From Zonal-Acarya To Buffer-Zone

By Kesava Krsna Dasa

Many devotees have extolled the formalisation of our Founder-acarya being given his rightful place within ISKCON. Others say there is still more to come to this effect. This is a recent development. What if this solemnisation had been in place after the physical departure of Srila Prabhupada and during the numerous times of ISKCON difficulty, when this could have prevented hundreds, thousands or perhaps even tens of thousands of devotees from leaving ISKCON? Is this wishful thinking?

One third-time initiated senior devotee told me that this development was the best thing that happened to ISKCON – at least according to his experience. Has ISKCON finally grasped, and implemented the correct balance of guru-tattva applicable for successor-less institutionally shared responsibilities? Already, we see some advocating by certain GBC members for all new devotees to pledge allegiance to Srila Prabhupada by fire sacrifice. Indeed, some 500 / 600 devotees did just that in Durban, South Africa recently.

Can we not help thinking about the famous forewarning letter written by Pradyumna Prabhu on how unqualified the ‘successor maha-bhagavatas’ to Srila Prabhupada were, and of the “divisive” consequences for ISKCON, should they proceed with zonal-acarya systems of management? In retrospect, we see that he was ahead of his time. This Prabhupada-centric necessity now offers a siksa buffer zone for all ISKCON members.

Some may ask, why discuss about these matters which are normally the indulgence of GBC members and concerned leaders. Truth is, these subjects are common fare for many senior devotees who want the best for ISKCON. Just last night, over prasada, this subject was discussed, and one interesting comment made was, “With Srila Prabhupada in the centre, he eliminates the risks for all those who have taken initiation from gurus who may fall, or not fall…”

We normally associate buffer-zones with volunteer nations lending military personal for UN sponsored peacekeeping missions in intractable conflict situations. Will the buffer-zone of a Prabhupada centric presence help to stabilise ISKCON hereon into the future? Do we need more rituals to acknowledge this?

In discussing these issues for improving ISKCON, we certainly concede such realities, yet it is amusing how many ‘outsiders’ and observers of ISKCON see ISKCON as a well-oiled organised and growing spiritual body. Such positive external commendation can only exist if we continue the spirit of internal healthy self-critique and vigilance. What the GBC says, the general devotees listen to, and watch, and then comment among themselves.

In placing Srila Prabhupada at centre, are we to expect something new? Our ISKCON history has been tainted with concepts we thought beneficial for ISKCON but proved problematic instead. Already I hear some whispers that these fire sacrifices for Prabhupada allegiance might be another example of this. Do we expect some initial opposition, or do necessities have to be done this way? Would examinations on the position of Srila Prabhupada as required curricula suffice? We would not like to see newer divisions created from well meaning new solutions.

And how much more will be introduced to strengthen our Prabhupada centric cause? Will any of this be done to appease those who embrace the ritvik fashion of parampara continuity / discontinuity? If anything, the espousers of ritvik philosophy and other ‘revival’ claimants also proffer ‘Prabhupada-centric’ causes. If appeasement is the intention, at which point does ISKCON draw peaceful buffer-parallels? If the intention is to improve ISKCON nevertheless, then this should be the pull for unification of disparate sectors.

The “risk” factor being discussed is a very modern Kali-yuga epithet. There is an element of risk in dedicating one’s life through diksa and siksa from an ISKCON guru, unfortunate it is to say. Such risk entails faith in the process of Krishna consciousness. Should Krishna consciousness be a risky venture when selecting a guru? Not with Srila Prabhupada at centre. If a guru has spiritual difficulty, Srila Prabhupada is there for us.

There is a school of thought that says all those disciples of fallen gurus that left ISKCON were insincere and they chose a cheating guru because they wanted to be cheated. This is an unfair observation because during the zonal acarya days, prospective disciples did not have any choice on which guru to aspire from. Without a choice of guru, how can one say that such disciples were insincere in each and every case?

Those who are qualified to be initiating spiritual masters become regular gurus. Some among them will be highly enlightened and some not. Into the future, an obviously self-effulgent guru may be the next individual link in our parampara chain, as celestials and those deserving of a rare birth appear to help ISKCON. At the present moment our Prabhupada centric rulings will not allow any one individual this nomenclature, even if others lobby such ‘self-evident’ continuation.

