 | GBC Self-Understanding
|
| It seems that an error in the GBC’s self-understanding affects their ability to govern ISKCON effectively. I base my analysis on a GBC self-description on the official GBC website. I first cite the relevant portion of this GBC self-definition, and then analyze the problem.
|
| “Traditionally, the acarya, or head of a spiritual institution would appoint such a position [of successor acarya] to one individual, an advanced student, who would, in turn, become the next leader of the institution upon the demise of his teacher. Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakur broke from this tradition, opting instead for a council of leading disciples, a governing body, to cooperatively guide and manage the spiritual institution…Traditionally, the will of an acarya first names an heir, a successor of the institution, in effect passing on the institution to a leading disciple who would then act as the next acarya. Srila Prabhupada’s will does not name an individual, however, but rather states “The Governing Body Commission (GBC) will be the ultimate managing authority for the entire International Society for Krsna Consciousness.” By naming the GBC as the heir to ISKCON, Srila Prabhupada again affirms the position of the GBC as the ultimate managerial head of ISKCON.”(5)
|
| Problems with GBC Self-Understanding
|
| The above statement contains various problems:
|
| - 1. The GBC claims that Bhaktisiddhānta broke from the tradition that “the ācārya or head would appoint such a position to one individual, an advanced student, who would, in turn, become the next leader of the institution upon the demise of his teacher.”
|
| This is a rather dubious claim since we have little historical evidence that Gauḍīya Vaiṣṇavas ever formed an institution in the modern sense, until Bhaktisiddhānta formed the Gauḍīya Maṭha. Thus it unclear what tradition Bhaktisiddhānta rejected. Let us review the history. Note that the GBC does not merely state that a guru would appoint a student to succeed him or her as guru, but to become the next leader of the institution.
|
| - 2. During Lord Caitanya’s personal presence in this world, He acted as the quintessential charismatic leader. His followers recognized Him as God, and thus accepted Him without question as the perfect, absolute authority. At this time, we do not find a formal institution, nor an official governing body.
- 3. In the century after Lord Caitanya, His movement continued to spread without an official institution with an official institutional leader or managing body. In the time of Lord Caitanya, and in the following years, many exalted devotees, appeared in this world, pure souls who did not need to be managed as in today’s world. We do find then senior saṅgas, spiritual leaders, and joint decisions. But as scholars note, there is no formal, structured, institution with an official leader or governing body.
- 4. Then at the time of Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa (born in the 1660’s, and active in Jaipur in the early 1700’s) when Aurangzeb’s persecutions forced the Vaiṣṇavas to make their center in Jaipur, rather than Vṛndāvana, history shows that the Jaipur king, not a Vaiṣṇava ācārya, nor a governing body, made key decisions about the status of the Gauḍīya community. It was there in Jaipur that Baladeva famously proved the validity of our tradition by winning public debates and writing his celebrated Vedānta commentary. One might argue that the king’s power over the devotee community is comparable to the power of modern governments to accept or reject ISKCON as a bona fide religion. However, it is clear that the king’s examination of Gauḍīya Vaiṣṇavism was theological and religious, far beyond the legal interests of modern secular states. Further, there is no evidence at that time of a significant, formal Gauḍīya Vaiṣṇava institution ruled by an ācārya, or a governing body.
- 5. We know that Bhaktivinoda revived Lord Caitanya’s mission in the modern age. Like Prabhupada, he did not inherit an institution, nor did anyone declare him to be the Ācārya. We have no evidence of a serious Gauḍīya Vaiṣṇava institution anywhere in India when Bhaktivinoda began his mission. Indeed, the history of Lord Caitanya’s movement shows no evidence of any formal, centralized institution before Bhaktisiddhānta.
|
| Bhaktivinoda did not establish an institution in the sense that his son and Prabhupada did. Bhaktivinoda certainly played an invaluable, glorious role in reviving and organizing Lord Caitanya’s movement. But it seems that he did not establish a network of permanent centers, nor purchase significant institutional property, nor engage a body of full time missionaries or sannyāsīs.
