By Sita Rama das
According to the ISKCON foundational document “Srila Prabhupada: The Founder Acarya of ISKCON” (The Founder Acarya) two ideas exist which are a rejection of Srila Prabhupada’s instruction for continuing the disciplic succession. One idea is to reject individual gurus, the other is to eliminate the GBC and have one acarya (p.24). ISKCON needs to foster both an “…intense common loyalty to ISKCON and the GBC…” and a deep “…full teaching relationship between individual gurus and disciples within ISKCON” (The Founder Acarya, p. 24) Members need to realize that there is no conflict between loyalty to Srila Prabhupada, ISKCON, and their guru; rather, these two factors reinforce and support each other (The Founder Acarya p.24).
My point is, this “realization” is simply theoretical until an intense loyalty to ISKCON and the GBC, combined with surrender to an individual guru, is established as the cultural fabric of the movement. Until that happens the conflict exists. We need to do more to mitigate this conflict. The disciplic succession is a foundational principle, without which there is no possibility of conditioned souls transcending the cycle of birth and death. There is no time or place where this principle can be neglected. In “The Founder Acarya” the GBC is described as the “successor acarya” of Srila Prabhupada. It follows, quite correctly, that the GBC is the link in the chain of disciplic succession connecting ISKCON gurus to Srila Prabhupada. In my experience, however, this rarely acknowledged. I therefore see the chain deteriorating before my eyes. The reality of parampara in ISKCON, as described in “The Founder Acarya” must be regularly discussed to reinforce this most important principle. Although devotees may have their own opinions, and may express them in private circles, the GBC must insist that devotees acknowledge the official teaching of ISKCON and forbid them from preaching anything opposed to this. This rigidness will make ISKCON more attractive to genuine spiritual seekers. We can see that Christian religious organizations which uphold rigid theological principles remain dynamic, and the ones with a culture of individualism, and flexible interpretation, decline. ISKCON and these organizations share enough elements for us to conclude that growth and decline of ISKCON will be affected in a way similar to the way it is in these organizations. The common element shared by ISKCON and most Christian organizations is the goal of salvation. This invariable includes the concept of following the will of God in order to, by His Grace, obtain an eternal, joyful, life. One learns how to follow God’s will through leaders who teach from a sacred text. Below is a small sample of the available data which justifies the assertion that religious organizations which demand strict acceptance of central beliefs, and restrictions on behavior, remain dynamic; and those who adopt theological liberalism and freedom of individual freedom decline. In 1931, Ernst Troeltsch, through a study of the history of Christianity, developed the, “sect to church” concept. Religious movements start off as strict sects which have beliefs, values, and customs that create tension between them and society at large. The successful sects grow into churches, slacken doctrinal demands, and embrace secular morality. When this happens church growth slows down. Then reactionary groups break from the church and form sects, these new sects gradually become churches, and the cycle repeats. Other scholars have given historical data to paint the same picture (see, The Churching of America, by Finke and Stark). We can also see this happening recently with the Presbyterian Church. Hundreds of Presbyterian congregations are leaving this liberal church and joining, the conservative, Covenant Order of Evangelical Presbyterians, formed in 2010, and the, Evangelical Presbyterian Church, founded in 1981. The Evangelical Presbyterians declares itself, “reformed”, defined as accepting the, “…Scripture alone as the only infallible authority for belief…” (http://www.epc.org/faq) Beyond simply theorizing, an abundance of empirical research on church growth and decline was precipitated by a 1977 book by Dean Kelley, “Why Conservative Churches Are Still Growing” Several theories have been developed, and debates have ensued, regarding why, “mainstream/ liberal” churches have declined and “conservative/strict” churches continue to grow. But there is, essentially, no denying that this trend has continued for over four decades. Among other things, strict churches are characterized as having “costs”, such as demanding literal acceptance of the scriptures, restrictions on diet, dress styles, and social interactions, which often invite ridicule. These include several Pentecostal groups, Mormons, and Jehovah Witnesses. The mainstreams, liberal, churches which have been declining since the 1960’s include the Presbyterians, Episcopalians, and United Methodists. Why are people more attracted to churches that demand more, when they could choose one that demands less? Answers to this are found in an academic paper published in the, Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion (Sacrifice and Stigma: Managing Religious Risk, by Prosper Raynold). It is because people have the propensity to develop faith and hope in God; but people tend to rely on “faith intermediaries” to deepen their understanding