 | Interpreting the Mandate
|
| No one can dispute that Prabhupada appointed the GBC as the ultimate managing authority of ISKCON. The GBC itself often parades that mandate to justify their actions. However, we find embedded in their acts and claims a particular interpretation of Prabhupada’s mandate. I will argue in this paper that the current GBC interpretation of their own mandate is a bit flawed and does not perfectly reflect Prabhupada’s original intent. I base my conclusion on a careful analysis of GBC actions, laws, and papers.
|
| I will present my general analysis, and then show how GBC laws and papers confirm that analysis.
|
| Danger of Bureaucratic Tyranny
|
| History shows that unrestrained bureaucratic power can be just as oppressive as the power of emperors, religious despots, or zonal Ācāryas. ISKCON’s ultimate managers do not all sit on thrones, or accept opulent worship and gifts. Crowds of disciples may not throw themselves at their feet. Nonetheless, three factors make the GBC’s potential accumulation of unrestrained power just as dangerous, or more, than the zonal Ācārya system ever was:
|
| - 1. In sociological terms, the GBC wields traditional Prabhupada himself, with his great charismatic authority, established the GBC tradition. Prabhupada also spoke of a guru’s spiritual authority, but he never explicitly authorized the zonal acarya system, and thus devotees could challenge and overthrow that system.
|
| But Prabhupada did establish, empower, and defend the GBC system. Thus ISKCON devotees tend to think that to defy GBC authority is to defy Prabhupada’s will, even when the GBC does not perform well. Thus the GBC system has a sacred traditional authority that the zonal acarya system never possessed.
|
| - 2. Traditional authority tends to be more stable and enduring than living charismatic authority. A managing body tends to accumulate power over time, as I explain below, whereas a guru’s living charismatic power ends over time, either by the guru’s passing, his malfeasance, or with the bureaucratic domestication of gurus as we see in GBC law and papers, as I will show.
- 3. During the days of zonal acaryas, there was a balance of power in ISKCON that does not exist now. The GBC body confronted and disciplined four of the eleven original acaryas. Indeed, in every case where the power of a big guru confronted GBC power, the GBC emerged as the ultimate authority in ISKCON. Most zonal acaryas were also GBCs and they faithfully backed the GBC in every serious conflict with a zonal acarya. The zonal acaryas did have much power, but the GBC effectively balanced and restrained that power, as history shows.
|
| But in today’s ISKCON, there is nothing to reliably and regularly balance or moderate GBC power, even when it exceeds the limits of justice, Vaiṣṇava etiquette, or Prabhupada’s guidelines.
|
| GBC tyranny, as well as rejection of the GBC, both threaten Prabhupada’s GBC system. And history has long shown that unbalanced power tends toward corruption and tyranny. That is why Kṛṣṇa Himself created a system of four varṇas in which the power of rulers is balanced by the power of brāhmaṇas. But the GBC claims both powers, that of the ruler and sage.
|
| This presents a serious and interesting challenge to ISKCON: how can we faithfully preserve Prabhupada’s GBC system, and at the same avoid the real dangers of unrestrained, unbalanced power? How can we ensure that ISKCON management is expert, fair, and honest?
|
| Prabhupada himself gave the answer: ISKCON’s leaders must act under the restraint of a constitution. In Bhagavad-gītā 3.17-26, Lord Kṛṣṇa declares that self-realized souls, and Kṛṣṇa Himself, follow the principles of civilized life, to set an example for people in general. Civilized societies recognize the need for the rule of fair, reasonable law and ISKCON’s leaders must show an example of lawfulness in their own lives and duties.
|
| History, social science, Prabhupada, and Śāstra all tell us that the rational authority of fair laws—justice well enforced—must balance the power of managers. Prabhupada wanted the GBC to work under a fair and reasonable constitution that clearly defines and regulates managerial power in ISKCON.
|
| On their current website, the GBC admits the need for “a constitution for ISKCON, which Srila Prabhupada asked the GBC to put together in the early seventies.”
