Who is Srila Prabhupada and What is ISKCON?
In relationship to ISKCON, Srila Prabhupada is the Founder-Acarya. He said "I am ISKCON," and that can be understood in two ways: 1) that he is the institution, or that 2) he is the principles espoused by the institution.
Is he the institution? Are he and the institution non-different? An institution is a mental construct and has no existence in fact, and is an idea that is represented to many people. However, very real people claim to control the ideas that make up the institution and this gives them control over the lives of those who want participation in or involvement with the institution. What if those controllers deviate from the principles of the institution? In this case, if the GBC deviate from the principles expressed in Srila Prabhupada's teachings? Is the institution no longer Srila Prabhupada, and therefore not his representative? Or can the GBC do whatever they want and because they "are ISKCON" and therefore "are Srila Prabhupada" then whatever they do is the will of Srila Prabhupada? This is being expressed by some, that the GBC together are Srila Prabhupada, and whatever they decide is Srila Prabhupada's will. This idea is dangerous. This idea allows them to deviate in any way and claim that this deviation is the will of Srila Prabhupada. However, if we claim that the principles expressed by Srila Prabhupada in his writing and teaching are ISKCON, then those principles remain inviolable. We maintain that the principles taught by Srila Prabhupada are ISKCON, and we therefore have the right to claim Srila Prabhupada as the founder-acarya of the Daiva-varnashrama Sanga, since the sanga follows his teachings carefully. The Sanga follows more closely than do the GBC. Srila Prabhupada and shastra instruct that the check and balance of the transcendental subject matter is guru-shastra-sadhu. That is, when a specific point of siddhanta is not clear, one turns to these three for the answer and looks for the consistent answer. The GBC have violated this principal on two occasions, one of them very significant. The first is on the fall of the jiva. This point is equivocal in Srila Prabhupada's teachings, and the GBC have derived their own conclusion by interpreting shastra only, concluding that the jiva can fall to the material world from having direct association with Sri Krishna in divine lila. However, there is ample information on this subject from sadhus (Gaudiya and Sri Vaishnava traditions) as well as shastra, and they all reach the conclusion that the jiva does not fall from the spiritual world. This may be a somewhat minor point, but it demonstrates that the GBC deviate from the traditional philosophical checks which sets a dangerous precedent for future deviations. The second instance is much more serious, and that is the guru-disciple relationship. Here the GBC has a history of a variety of deviations from the traditional norms, interfering with the relationship between guru and disciple by attempting to introduce a third unrelated party, that of the institution. This means those who control the institution, whom we have seen have demonstrated their determination not to follow guru, shashtra or sadhu. Some temple presidents teach that the actual guru is the institution of ISKCON, while the initiator is a figurehead! It is our determine to follow the instructions of guru-shashtra-sadhu guru in all matters. Therefore it is our position that the jiva cannot fall once achieving liberation to Vaikuntha or Goloka Vrindavana. Since Srila Prabhupada made some statements to the contrary we take the matter to guru, shastra and sadhu and accept the conclusion found there, which is clear--the jivas never fall from the spiritual world. In the same way we go to guru, shastra and sadhu to find the nature of the guru-disciple relationship. The conclusion is clear that this relationship is solely determined by the guru and disciple with no intermediary. Questions about this relationship arise due to the nature and functioning of the organization of ISKCON, wherein disciples may rarely have direct association with their diksa guru and are almost always not trained by him. This training and day-to-day sadhana are overseen by an authority who in some cases represents the institution, therefore the GBC sees that it is necessary to intervene in the relationship. A far easier way to approach the issue is to change the nature of the circumstances that seem to warrant such interference. First would be to stop treating the disciple as a piece of property. He/she is a person of free will who can manage their lives as they deem fit. In doing so they may take employment with any company and their behavior there is governed by the dictates of the employer. That employer does not interfere with the spiritual lives of the devotee. ISKCON should be seen as a type of "employer" and the devotee may contract to "work" in their environs subject to their dictates. Why should the guru interfere? Similarly, why should any authority of ISKCON interfere with the relationship between guru and disciple? Only since they take the role of verifying the eligibility of the candidate for initiation? Daiva Varnashrama Sangam will solve this dilema by requiring the candidate for initiation to spend time directly with the guru, as is recommended by the authority of Srila Sanatana Goswamin in Hari Bhakti Vilasa. If either the guru or disciple is unwilling to do this and determine by mutual consent their desire to enter into the relationship, then no initiation shall take place. That is, local authorities may give their opinion regarding the candidates qualification for initiation, but establishing the relationship depends solely on the participants in the relationship--the guru and disciple. There is no need of concern for loss of "their men" since the sangam is not organized for the purpose of "building an institution". It is meant for the purpose of finding candidates to devotional service, who are then given preliminary training in cities and places of recruitment. After the initial training and trial period these persons are sent to the village communities where they will receive further training under the eye of the guru. Demphasizing diksa and giving more prominance to siksha. Let the trainer be considered as guru--siksha guru--with all respect and honor due to the guru. The one making the connection with the parampara, the diksa guru, is also given respect, but according to the degree he actually acts as a guru in training the disciple. Then what is guru? There is no difference between siksa and diksa. The diksa guru, if he is not training the disciple, will give all authority and credit to the siksha guru, and take the less prominent role. |