With the spectre of individual successor claims ruled out, this makes Srila Prabhupada the last genuine acarya, albeit our Founder-acarya. Although hundreds and thousands of regular diksa and siksa gurus will serve under Prabhupada’s pre-eminent siksa, does this have a ring of being the ‘Last’ as reflected in other ideologies? Is this reminiscent perhaps, of the ‘last prophet’ or ‘last true saviour’ we find in age-old traditions?

Proponents of ritvikism already have this ‘Last’ clause in place, although some await a next self-effulgent acarya to appear on the scene. If something like this were to happen, would the GBC rulebook have to be amended? To date, our GBC rulebooks have constantly changed. Is this new Prabhupada-centric acceptance reactionary to the problems ISKCON has experienced in its short history, or is it the dawning of combined reflectiveness?

As we read in the Founder-acarya paper by Ravindra Swarupa Prabhu, the desire of Srila Bhaktisddhanta Sarasvati Thakur to create such a Gaudiya Matha institution seemed tailor-made for Kali-yuga. Our Srila Prabhupada replicated Gaudiya Matha ideals with the creation of ISKCON. Here is something really interesting to think about: What if the Gaudiya Matha did follow Srila Bhaktisiddhanta and never disintegrated? Would our Srila Prabhupada have been a regular guru within that organisation and a GBC member?

Is this possible reality of Srila Prabhupada being a regular guru within the Gaudiya Matha too difficult to contemplate? There were a number of genuinely enlightened disciples of Srila Bhaktisiddhanta within the Gaudiya Matha. In spite of this Srila Bhaktisiddhanta still wanted equitable GBC management. Even an outstanding individual as Srila Prabhupada would not have been given preferential treatment among his other God brothers.

Now, let us suppose that the Gaudiya Matha was functioning well and our Srila Prabhupada had ventured to the West as a Gaudiya Matha regular guru, with the blessings of the Gaudiya Matha GBC, Srila Prabhupada might have gotten more help. Here things get more interesting – if Srila Prabhupada had founded the Gaudiya Matha in New York in 1966, he would have put Srila Bhaktisiddhanta down as Founder-acarya of the Western chapter of the Gaudiya Matha, under the auspices of its GBC. Is this all too fanciful?

There would be no ISKCON as we know it. The Gaudiya Matha GBC would probably have encouraged other senior Gaudiya Matha members to help preach in various parts of the world. There would have been no Founder-acarya of ISKCON and Srila Prabhupada would have remained as AC Bhaktivedanta Swami Maharaja. Is this again all too difficult to envision? Yet this is what is being imposed with the finality of the Founder-acarya for ISKCON and the implications thereof.

If we cannot imagine a world without Srila Prabhupada, we would not have known it if the Gaaudiya Matha had remained faithful to its own Founder-acarya. Can we ever imagine Srila Prabhupada being a regular guru? That is what would have happened If the Gauduya Matha had stayed united. If we want to protest this ‘demotion’ of Srila Prabhupada to regular guru status, then we will be protesting against the Founder-acarya Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakur. ISKCON came to be because the Gaudiya Matha ceased to effectively be. Could we call this a “fluke of good fortune” for us?

World history did not turn out this way and we as members of ISKCON are experiencing a result of circumstantial parampara aberration and correction. As things stand, truly outstanding regular gurus will not get preferential treatment within a collective ISKCON team effort. We do of course, acknowledge exceptional achievements and venerate our rising moons.

Just as we cannot contemplate Srila Prabhupada being a regular guru, we can imagine how disciples of present gurus must feel if their gurus are just regular gurus. If we did not have the problem of fallen gurus within ISKCON we would not be having these discussions. These GBC changes have tried to redress. They are reactionary to our inability to place the founder-acarya in his rightful place, at the centre.

History has also shown how a central figurehead can be deified to an extent of being a God. In these formative years of ISKCON existence we surely want to prevent a re-enactment of the “Jesus is Lord” factor. Are we convinced that the finality of Founder-acarya will not set even a remote precedent for this in the future? Such questions are pertinent when additional enforcement of Prabhupada-centric resolutions may be in store.

When we see that concepts of Founder-acarya have their roots in Gaudiya Matha history and that Srila Prabhupada exhibited faithful allegiance in matters big and small, placing him in the centre is the real zone – the buffer zone. If only this had been in place from 1977 onwards, think again of all those hundreds, thousands and possibly tens of thousands of devotees who might have stayed with ISKCON during troubled times. If this can unite disparate sectors, this will be impressive.

Ys Kesava Krsna Dasa.