|
| Now, over forty years after Prabhupada requested it, the GBC must finally do their duty and make proper laws so that devotees who follow those laws, including leaders, will not disturb other devotees or projects, nor be unfairly disturbed by them, as Prabhupada desired.
|
| Kṛṣṇa Himself states in the Bhagavad-gītā 12.15, that “one who does not disturb the world, and whom the world does not disturb…is dear to me.”
|
| We need a proper constitution and laws precisely because ISKCON cannot just depend on the purity and pure wisdom of the GBC. I will give four reasons why this is true.
|
| 1. Management Hierarchy and Spiritual Hierarchy
|
| The history of religions, including ISKCON, clearly shows that those who follow the basic rules of a religious institution, and show skill in management, often rise to high positions of managerial power in that institution. Some GBCs are undoubtedly spiritually advanced, but all of ISKCON’s ultimate managers are not necessarily our most advanced devotees. In any society, religious or secular, the strongest are not always the wisest.
|
| Therefore, we cannot ignore Prabhupada’s call for a constitution and simply trust ISKCON to the purity of managers, because as Prabhupada knew, all managers are not pure. They certainly are not pure simply because they hold a high managerial office.
|
| Indeed, there are two logical possibilities:
- 1. All GBC members are fully pure devotees.
- 2. Some GBCs are conditioned to some extent.
|
| If the latter is the case, then we can conclude that, as Prabhupada teaches, the main conditioning will be the desire to lord it over others. So to the extent that GBC members are conditioned souls, they will to that extent use their power to lord it over others.
|
| To repeat, the minimum qualifications that may propel one to ISKCON leadership are:
- 1. basic faith, with or without philosophical depth;
- 2. ability to follow basic principles, with or without strong spiritual advancement;
- 3. managerial ability.
|
| In cases where powerful managers are not highly advanced, power will diminish their empathy, as I show below, and with it their concern for justice When flawed leaders influence the GBC body, injustice and unfair decisions can result. This in turn alienates many devotees from ISKCON management and weakens our mission.
|
| 2. Decreasing Empathy
|
| Recent science shows how a sense of power often diminishes a person’s capacity for empathy, and actually shuts down a part of the brain that helps us connect with others.(6)
|
| Thus “…the balance of the [scientific] literature suggests that people in positions of power tend to act in a self-interested manner, and display reduced interpersonal sensitivity to their powerless counterparts.”
|
| In the years following Prabhupada’s passing, we found that some ISKCON leaders who wielded great power displayed little empathy for the less powerful. This disparity shook ISKCON and resulted in major reform. It should not surprise us to again find that some of ISKCON’s powerful leaders seem to lack empathy with devotees who are loyal to Prabhupada but do not blindly submit to these leaders on various issues.
|
| Sadly, the disconnect between many GBCs and devotees has reached the point where it is a cliché in ISKCON, at least in the West, to say that the local or plenary GBC “is not relevant to my life.”
|
| One eminent scholar who has long studied ISKCON, comments, “I have heard from many devotees over the years that the GBC simply has no relevance in their lives. This may be the worst possible outcome.”
|
| Reliable science shows that a sense of power tends to weaken the empathy of leaders, resulting in injustice and loss of faith in an institution.
|
| 3. The Iron Law of Oligarchy
|
| The GBC is an oligarchy, a relatively small group of people who govern an organization or institution. History and social science show that a ruling oligarchy tends to be concerned with its own power and dignity, often at the expense of justice. This brings us to the Iron Law of Oligarchy, which can be stated as follows:
|
| “Any large organization…has to create a bureaucracy in order to maintain its efficiency as it becomes larger. Many decisions have to be made daily that cannot be made by large numbers of disorganized people. For the organization to function effectively, centralization has to occur and power will end up in the hands of a few. Those few—the oligarchy—will use all means necessary to preserve and further increase their power.”(7)
|
| To the extent that GBC members are pure, they will transcend these tendencies. To the extent that they are still conditioned, they will succumb to them.
|
| My own long experience as a GBC member, including one year as GBC chairman, showed me how easy it is, when one holds power in the GBC oligarchy, to believe that only GBC power can protect ISKCON from deviation, chaos, and dissolution. In this mindset, any increase of GBC power strengthens ISKCON, and any decrease of GBC power threatens ISKCON.
|
| One might reply to all these points that the sheer number of advanced devotees on the GBC protects the body from significant errors. However, this argument faces two challenges:
|
| - 1. History shows that the GBC has in fact made significant and damaging errors.
