Rocana's Constitutional Crisis

Constitutional Issues: 'Rubber-stamp' Approvals

BY: ROCANA DASA (Sampradaya Sun)

May 04 2015 — CANADA (SUN) — Over the course of the last year we have received input from a number of devotees who have reviewed the draft Constitution for ISKCON As it Is. The document was first studied and discussed by members of a Constitution Workgroup. Except for input that was generally semantic or typographical in nature, we received a fairly short list of comments and questions from them.

Workgroup members were invited to participate on condition that they were in agreement with three essentially non-negotiable issues, enumerated in § 10.6 of the Constitution: a) the description of the exalted status of His Divine Grace A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Srila Prabhupada set forth in the Preamble; b) the intent to re-constitute the Governing Body Commission; and c) the position on guru-tattva (specifically, the provision against post-samadhi ritvik diksa).

Not surprisingly, the second of these topics was the subject of quite a number of comments and inquiries as members discussed the draft Constitution. (We will share the gist of these discussions in future editorials.) We were surprised, however, at one particular element of the Constitution that met with the greatest amount of resistance or feedback. That is, the provision that the GBC and the society in general should not involve itself in choosing or approving who can serve as diksa-guru.

[PADA: Right, this has been the problem all along, the GBC has not picked good candidates to be their gurus and acharyas, and they have said in essence that they are not even necessarily trying to select good candidates for gurus, rather that is the job of the newest persons off the street, the new bhaktas -- who should choose who will be the guru(s) for ISKCON. 

That means the elders and senior devotees have been taken off the process for selecting who will lead and be the guru(s) of ISKCON, and who will be worshiped as its parampara successors, and this job has been handed over to the extreme new and neophyte class. 

In a normal church, or any organization really, the elders have the first and last power to decide who will be accepted as a leader or guru in that church. They never say, "aunt sally's neophyte cousin who has no clue about the details of the Bible, and who comes to church once in awhile, she gets to be the leading voter over whom the whole church's messiahs and leaders will be."]

RD: For a great many years now, devotees both within and outside of the ISKCON institution have been voicing their dissatisfaction with the GBC's program of "rubber-stamping" diksa gurus. Pointing to sastric evidence contrary to this practice and a history of failure in the ISKCON guru program, which has not functioned properly for nearly 40 years now, many devotees have taken a dim view of the diksa 'rubber-stamp'. 

We were quite surprised, therefore, to hear from many of these same dissenting voices, who now feel that the ISKCON As It Is proposed Constitution should provide for the same sort of institutional function: that the re-constituted GBC should continue approving diksa gurus before they can initiate in the society. Following is one such example.

A Constitution Workgroup member wrote: "The preamble states: "We reject the notion that an organizational body or a collective of leaders of a matha or spiritual institution are authorized by sastra and the Sampradaya's Acaryas to withhold permission for any qualified disciple to become a bona fide representative of the Sampradaya by giving diksa initiation following the departure of his own Spiritual Master. Likewise, we reject the notion that such an institutional body or collective of leaders has the right to withhold permission for any qualified disciple to enter into the sannyasa asrama."

Who will decide who is qualified? Does not the act of deciding constitute a form of acceptance or rejection of candidates and thus render this clause self-contradictory? Notwithstanding the problems connected with ISKCON's present system of guru approval, the idea of a free for all seems much worse."

My reply to this query was as follows: "As written into the draft Constitution, my conception is that the answer to that question is, the candidate for guruship, and likewise the candidate for initiation, as well as the candidate for sannyasa initiation -- they will decide. 

[PADA: The senior and elder devotees of ISKCON will not decide who will lead the society? The candidate for initiation (the newest persons in ISKCON) will be the de facto managers of ISKCON, because they get to decide who is the guru of ISKCON? Yes, that is exactly what the GBC has now. For example Jayatirtha's neophyte and new folks thought he was their guru, and so they followed him, and they did not care what us "elders" had to say. Rocana is continuing the same system.] 

It is a matter of freewill. 

[PADA: The choice of who shall be the guru is the free will choice of the most neophyte persons in the society?]

Sastra does not instruct that someone else can decide for them. 

[PADA: Same "buyer beware" guru program the GBChas already? No, the elders of the church decide who shall pastor the church, not the guy who sweeps the church once a week?]

Other than guru instructing and ordering disciple, there is no mechanism for institutional deciding and approval. Srila Prabhupada allowed an institutional process while he was here, but after his departure it failed tremendously, so I don't think we can re-institute on that basis alone, knowing there's a good likelihood of it failing again.

[PADA: The system for selecting the guru has to be made by the senior most elders, and the GBC system has been instead that the most neophyte people are doing the selecting, and that is not a system that will work in any organization, the part time new person selects the directors of the corporation? What if the new guy selects his drunk uncle Charley to manage the corporation?]

What is available to us is a practical, manageable, sastrically sound method for controlling the situation after the fact -- after one has decided to put themselves forward as guru or sannyasi, with the basic regulations and etiquette. 

