Prabhupada is the only authority that will be recognized by the larger mass of people, whether in our out of ISKCON, in the final analysis. ys pd]
=====================================
Thanks prabhu, The problem is that the current source of diksha has to be identified. Diksha means di = pure divyam jnanam and ksha = to absorb sins (like Jesus does), and if this is not going to be Srila Prabhupada, then who is it going to be? Who is the current source of pure divyam jnanam which nullifies sins, if it is not HDG? The GBC system, that the acharyas are managed by a fallible committee, seems to be coming unglued these days as well. If there is a current source of diksha other than HDG, then that person and the system that follows that person needs to be made clear, otherwise we have this "who is the diksha guru / authority" problem going on as stated in the article below: ys pd 
Thing is that ISKCON's present followers say that they don't understand what Prabhupada says. ISKCON leaders even support this by stating that disciples of Prabhupada could also not understand what his guru Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Maharaja was saying. They were taught to just listen to Prabhupada and understand previous acaryas through Prabhupada. Thats why present ISKCONites simply rely on what their gurus say. And of course they also won't protest when Prabhupada's books are again and again revised.
ReplyDeleteTake Russians, French people, Spanish people, they never learn English. When they hear a lecture by Prabhupada they understand zero. Of course they read Prabhupada's books in their language. But the books are sastra, eternal truth of the vedas. All those conversations and lectures are not translated. In other words, how Prabhupada wanted to things implemented into present situation is kept back. ISKCON leaders thus can tell them anything: stay at your home our temples are closed during weekdays, rise from bed whenever you like, vedic farm life was Prabhupada's dream but not reality. Like that, they can hoax them with anything. Meanwhile they restructured the whole movement with new followers who accept them without questioning if this is what Prabhupada wanted. For them Prabhupada is outdated so speak. Latest example, Paramadvaiti Swami embraces his female disciples. Now his senior Brahmin initiated disciples follow his example. Although there was huge protest, still, they follow their guru blindly. http://i59.tinypic.com/f4k5cg.jpg
iskcon is defined by srla prabhupada in cc adi lila basicaly iskcon is a branch of sri chaytania maharprabhus tree of love of god of which he is the trunk and each branch is an indervidual person an achari - as we will see if we read - therefore it is seen from the words of sri chaytania mahaprabhu and srla prabhupada in the purports that srla prabhupada is iskcon and the folowers of srla prabhupada are also a part of the iskcon branch of the tree of love of god as long as ther conected to srla prabhupada.
ReplyDeleteheres one of the verce of the cc that explains the tree of love of god, ther are may.
TRANSLATION
I offer my obeisances to all the dear devotees of Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu, the eternal tree of love of Godhead. I offer my respects to all the branches of the tree, the devotees of the Lord who distribute the fruit of love of Kṛṣṇa.
PURPORT
Śrī Kṛṣṇadāsa Kavirāja Gosvāmī sets the example of offering obeisances to all the preacher devotees of Lord Caitanya, without distinction as to higher and lower. Unfortunately, at present there are many foolish so-called devotees of Lord Caitanya who make such distinctions. For example, the title "Prabhupāda" is offered to a spiritual master, especially to a distinguished spiritual master such as Śrīla Rūpa Gosvāmī Prabhupāda, Śrīla Jīva Gosvāmī Prabhupāda or Śrīla Bhaktisiddhānta Sarasvatī Gosvāmī Prabhupāda. When our disciples similarly wanted to address their spiritual master as Prabhupāda, some foolish people became envious. Not considering the propaganda work of the Hare Kṛṣṇa movement, simply because these disciples addressed their spiritual master as Prabhupāda they became so envious that they formed a faction along with other such envious persons just to minimize the value of the Kṛṣṇa consciousness movement. To chastise such fools, Kṛṣṇadāsa Kavirāja Gosvāmī very frankly says, keha karibāre nāre jyeṣṭha-laghu-krama. Anyone who is a bona fide preacher of the cult of Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu must be respectful to the real devotees of Lord Caitanya; one should not be envious, considering one preacher to be very great and another to be very lowly. This is a material distinction and has no place on the platform of spiritual activities. Kṛṣṇadāsa Kavirāja Gosvāmī therefore offers equal respect to all the preachers of the cult of Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu, who are compared to the branches of the tree. ISKCON is one of these branches, and it should therefore be respected by all sincere devotees of Lord Caitanya Mahāprabhu.