- 2. As I explain in the next paragraph, the iron law of oligarchy functions even within the GBC body, to limit the number of GBCs who actively engage in some major decisions.
|
| 4. Sadhu Burnout
|
| We know that some devotees become GBCs by their potent preaching and spiritual purity. But they are often the first to burn out with heavy management. Yet, when saintly preachers decrease their management, and focus instead on preaching and spiritual practice, they usually remain on the GBC. Thus hands-on managerial power falls into the hands of fewer members. This defeats Prabhupada’s GBC vision in which a sufficient number of senior leaders actively manage and guide ISKCON.
|
| On some important issues, those leaders who are comfortable with the passion of management may act without serious scrutiny from burned out GBC sādhus, confirming the iron law of oligarchy. The most active managers tend to be the most inclined to management, and thus the most passionate, according to the principles of varṇa. Being more passionate, they are less objective, according to Bhagavad-gītā 18.31. Thus the quality of decisions declines from goodness to passion.
|
| When flawed, passionate decisions are pushed through by the few, devotees leave ISKCON or distance themselves from direct ISKCON affairs, since GBC law and tradition offer few practical, reliable procedures for regular devotees to challenge or redress GBC blunders or injustice.
|
| For these reasons, ISKCON cannot depend only on the purity of GBCs to ensure that Prabhupada’s mission is managed with justice, efficiency, and transparency. As Prabhupada stated, ISKCON needs a proper constitution. And even the GBC must obey it. Such a constitution would authorize emergency measures in cases of true emergency. Thus constitutional management would preserve the agility necessary to deal with extreme cases.
|
| Given these facts—that ultimate managers are not always ultimately pure; that power tends to lessen empathy; that saintly GBCs often avoid heavy GBC issues and cede power by default to passionate managers; that oligarchies tend to seek ever greater power—ISKCON must guard against the corruption and tyranny that ruin a free brahminical society.
|
| History, śāstra, social science, and Prabhupada himself all teach us that to avoid or at least lessen the above problems, ISKCON must establish a proper constitution that all ISKCON members must follow.
|
| Austere and Pious Tyranny
|
| We should also note that personal ambition for power is not incompatible with an ascetic or religious lifestyle. The evil Mughal ruler Aurangzeb who attacked Vṛndāvana around 1670, forcing the transfer of Deities like Govindaji to Jaipur, rejected the lavish lifestyle of his Mughal predecessors. In the name of Muslim purity, he spent little for himself and chose to be buried in a plain, unnamed tomb. Yet his fanatical ambition cost the lives of over four and a half million people, nearly bankrupt India, starved South India, and ruined the Mughal empire.
|
| Although he spread Mughal power farther than any other ruler, “within decades of Aurangzeb’s death, the Mughal Emperor had little power beyond the walls of Delhi…The highpoint of imperial centralization under emperor Aurangzeb coincided with the start of the imperial downfall.” [Wikipedia] Here is a good example of the political pendulum effect.
|
| Thus oppressive power does not always garb itself in opulence and pomp. The austere bureaucrat or the pious tyrant can be the most oppressive of rulers. The brutal French Revolution leader Maximilien Robespierre, the father of modern terrorism, was a puritanical bureaucrat obsessed with establishing “virtue” among the people. He was known as “the Incorruptible.” Here again we find a deadly mix of austere piety and cruel tyranny.
