GBC - ultimate spiritual authority for ISKCON?

[Guest guest]

GBC - ultimate spiritual authority for ISKCON?

 

**With permission from the author I am posting this to share with the

members of this conference. - Pancharatna das

 

**Excerpted from a paper sent to the GBC by Bhaktarupa Das on 08-Nov-99**

 

It seems that the first order of business is that the GBC should have a

clear self-perception. Although Srila Prabhupada's will states that the GBC

is to be the "ultimate managerial authority", some have felt the necessity

to project the GBC as the ultimate spiritual authority as well. This

divergence of opinion may be at the heart of much of the contentiousness

going around.

 

Various arguments have been put forward for the "ultimate spiritual

authority" position and I can't recall all of them, but the basic idea is:

 

"Someone or something has to be the ultimate spiritual authority, otherwise

there will be philosophical anarchy and a host of other problems. Srila

Prabhupada didn't set up any other system of authority, therefore the GBC

must be ultimate on spiritual matters as well."

 

This is a reasonable claim. But first of all we should ask the question: Is

it at all possible for the GBC Body to be the ultimate spiritual authority

for ISKCON? Is it possible for the GBC Body to answer all spiritual

questions definitively and permanently?

 

In response to this, I have heard the argument that we have evidence from

our vaishnava history of spiritual questions being raised and answers being

ultimately derived by calling together all the foremost sadhus and reaching

a consensus. Thus, since the GBC Body was established by Srila Prabhupada,

it should be expected to function in the role of such a sammelan of sadhus

and can decide how fundamental spiritual questions are to be resolved. This

is a very appealing argument! On closer analysis, though, one will find that

it actually begs the question: In the vaisnava communities of the examples,

the sadhus who were called upon to answer the spiritual matters at hand were

already the indisputable spiritual authorities for the community, and all

members of the community were already prepared to accept whatever the sadhu

sammelan decided. Thus, what could be actually concluded from the examples

is that yes, the GBC Body may act as an ultimate spiritual guide for ISKCON,

provided the members of ISKCON are prepared to accept them as such.

 

But from a very practical perspective, the GBC Body, as it was set up to

function by Srila Prabhupada and as it continues to function today, is

poorly equipped to act as an ultimate spiritual authority. Rather, its

manner of functioning is clearly designed for a managerial role: Each member

is expected to be engaged in management activities. Its time is limited and

nearly exhausted by heavy managerial loads. And its voting system is ideal

for the process of practical compromise which is necessary for a large

organization with divergent managerial opinions.

 

But even more importantly, the ultimate spiritual authority for the society

means the ultimate spiritual authority for the individual members, and every

ISKCON member requires to have direct access to his or her ultimate

spiritual authority in order to adequately progress in spiritual life. How

is it possible for every ISKCON member to have direct access to the GBC

Body? Yes, it has Zonal Secretaries and Ministers as its representatives,

but while such an arrangement is satisfactory for managerial work, it is

clear that this can never be adequate for fully guiding the spiritual lives

of the devotees. And as far as the Body's only other extension to the

devotees -- its resolutions and other writings -- the written word is

well-known to be susceptible to varieties of interpretation. Even at

present, for specific GBC resolutions there may be many different

interpretations even among GBC members. To resolve interpretational

disputes, only the full Body can decide -- and again we have the

accessibility problem.

 

Since the GBC Body cannot fulfill the role, what or who is the ultimate

spiritual authority for ISKCON? There is another candidate --

sadhu-sastra-guru. This is clearly in line with Srila Prabhupada's general

teachings, and he never stated anything specific to the contrary. The

accessibility problem is not there, as sadhu-sastra-guru is available to one

and all. The interpretation problem is not there, as sadhu-sastra-guru can

be accepted directly without any interpretation. The sufficiency problem is

also not there, as sadhu-sastra-guru is indisputably capable of spiritual

guidance. And also, there can never be a higher authority to overrule it.

 

But there is one possible problem: Although sadhu-sastra-guru is the perfect

authority and there is never any contradiction, it manifests to different

devotees in different ways, and thus there may appear to be contradictions.

