© 1999 VNN
|
EDITORIAL December 29, 1999 VNN5167 Comment on this story Prabhupada Centennial Survey: Final Report BY KUNDALI DAS EDITORIAL, Dec 29 (VNN) — Leadership and Governance: Declining Religious Authority and the Loss of Trust (This entire passage is cited verbatim from the survey): Over the past 20 years ISKCON has more or less continually found itself involved in controversies surrounding the GBC and ISKCON's gurus. The collective energy of the movement has been forced time and time again to address questions of leadership. As the findings presented here and elsewhere suggest (Goswami, Tamal Krishna 1997; Rochford 1998b), ISKCON has faced and continues to face what can only be described as a crisis of trust. These are bold and dramatic words for sure, but the fact remains that the erosion of the leadership's authority has made it difficult for devotees to work cooperatively toward fulfilling Prabhupada's spiritual vision. It has also made the leadership a less effective instrument for change within ISKCON. Table 11 reports on the percentage of respondents by region and member type who agreed with a series of statements addressing issues and concerns related to ISKCON's leadership.6 Items have been grouped under three headings: general leadership, GBC, and the guru institution. A number of findings are particularly noteworthy. As the findings make clear, both full-time and congregational members from all regions accept and respect the legitimacy of the GBC andthe guru institution. The GBC is seen as the legitimate governing authority within ISKCON [See II. (a), Table 11] and respect is expressed for the spiritual authority of ISKCON's current gurus [See III. (a)]. A large majority have faith that the leadership of ISKCON is attempting to act in the best interests of Prabhupada's movement [See I. (a)]. Although there are noteworthy differences between full-time and congregational members in North America and W./N. Europe, it remains the case that a significant percentage of devotees believe that the GBC represents their interests and concerns. As one might expect, devotees who were formerly affiliated with ISKCON express less support for the GBC and the guru institutions.7 Although the GBC and guru institutions are respected by rank and file members there remains a belief by many that both institutions nonetheless require change to be more responsive, effective, and above suspicion and controversy. A sizable percentage expressed the view that the reform movement of the mid-1980s did not resolve the guru controversies within ISKCON (See III (b)]. A large percentage believed the GBC should be restructured to ensure that a greater range of viewpoints are represented on the governing board [See II (b)]. Many also felt GBC decisions had little relevance to their lives and that they were given little say in how ISKCON was governed (especially congregational members) [See II (e); I (b)]. For example, a significant majority of full-time and congregational members across regions believed that the needs and problems of householders had been largely ignored by ISKCON's leadership [See I(c)]. This view was somewhat less prominent in Eastern Europe, where family life has only begun to expand in recent years. For these and other reasons there was some support--especially by congregational members--for the idea that GBC representatives should be elected to office, rather than appointed by the GBC body [See II (d)]. It is the guru institution and the guru system as it presently operates within ISKCON where we find devotee respondents wanting change and intervention by the GBC. In fact devotee respondents clearly want the gurus to be subject to the bureaucratic authority of ISKCON, if only to control gurus in hopes of avoiding future scandal and controversy. Given the recent controversy surrounding Harikesh Prabhu, it seems likely that such views have grown in intensity among rank and file devotees worldwide. Charismatic authority allowed to operate independent of GBC control (and even with it) has proven volatile, especially when gurus have proven themselves incapable of maintaining the purity upon which their religious authority rests. In response to pressures from the reform movement of the mid-1980s, ISKCON implemented a number of policies meant to restrain the independent charismatic authority of the gurus (e.g., removing vyasasanas for ISKCON gurus from temples, discontinuing guru puja for gurus other than Prabhupada in the temple room, reaffirming that gurus serve only under the authority of the GBC, etc.). The findings from the Centennial Survey demonstrate that full-time devotees, congregational members, and former ISKCON adherents, believe that the role of the guru within ISKCON should be subject to strong GBC control. An overwhelming majority of full-time members thought that ISKCON gurus should be subject to regular reviews by the GBC [III (c)]. Only slightly fewer congregational members and former ISKCON adherents took this view. About 80% believed that aspiring ISKCON gurus should be required to pass the Bhaktivedanta degree [III (d)]. A substantial majority also held the view that there should be enforced standards meant to limit the material lifestyle of ISKCON's gurus [III (e)]. While there is variation across regions and among the three devotee groups, most devotee respondents rejected the idea that a spiritual master should have absolute authority to instruct his disciples independent of the GBC [III (f)]. Although placing further controls on the guru institution and individual gurus provides one reaction to the continuing controversy surrounding ISKCON's gurus there is another that has gained increasing influence--the ritvik philosophy of initiation. Some devotees both in and outside ISKCON hold the view that people who take initiation from an ISKCON guru become disciples of ISKCON's founding acarya Srila Prabhupada. As ritviks, ISKCON's gurus serve as little more than ceremonial priests on Prabhupada's behalf (See The Final Order 1996). Putting aside theological questions about the existence or meaning of ritvik gurus (see Goswami, Tamal Krishna et al. 1998), it nonetheless remains clear that many devotees have found this view appealing in the face of growing scandal and controversy surrounding Prabhupada's successor gurus. As I have argued elsewhere (Rochford 1998b), the ritvik philosophy functionally restores religious authority to the guru institution (if not to current gurus) with Prabhupada again becoming the single source of religious purity and authority within ISKCON. Ritvik gurus may fall from grace but the guru institution, so central to ISKCON's religious philosophy, maintains its spiritually pure character in the form of Prabhupada. The ritvik position received some support from among devotee respondents. As might be expected, support for the ritvik position was stronger among congregational members and former ISKCON adherents [See III(g-i)]. Yet there is a substantial minority of full-time members who also supported at least some ritvik ideas. In North America one in four full-time members, and one in two congregational members (50%) and former ISKCON members (56%) agreed that "Prabhupada wanted the 11 ritviks he appointed to continue as ritviks after his departure" [III (g)]. In Western/ Northern Europe this position was less often held by full-time and congregational members. In Latin America the ritvik position gained even more support than in North America. Yet it should be noted that in both Latin America and Northern/Western Europe the number of respondents is too small to make any definitive assessment. Small sample sizes for Africa, Australasia, and India also preclude any meaningful conclusion. As noted earlier, the questionnaire distributed in Eastern Europe and the CIS did not ask questions related to the gurus. In addition, only initiated devotees were asked to respond to guru-related questions in other regions. This in large part accounts for the relatively small samples sizes across regions. While there is some support for the ritvik position the overwhelming majority of the full-time and congregational members surveyed from all regions agreed with the statement, "To my understanding, Prabhupada appointed the 11 first gurus as ritviks with the idea that they would become regular initiating gurus after his departure." While this position gained less support among congregational (65%) and former ISKCON members (53%) in North America, it still represented the majority opinion. Pointing to the continued confusion surrounding these issues, a number of devotees in all regions agreed with both the gurus as ritvik position and that Prabhupada expected his successor gurus to serve as regular (diksha) gurus after his passing. Finally, a substantial majority of all respondents agreed that a devotee must accept initiation from a living guru in order to make spiritual advancement [III (i)]. The only exception was for former ISKCON members from North America (49% agreed) and Northern/Western Europe (63% agreed). It seems clear that pressures to control the gurus and the guru institution through bureaucratization of the guru role will only increase as individual ISKCON gurus "fall-down" and/or become involved in controversy. The recent upheaval surrounding Harikesh Prabhu has already led to cries for guru reform and the mobilization of reform groups. It has also given further impetus and credibility to the ritvik movement. The cycle of guru "fall-down" and resulting controversy, followed by efforts to reform the guru institution (that is, place further restrictions on the gurus), promises to "rob" the guru institution of its charismatic religious authority. Or, more accurately, as more stringent bureaucratic controls are placed on ISKCON's current gurus, and their charismatic authority becomes further subverted for the sake of organizational stability, Prabhupada's religious authority will only grow in significance. Prabhupada has effectively become the source of purity, charisma, and religious authority; current gurus increasingly bureaucratically controlled functionaries of ISKCON. While many Prabhupada disciples and other devotees will applaud such a turn of events, one wonders what the long run effect will be on the role and significance of the guru institution, and on the meaning of the guru-disciple relationship within ISKCON? Comment on this story  Contact VNN about this storySend this story to a friend
NEWS DESK | EDITORIALS | TOP |