|
| No one can accuse the GBC of such extremes. But as Plato points out in The Republic, the optician shows us oversized letters so we can easily read them. Similarly, extreme historical examples show us human tendencies that operate among us to lesser degrees, but nonetheless with damaging effect.
|
| Follow vs Imitate
|
| For the GBC, to work under a fair constitution is to follow Prabhupada. To act above and outside the law is to imitate Prabhupada.
|
| Consider this analogy: Prabhupada began ISKCON’s guru tradition. Yet Prabhupada was not merely a guru. He was and remains ISKCON’s Founder-Ācārya, with special powers and rights. When Prabhupada departed, ISKCON’s gurus took some time to understand how to follow Prabhupada the guru, but not imitate Prabhupada the Founder-Ācārya.
|
| Similarly, Prabhupada acted as ISKCON’s supreme managing authority, a power he transferred to the GBC. Yet like gurus, the GBC must learn to follow Prabhupada the ultimate ISKCON manager, but not imitate him in his role as the Founder-Ācārya.
|
| As Founder-Ācārya, Prabhupada appointed and removed devotees at his will, adjudicated disputes, and generally managed with summary power and freedom, unfettered by administrative or judicial formalities.
|
| Lacking Prabhupada’s purity, vision, and authority, the GBC must respect due process, obey a rational constitution, and treat every devotee with measurable justice. Prabhupada was above ISKCON law. The GBC must submit to the rule of law.
|
| We find in Śāstras such as Mahābhārata and Bhāgavatam, that the Vedic political system was constitutional, not absolute, monarchy. Even kings were expected to follow dharma, rational law, enacted by God and sages for the good of all. Prabhupada often said that monarchy fell in Europe when the kings became corrupt. Again, we see the political pendulum effect.
|
| In verses 10.33.29-32. the Bhāgavatam clearly explains the difference between following and imitating. King Parīkṣit asked how Kṛṣṇa, who came to this world to restore dharma by His own example, could violate dharma by intimate contact with so many women in the Rasa dance. In reply, Śukadeva Gosvāmī, beginning at 10.33.29, taught the difference between following and imitating the Lord. Here is a literal translation of these key verses.
|
| “10.33.29: Transgressing of dharma, and also audacity, is observed in Lords. Among the very powerful, this does not lead to harm, just as Fire consumes all.
10.33.30: A non-Lord should never do this, not even mentally. Foolishly behaving so, one is ruined, just like [one who imitates] Rudra who drank the poison ocean.
10.33.31: The speaking of Lords is true [for us], and so too, in some cases, is their behavior. The wise do what they [Lords] do [when] it is supported by their speaking.
10.33.32: By their pious or [apparently] impious acts, Lords have no selfish interest, and no setback, for they have no false ego.”
|
| These verses teach that we should act as great souls act only when they order us to do so. [10.33.31] As Founder-Ācārya, and a pure devotee, Prabhupada could dispense with judicial formalities and constitutional limits, both of which constitute basic social principles, dharma, even in ancient Vedic society, as well as our world. For Prabhupada, that was not a fault.
|
| But the GBC cannot imitate that behavior [10.33.30], since Prabhupada did not directly order them to do so [10.33.31]. In fact, he ordered the GBC to do the opposite—to form a constitution and, as I will show later, to respect the reasonable freedom of ISKCON devotees.
|
| Prabhupada was free of false ego [10.33.32], and was empowered by Kṛṣṇa to act as he did. We are not free of personal desire on Prabhupada’s level, and thus our transgressing of dharma, justice, will harm us and those whom we lead.
|
| The GBC must follow, not imitate, Prabhupada by governing ISKCON within the boundaries of due process and justice, under a proper constitution.
|
| In the next section I will discuss traditional and contemporary Western notions of justice, and show how these closely agree with Lord Kṛṣṇa’s own teachings on justice in the Bhagavad-gītā. We will then see to what extent GBC law embodies those universal principles of justice.
|
English
Español
Pусский
Português