These apparent contradictions may work to divide the society, as the

different realizations of different devotees become formalized as competing

doctrines.

 

A doctrine is a system of ideas which are presented for belief. All

religious organizations have doctrines. This simply means that Krishna has

grouped worshipers of God together according to similarities of faith so

that each individual's faith reinforces the others'. The similarities of

faith are expressed in terms of doctrine, which all members of the group

believe and those that do not believe in that way are naturally excluded.

Social pressures exist within such organizations to control the

manifestation of ideas which are outside the bounds of the doctrines.

 

Doctrines are naturally restricting and have been the source of the endless

religious arguments which have bloodied the planet for thousands of years.

However, the ideal societies we find described and glorified in Srimad

Bhagavatam and other Vedic literature had allowance for variegatedness in

religious belief and had outlets for the peaceful settlements of disputes.

To this day Hinduism is most famous for its tolerance of varieties of

religious belief. If someone didn't fit in somewhere they were just shifted

to another category. The individual relationships changed, but the society

as a whole was unaffected. ISKCON scholars now are writing papers about how

Hindus have no identifiable doctrinal concept which all adhere to. Although

we are not Hindus, these modern-day manifestations are proof of the ancient

Vedic tradition of tolerance. This tolerance is firmly rooted in the

philosophical notion that although God is one, he manifests differently. In

the terminology used above, there is never any contradic

 

So at least we can conclude from all this that although as a religious

organization we must have doctrine, we should be careful as to what we

declare to be doctrine. If we simply take any majority opinion and draw the

line there, we may find ourselves declaring as heretics many who have a

valuable contribution to make -- many whose divergent views may be useful to

at least help us sharpen our own perceptions and perhaps in the future lead

us to higher sytheses.

 

Of course, on the other side we must also have a philosophical bottom line

beyond which we can never allow ideas to freely circulate in the society

with any kind of official tolerance. Discussions about where to draw this

bottom line can be debated in the future, but I would like to suggest a

starting point for our "ISKCON Doctrine": the Dasamula of Srila Thakur

Bhaktivinode. For quick reference I include it here in rough form:

 

1. The Vedas are coming from Krishna and are faultless. They state: 2. Hari,

the Almighty, is one without a second.

3. He is invested with infinite power.

4. He is the ocean of rasa.

5. The jivas are his separated parts.

6. Some jivas are bound by maya, which is Krishna's illusory energy. 7. Some

jivas are free from maya.

8. Bhagavan, jiva, and maya are inconceivably simultaneously one and

different. 9. Bhakti is the only means of attaining prema.

10. Prema is the highest state of spiritual existence.

 

Of course, if we prefer, we could also use the same ten points according to

the specific statements of Srila Prabhupada, but for the purposes of this

discussion the Dasamula is a convenient description of an appropriate outer

boundary for our doctrine. We would certainly never want to widen the scope

further than that.

 

With the Dasamula as our strong underlying foundation, our worst fears of

philosophical anarchy can be put to rest, as we have effectively immunized

ourselves from attacks by mayavadis, sunyavadis, Western religionists, New

Agers, demigod worshipers, smartas, etc. (If we are concerned about

sahajiyas who also accept Dasamula we could add a tenet or two.) And we can

also note that anyone who truly accepts Dasamula will certainly have much in

common with us, and their preaching work will most likely be beneficial to

the living entities. If we add to Dasamula the acceptance of Srila

Prabhupada, then we have a solid beginning to describe the outer bounds of a

formal ISKCON structure which cannot be said to be doctrinally overly

restrictive and exclusive, and which has the best chance of being the

broad-based, world-changing institution Srila Prabhupada envisioned.

 

But still we have only been discussing theoretical ideals of philosophical

tolerance. To actually answer the management issue of free speech we need to

discuss how ideas are to be propagated. It is one thing to discuss a

controversial philosophical point among groups of mature devotees. It is

another to make it the central theme of a Sunday Feast lecture. But to give

at least a minimal scope for free speech and the concept of a healthy

competition of ideas, it would seem that any forum limited to initiated

and/or mature devotees would be appropriate for philosophical discussion

within the concept of our broad ISKCON philosophical doctrine as described

above. Of course, purely philosophical discussions are not the norm in the

corridors of ISKCON. Generally, discussions in such forums are full of

political overtones as well. Those have to be dealt with for what they are.