[PADA: We cannot manage personality guru cults -- after the fact? Once these false gurus have a personality cult going on, it will continue once people begin to worship someone as their guru. People can also get beaten and murdered for dissenting! Once this is all set up, its not easily correctable later on? The correction has to be on the front end, beforehand. 

We have to decide who is going to be the brain surgeon for the hospital -- on the front end -- based on his qualifications and experience, -- we cannot decide he is not fit -- after he kills people because he is not really a surgeon -- after the fact? Its too late to fix things like this after the fact? 

Has any of the bogus GBC guru cults been fixed very well -- after the fact? Yes, after we had the Federal Marshals raid some guru's compound, we decided he is not a guru -- after the fact. Its too later to fix this kind of mess -- after the fact? We need to prevent this BEFOREHAND.]  

Then they are open to the scrutiny of the members, at all levels. They are judged based on the symptoms they display, both in sadhana and siddhanta. 

[PADA: ISKCON gurus have had all sorts of problems with sadhana and siddhanta, they were generally not removed, and still are not being removed. This is backwards, we need to find a person who has correct sadhana and siddhanta to be the leader BEFOREHAND, not after he makes a catastrophic mess, after the fact! Well fine, the janitor is not really a brain surgeon, as we found out AFTER THE FACT that he killed people doing bogus surgery. Rocana! Its too late by then!] 

If they are preaching or living not in accord with sastra, and the principles of the Constitution, then they are at risk of being told to remediate, or leave the society. That we can enforce, and have every right and duty to enforce.

[PADA: Great, so we give these neophyte appointed acharyas hundreds of people and then they leave the society taking all "their" men, money and maybe buildings, how is that going to be any different from Kirtanananda's independent guru cult?]

ISKCON, in the mood of politicians and religionists, tries to control everything on the front end… nominations, appointments, guruships, etc. Then they completely ignore performance of the persons awarded those positions. 

When they fail, or fall down, there is no consequence. Whatever consequence there is, is generally political. The draft Constitution proposes just the opposite: on a philosophical basis, we do not try to control what sastra doesn't give us the right to control -- who can be guru, or sannyasi, or who a jiva can choose as their guru. 

But we do carefully monitor performance of spiritual leaders, and based on a well-defined set of constitutional principles (and eventually a more granular book of statutes that rolls out of it), we ensure taking decisive action to remediate those not following properly. A fully accountable, fully transparent system that sees to the remediation or expulsion of deviating members, without nonsense, politics or secrecy. And that would be very different from a 'free for all' environment.

[PADA: OK except if Rocana is going to be the monitor of the acharyas, that makes him the boss of the acharyas? The person who monitors anyone is the superior. How did Rocana become the superior of the acharyas? Where in the Vedas do we have -- monitored, advised, censured, removed, chastised, suspended and excommunicated acharyas? Rocana is simply recycling the GBC's arguments, again!]

"Who will decide who is qualified? Does not the act of deciding constitute a form of acceptance or rejection of candidates and thus render this clause self-contradictory?" We're saying no one can decide this -- except, of course, the maha-bhagavata Acarya. 

[PADA: Great, so Rocana is going to decide what is correct, because he is the maha bhagavata acharya? Rocana is higher than the maha bhagavata, he is the advisor to the acharyas, that makes him higher than the acharyas.]

If he were physically present to intervene, he could certainly say. Yes, the act of deciding does constitute approval -- but that's rejected in this paragraph from the Constitution, so there's nothing contradictory. The accepted 'deciding' comes after the fact, in the form of performance review. 

[PADA: OK so we are back to square one, we are going to make or allow hundreds of dubious acharyas, and review them after the fact, after they have made a huge mess.] 

In other words, we have no right to control it on the front end, but we have every right and duty to control it on the back end, in the context of who can be a member. We cannot say who can be guru or sannyasi, but we can say who cannot be a member of the Society.

[PADA: This is basically the GBC's no-objection guru certification. We have no objection, but we will monitor, we will censure, suspend, reform, check, police and fix the acharyas when they break down. This is simply what we already have.]

Candidates for initiation will be prone to make mistakes and pick unsuitable gurus. That cannot be controlled -- it's a matter of freewill choice. But we can preach to those candidates about who they should / shouldn't consider, and we can keep the Society safe by ejecting and disapproving of gurus, both in and outside the Society. Just as the uninitiated will be prone to make mistakes, so institutional leaders will be prone to make mistakes when approving candidates for guru / sannyasi. So there are no guarantees, either way."

[PADA: Yes, there is a way to guarantee success, promote the worship of the actual pure devotee Srila Prabhupada. Anyway notice, Rocana now says the acharyas are going to be managed, monitored, corrected and maybe removed -- by him. Wait! Krishna says He dictates to the acharyas, and Rocana says nope, Krishna is no longer required, Rocana is going to monitor and dictate to the acharyas, and even "fix" or remove them. Rocana is going to allow a pack of fools to be acharyas and "fix them" on the back end, after the fact. That is simply the same system already in place. Nope, we should not allow fools to be acharyas BEFORE hand. 

Rocana does not get it, there is no "system for managing the acharyas" because, acharyas are not managed, much less, managed by a person like Rocana! ys pd]