|
| - 6. Upon his father’s passing, Bhaktisiddhānta himself revived the order of Vaiṣṇava sannyāsa by taking it before a picture of his departed guru. He then opened his first center in Calcutta. He did not inherit a center. The GBC do not provide evidence of Bhaktivinoda Ṭhākura willing an institution to his son as the successor Ācārya.
|
| Prabhupada often used the term “men and money” to indicate institutional resources. Bhaktisiddhānta did not inherit significant institutional resources of men, money, or property from his father. I am not aware of any formal, legal declaration from Bhaktivinoda,
|
| Apart from the united Gauḍīya Maṭha of his youth, Prabhupada never referred to an earlier Gauḍīya Vaiṣṇava institution that was formally willed from one Ācārya to another, or to a governing body.
|
| Therefore, since we have no clear evidence that Lord Caitanya or His followers before Bhaktivinoda Ṭhākura established formal institutions and that one Ācārya legally inherited an institution from the previous Ācārya, nor that Bhaktivinoda willed a formal institution to his son, we cannot say that Bhaktisiddhānta broke with tradition by not naming a successor to lead his institution, the first of its kind in Gauḍīya Vaiṣṇava history.
|
| One may argue that Lord Nityānanda’s divine wife, Śrī Jāhnava, was accepted as the leader of the Vaiṣṇavas. But, her position was neither institutional nor managerial, since there was no formal institution to lead. Further, in his will, Prabhupada names the GBC as the ultimate managing authority of ISKCON, giving them precisely the type of duties that Śrī Jāhnava never performed. Nor can the GBC imitate the wife of God. The analogy fails.
|
| As mentioned before, the GBC provide no evidence of a Gauḍīya Vaiṣṇava tradition in which the Ācārya names a successor Ācārya to lead a formal, centralized institution.
|
| - 7. The GBC also state: “Traditionally, the will of an acarya first names an heir, a successor of the institution, in effect passing on the institution to a leading disciple who would then act as the next acarya.”
|
| I am not aware of any surviving will of an acarya in our line that names an individual as heir to a significant institution. More problematic is the use of the word heir, and the claim above that Ācāryas, in their wills, pass on the institution to their heir.
|
| The English word heir means, “a person legally entitled to the property or rank of another on that person’s death.” An heir is also one who inherits and continues the legacy of a predecessor, a legacy being either money or property left in a will, or simply anything handed down from the past.
|
| The GBC make two related claims:
- 1. normally an Ācārya bequeaths his institution to a successor who becomes the heir to the institution, i.e. the new owner;
- 2. “Traditionally”, an Ācārya will name the heir in the first clause of his Will.
|
| Again, I have no idea what the historical evidence for this might be. Judging from the literal meaning of English words, the GBC does seem to consider itself be heir to ISKCON and thus to possess ISKCON in the same way that Prabhupada did.
|
| Of course Prabhupada never called the GBC his heir in his will, nor did he use a synonym of heir. Prabhupada did say, “I want that all of my spiritual sons and daughters will inherit this title of Bhakti-vedanta, so that the family transcendental diploma will continue through the generations. Those possessing the title of Bhakti-vedanta will be allowed to initiate disciples.”
[Letter to Hansaduta—February 1, 1969]
|
| Since the GBC claims on their website to take the place of the so-called traditional heir-Ācārya, the GBC de facto declares, or at the very least strongly insinuates, itself to be the collective successor Ācārya of ISKCON.
|
| To make this clear, the GBC claims in the text above not merely to inherit Prabhupada’s managing authority, but, as they state above to inherit ISKCON itself. The English word heir has this primary sense: a person legally entitled to the property or rank of another on that person’s death.
|
| Since the GBC does not in any way qualify or limit their use of the word heir, and since they use the word in the context of a legal will, the word must be taken in its primary sense: the GBC claims they inherited ISKCON, making them the lords of all of us who are not GBCs.