 

So then the question arises as to what is appropriate for public forums. In

principle, it would be nice to say that any philosophical idea within our

broad doctrine, substantiated with sastra and free from political overtones,

would be appropriate for public presentation as well. In practice, though,

we have to consider that preaching to immature devotees or

devotee-candidates requires all sorts of strategic considerations. There is

no question that Srila Prabhupada was more careful about what he spoke in

public than what he spoke in private. Our ISKCON top management has the duty

to manage the world-wide preaching mission. It is certainly within the

rights of managers to say that a certain idea, although within the

boundaries of broad ISKCON philosophical doctrine, is inappropriate for

discussion in public forums. This may be difficult for some of the

free-speech advocates to accept -- but ISKCON is not a country, which has to

accomodate everyone who behaves civilly. Rather, it is an institution with a

pe

 

In this context the GBC may give guidance to the society on philosophical

matters -- as a direction to assist in the coordination of our preaching

efforts. They should not attempt, however, to give their philosophical

guidance the force of law: "No ISKCON member shall say .....", as such

resolutions are unenforceable and in other ways problematic. They may give

guidance when necessary and leave the practical application up to the local

leaders.

 

This right of restriction just described is very basic for the survival of

the institution, and no self-regulation, such as a Constitution, should be

there to curb this particular right. However, such power is very significant

and can be easily abused by those wanting to wield it for political

advantage. Such abuse is very difficult to check and root out, and if

allowed to continue unchecked will certainly be the undoing of all that

Srila Prabhupada worked for to create ISKCON. Actually, we can say for

certain that this kind of abuse will always be there as long as we are still

in the material world. It would be fully checked only by having highly

qualified vaisnavas in all responsible positions, a perhaps unattainable

ideal. The GBC Body should, however, devise managerial systems to as best as

possible check abuse of this power at the international, regional, and local

levels.

 

Lest anyone argue that adoption of the above course will make the GBC weak

and ineffectual, I list below some of the many strong tools which the GBC

Body will retain. These tools are more than enough for effective leadership.

The primary ineffectiveness that the GBC Body now faces is in its trying to

be something it is not, the ultimate spiritual authority. With this

misconception moved aside it can take up the work that it can do strongly

and effectively:

 

1. Strongly keeping the stick of expulsion ready for those that directly

undermine the principle of GBC authority or who work to managerially split

the society.

 

2. Many times philosophical disagreements with the GBC are used as

smokescreens for devious plans to plunder ISKCON's assets. These can be

investigated and exposed.

 

3. To require civility in debates on philosophical issues, and not allow

petty managerial control to be used as tools for violating the devotees'

rights to seek the spiritual shelter of their choice.

 

4. To promote schemes which will serve to deepen the spiritual realizations

of the devotees, which will thus immunize them from the attacks of

ill-considered ideas.

 

5. To actively recruit devotees with depth of personal realization into the

management of the society at various levels.

 

6. To encourage junior devotees to seek spiritual shelter from those seen

fit to give it.

 

7. To keep a very strong consciousness in the society of how we are all

working to fulfill the desires of Srila Prabhupada, and thus of Sri Caitanya

Mahaprabhu. While we mostly share the goals of other Gaudiya Vaisvava

institutions and can explore methods of cooperative endeavor wherever

practical, formal ISKCON remains dedicates specifically to the particular

mission and mood of Srila Prabhupada.

 

8. ISKCON members will always look upon the GBC members with respect. By

keeping strong in their personal behavior the GBC members can exert a

powerful positive influence on the society.

 

9. To keep an emphasis on the basic spiritual practices, especially the

chanting of the holy name, as the source of all unity for our society.

Laxity in practice makes a devotee susceptible to poisonous ideas.

 

Etc.

 

It is hoped that the above can instill confidence in the GBC members that

they have the doctrinal and practical tools necessary to act decisively on

any matter seriously threatening the society without having to project

itself as the ultimate spiritual authority.

 

- excerpted from a paper to the GBC by Bhaktarupa das