08/20/98 - 2044

Time for Soul-Searching

USA (VNN) - by Vedavyasa Dasa

For many of us the most auspicious occasion of the year, the Janmastami and Vyasa-puja celebrations, were overshadowed by the dark clouds of growing uncertainty, specifically in regards to the future of Srila Prabhupada’s movement and the guru issue, brought more than ever into the harsh limelight of reality by Harikesa dasa’s (and his unfortunate followers’) precarious situation.

Might this be the straw that will break the camel’s back? Or will the camel stubbornly cling to its old ways, gathering whatever strength is left to make a last-ditch effort to continue on the road to disaster? Note that in this allegory I don’t see ISKCON as the camel, but the wrong concepts about spiritual leadership.

Isn’t is high time for some deep soul-searching? Because time is running out. Time and tide wait for no man. Unless those who have accepted the responsibility of leaders in ISKCON become humble and selfless followers of Srila Prabhupada, implementing his order painstakingly, they will be washed away by the waves of time. Krishna is all-devouring Time, and He will devour them just as He is devouring right now Harikesa dasa, their (until recently) No.1 man. The writing is on the wall: “Shape up or ship out!”
There are two areas where the leaders of ISKCON have gone astray and where profound adjustments are to be made if they want ISKCON to function properly. There are, of course, many other important areas, where serious soul searching is required, foremost among them the problem of vaisnava aparadha, but here I want to focus on just two: the post of guru and the post of GBC.

To begin with the latter, just consider that Srila Prabhupada’s concept of a GBC is that he should not handle money, nor “control” temples (people). These are the duties of the temple officers (president, secretary and treasurer). A GBC is supposed to simply supervise, and correct if need be. His main business is to be a travelling preacher who goes from temple to temple, seeing to it that the spiritual standards are followed and that the devotees advance in Krishna consciousness. And if he sees discrepancies, he can make suggestions to the local leaders and, in serious cases, bring the issue before the other GBC members during the annual meetings in Mayapur. How many GBCs follow this guideline? A reality check suggests: no one.

The above profile means: detachment. It means that the GBC is not directly involved in the day-to-day management of this movement by taking decisions involving funds or manpower. The true GBC, as envisioned by Srila Prabhupada, is supposed to shape the future by being acarya in the sense of setting a perfect example, by providing “the vision”, and by chalking out global preaching strategies. Who among our present GBCs is ready to take up that kind of profile? A reality check suggests: no one.
And what does this mean? It means that the GBC has been and is disobeying the order of their spiritual master for the last 25 years. Not an auspicious sign. It also means that, unless they realise their mistake, repent for a quarter-century of blatant disregard and rectify the situation, they cannot expect anything else than trouble. Srila Prabhupada warned during a lecture in Geneva in 1974: “So those who are GBCs they should be very, very careful to administer the business of ISKCON. Otherwise they will be punished. As the post is very great, similarly, the punishment is also very great.” Meaningful words indeed.

As far as the guru question is concerned, this issue has been at the center of controversy for the last 20+ years and has been taking us for a roller-coaster ride from zonal-acaryaism to ecclesiasticism (rubber-stamp gurus) to ritvikism. I want to urge the reader to read (or reread) Dhruva Maharaja Prabhu’s essay “Siksa-Diksa” which is, in my opinion, an excellent exposition on the subject. If we just understand the main theme, we hold in our hands the key to solving a lot of problems. The key is: the proper balance between diksa and siksa.

Some efforts have been made into this direction (i.e. GBC resolution about Founder Acarya Statement), but the bottom line is “phalena pariciyate”, “a thing is judged by its result”. There may be so many resolutions and so many lip services, but if the result is something else, then what is the value of all these statements? If asked, any present ISKCON-approved guru will probably say that he is just a peon of Srila Prabhupada etc., etc., but his disciples have a different vision, as illustrated by Dhruva Maharaja Prabhu’s encounters with some of them. This goes to show that many, if not most new devotees get the wrong picture, whether intentionally or unintentionally. The reaction of many of Harikesa’s followers is more proof that new devotees do not get the proper training. They have not understood that they have an eternal relationship with Srila Prabhupada as their siksa-guru, and thus they are prepared to follow their imaginary guru to hell thinking he is engaged in some divine lila.

Recently, a devotee asked Hridayananda Maharaja: “I would like to know what kind of test it is when a guru falls down? What is Krsna trying to teach us through that?”
The reply was: “First, Lord Krishna is teaching us that our fixed point of reference is Srila Prabhupada. The duty of a bona fide guru in ISKCON is to train the disciple to develop a strong, eternal relationship with Srila Prabhupada. If the guru does his job well, the disciple will remain strong, even if the guru has difficulty.”

Solid answer, regardless whether its proponent is living up to his own words or not. And it implies the understanding that in our sampradaya diksa is subservient to siksa. Again, read the essay “Siksa-Diksa” for more details. But what is the situation in real life? The zonal-acaryaist conception of emphazising diksa over siksa is still strong and alive in ISKCON, and it is this deeply ingrained erroneous idea that is the root cause of most of the problems revolving around the guru issue.