|
| Further, the GBC directly and explicitly equate ultimate managing authority with being ISKCON’s heir:
|
| “By naming the GBC as the heir to ISKCON, Srila Prabhupada again affirms the position of the GBC as the ultimate managerial head of ISKCON.”
|
| In fact, Prabhupada does not name the GBC as the heir to ISKCON. In the GBC sentence above, we find, “Prabhupada again affirms the position of the GBC” as the ultimate managing authority. In other words, the mere fact that the GBC is named in Article 1 of Prabhupada’s will means, according to a tradition for which the GBC provides no evidence, that they are the successor Ācārya. And being the successor Ācārya, they are the ultimate managing authority. I will outline the GBC’s logic:
|
| Premise 1: In his will, Prabhupada explicitly names the GBC as the ultimate managing of authority of ISKCON.
|
| Premise 2: Prabhupada does so in the first clause of his will. According to undocumented tradition, an Ācārya names his successor ācārya , and bequeaths his institution to that successor, in the first clause of his will. Thus Prabhupada explicitly names the GBC as the ultimate managing authority, but he also implicitly names them as his heir and successor.
|
| Premise 3: As ISKCON’s heir and successor, the GBC is automatically ISKCON’s ultimate managing authority.
|
| CONCLUSION: Prabhupada explicitly names the GBC as ultimate managing authority, and again implicitly names them as such through a series of two inferences stated above.
|
| As we will see later in the section on ISKCON’s constitution draft, there are other, more sober voices among the GBC who take a more realistic view of things.
|
| In the 1980’s ISKCON rejected an Ācārya system. Sadly, as I show here and elsewhere in this essay, it seems from the GBC’s words and laws, that the GBC sees itself a group Ācārya, rather than a mere ultimate managing authority. As I will explain, the difference is profound. If I am right, then ISKCON again confronts the danger of an Ācārya system.
|
| To recapitulate, Lord Caitanya’s movement has centuries of tradition, but a significant formal institution seems to begin with Bhaktisiddhānta. And a collective ultimate managing authority, an official oligarchy, has no clear historical antecedents in Gauḍīya tradition.
|
| Thus lacking a venerable tradition, or rational constitution, to justify and moderate its power, the GBC relies on its only source of legitimacy: Prabhupada’s mandate. And to bolster that mandate, they over interpret it to mean that they are the collective successor Ācārya.
|
| Seeing themselves in that way, it is no wonder that the GBC sometimes acts as if their divine authority cannot be encumbered by the limiting formalities of fair process, comprehensive laws, or justice itself.
|
| For example, consider GBC law 7.4.4.2 which decrees how dīkṣā gurus should relate to the GBC. The first part of this law declares that gurus, “must respect the GBC as Srila Prabhupada’s chosen successor as the ultimate managing authority of ISKCON and maintain a respectful serving attitude towards the GBC.”
|
| Here again, the GBC equates ultimate managing authority with being Prabhupada’s chosen successor. Prabhupada was many things, not just a manager. In his final will, after years of praising and chastising the GBC, increasing and decreasing their authority, Prabhupada made his final decision. He defined the GBC as ISKCON’s “ultimate managing authority.”
|
| The GBC seems to believe that with this mandate, Prabhupada made them his “chosen successor,” and transformed all other Vaiṣṇavas, even very senior ones, into subordinate servants of the managers, an attitude reaffirmed in GBC law, and a recent GBC paper, as I will show later.
|
| Thus the GBC declares, here and elsewhere, that just as senior preachers respectfully served Prabhupada, so we must also respectfully serve the GBC.
|
| The GBC’s claim to have inherited ISKCON is not mere careless composition. It matches the behavior of some GBC members and occasionally of the GBC body. It is also consistent with ISKCON laws and papers, as I will show in detail. I will next analyze other conceptual and structural problems facing ISKCON governance.
|
English
Español
Pусский
Português