One may ask why diksa has gained such a paramount importance in ISKCON. In answer to this we should note that during Srila Prabhupada’s time we never thought much about diksa and siksa, what the difference was, if there was any, etc. During Srila Prabhupada’s time, one of the most important events in our young devotee lives was to receive initiation. It meant to receive a set of beads (chanted on by Srila Prabhupada or, later, by his representative), to get neckbeads strung around your neck and a to get a new, spiritual name. And even though it was only “harinam” initiation, which in a strict sense is not diksa, for us it was actually more important than second initiation. It meant to become accepted as Srila Prabhupada’s disciple and to establish one’s eternal link to Krishna through his bona fide representative, the guru. Because Srila Prabhupada was siksa and diksa guru all in one, the two were actually an inseparable identity for us. And this consciousness has prevailed until today.

Don’t get me wrong. I am not saying that the initiation ceremony is unimportant. What I am saying is that its real importance is only there if diksa is backed-up by siksa (as in Srila Prabhupada’s case), not vice versa. In fact, I would go so far as to say that in a higher sense, siksa is self-sufficient, it can exist even without diksa, but diksa without siksa is meaningless, it becomes a hollow ritual. One could draw here a parallel between the relationship of vani and vapu. We all know that vani is more important than vapu, but that does not mean that we will neglect vapu if it is sustained by vani. However, vani does not depend on vapu and can exist in its own right.

To come back to history, during Srila Prabhupada’s time, the vast majority of us did not know that Gaura Kisora dasa Babaji was not a diksa-disciple of Bhaktivinode Thakura, and that the Thakura had not received diksa from Jagannatha dasa Babaji, but from Bipin Bihari Goswami, of whom we never even had heard. As I mentioned, because Srila Prabhupada was the embodiment of guru, there was never much concern about understanding the details of diksa and siksa, although Srila Prabhupada explained these things in Cc.

Hridayananda Maharaja went on to explain to the devotee who questioned him about fallen gurus: “Also, I think we have forgotten to some extent that every guru in ISKCON is a humble servant of Srila Prabhupada, who is by far more advanced than us. Prabhupada taught us that a devotee should accept a bona fide, living guru, and serve the guru with love and reverence. At the same time, as an institution, we must constantly remember that we are all followers of Srila Prabhupada, and that Prabhupada is saving all of us.”

This statement, of course, may give some cause to pause. First of all, Maharaja observes that we have forgotten to some extent that every guru in ISKCON is a humble servant of Srila Prabhupada, who is by far more advanced than us. If this is true, and our present situation doesn’t suggest the opposite, then it is really high time for some serious soul-searching. In fact, it seems that we are still suffering from the same diseased mentality that was exhibited during the heyday of zonal-acaryaism, just prior to the exposure of Bhavananda, Bhagavan and Ramesvara as conditioned souls. At that time, the proud imitation acaryas were unabashedly eclipsing Srila Prabhupada, and hardly anyone dared to question them. Success seemed to prove them right: “Take it from the Top”. They thought that to instil faith in their disciples they had to give the impression to be another Prabhupada, or Visnupada, or whatever pada or deva, for that matter. Whoever held or holds this view was or will be smashed by Time. It may have taken only 8 years for a Bhagavan to get smashed, or 20 years for a Harikesa, and for someone else it may take even longer, but “castles made of sand will wash into the sea, eventually.” Therefore, if there are still some traces of that hideous disease of forgetfulnes of Srila Prabhupada’s position around, they should be eradicated, lest we want to get into even more trouble than we are already in.

Next, Maharaja says: “Prabhupada taught us that a devotee should accept a bona fide, living guru, and serve the guru with love and reverence. At the same time, as an institution, we must constantly remember that we are all followers of Srila Prabhupada, and that Prabhupada is saving all of us.” Now, nobody will question the last part, but many will protest against the idea that a “living guru”, a current link, is needed, and will insist that the living guru is, of course, Srila Prabhupada, because “he reasons ill who thinks vaisnavas die”. From a siddhantic point of view, a living guru, meaning a person manifested in a body before our eyes, is not an absolute necessity. However, it can not be denied that it is an advantage to be able to go to a “living guru”, ask questions and receive spiritual guidance. But it is not an essential requirement! And it is decidedly not something to build a whole “philosophy” around (see the Guru Ashraya paper). Again, read “Siksa-Diksa” for more details. Ideally, diksa and siksa guru are one and the same person, but this is not necessarily so, as our predecessor acaryas have shown by their own example. We should remember that even during Srila Prabhupada’s presence, in a manifested body before our eyes, many of his disciples never met him or had the opportunity to get personal instructions. Their “living link” with Srila Prabhupada were his representatives, the GBCs and temple presidents or other senior vaisnavas, in short different siksa-gurus who were simply representing the parama siksa-guru, Srila Prabhupada. As Hridayananda Maharaja states: “We must constantly remember that we are all followers of Srila Prabhupada, and that Prabhupada is saving all of us.”

If the leaders of ISKOCN would actually realise and embrace the conception that siksa is the essence, anyone becoming affiliated with ISKCON would naturally be taught to develop his eternal relationship with Srila Prabhupada and imbibe the consciousness that he is in fact Srila Prabhupada’s disciple. Not necessarily his diksa-disciple, as ritvikism advocates, but his siksa-disciple, which is of far greater significance. He will have a relationship of reverence with his diksa-guru, and to the degree that the disksa-guru is actually a transparent medium to Srila Prabhupada, this person may gain in importance in the life of that particular disciple and naturally also act as his siksa guru. However, if that “living guru” is really bona fide, his disciple’s eternal siksa relationship with Srila Prabhupada will never become eclipsed and will always be considered of prime importance, thus providing a common reference point for all ISKCON members, past, present and future.