of the will of God. They need to believe they have found intermediaries who have access to God (through sacred texts) and can transmit the will of God, and not exploit them. People then act in accordance with God’s will in order to obtain eternal life. But there is a, “mediation risk”, involved regarding whether the prescribed path will lead to the desired outcome. This intermediary risk is mitigated by “strictness.” This makes sense. Regulations on behavior and literal acceptance of the scriptures are principles which do not jibe with the morals, ambitions, or world views, of the masses in materialistic society. Intermediaries who insist on these principles are making religion costly, but the cost being paid is not something the intermediaries can utilize for their own profit: this adds to their credibility. Conversely, genuine seekers can see that intermediaries who water down the scriptures are motivated to gain followers for reasons other than to inspire them to act according to the word of God. These intermediaries are unable to transmit the will of God or show the path to achieve eternal happiness. Watering down the criteria may result in a boost in church membership but this will inevitable be short lived. It may attract those who have less spiritual desire; those who are less willing to pay a price for eternal life. But such people, invariably, have greater material ambitions, and will be ultimately drawn away by secular organizations which can offer material rewards much more effectively than any church. In other words, when churches stop emphasizing their unique product, eternality, they place themselves into the competitive market of material organizations which they are unable to compete with. They become unappealing to both genuine seekers and superficial members. Similarly, ISKCON gurus who are not willing to accept the GBC as the link in the disciplic succession connecting them to Srila Prabhupada, and who do not emphatically teach the same to their followers, may be able offer greater freedom of personal opinions, and other things which jibe with the ideals of the masses in society; ideals which are precious to conditioned souls. They may be able, by personal charisma, to inspire faith in followers who openly have little faith in the GBC and are unwilling to accept it as the, successor acarya. But such gurus will not be able to inspire “intense loyalty to ISKCON and the GBC”. It follows, they will not be able to inspire intense loyalty to Srila Prabhupada, nor to the disciple succession coming from him. If such gurus become the norm, then the continuation of ISKCON will eventually be in the hands of charismatic disciples of these charismatic gurus. It is easy to see that after a few generations the potency of ISKCON; which comes from making a direct connection with Krishna available, through rigidly following the instructions of Srila Prabhupada, will dwindle and eventually vanish. However, if gurus display, and advocate, acceptance of the GBC as the link between them and Srila Prabhupada, this strict acceptance of the disciplic succession will increase their own credibility among followers who intelligently weigh intermediary risk. These gurus will “cost” more in terms of disciples giving up freedom of personal opinion, but the payback will be greater confidence that the guru/ intermediary is accurately transmitting the will of God, without personal interpretation or egotistic motivation. Thus, as idealized in “The Founder Acarya”, when gurus advocate loyalty to ISKCON and Srila Prabhupada their disciples develop greater faith in them. As an alternative route to persuasion, those who are inspired primarily by faith in Srila Prabhupada will have more confidence in the gurus when those gurus fully adhere to the system Srila Prabhupada established. Thus, acceptance of Srila Prabhupada, the GBC, and ISKCON gurus, as the chain of disciplic succession, will support and reinforce acceptance of all these links. Let’s begin to develop a consensus regarding the nature of the parampara in ISKCON before our mundane sensibilities delude us into seeing acceptance of the GBC as some form of material authoritarianism.
Some corrections to the article above are:
1. Page one of (Srila Prabhupada The Founder-Acharya of ISKCON) SPFA is described as a GBC foundational document not an ISKCON foundational document as claimed by the author. There is a subtle difference. The founder of ISKCON would have created all foundational documents of ISKCON whereas the GBC can create foundational documents for acceptance by themselves and/or ISKCON only later. The inference of an ISKCON foundational document is that it was created by the founder at the time ISKCON was founded. Whereas in fact this document was created only recently and then accepted by the GBC as foundational in the sense that it should now apply to the GBC and ISKCON.
2. The author states “In “The Founder Acarya” the GBC is described as the “successor acarya” of Srila Prabhupada.” This is just not a fact. This is the speculation of the author as the term “successor” appears 7 times in the book but never “successor acarya”. Neither is the GBC stated to be such a “successor acarya”.
3. The author goes on to state: “It follows, quite correctly, that the GBC is the link in the chain of disciplic succession connecting ISKCON gurus to Srila Prabhupada.”
This is also false. The GBC is not a link in the chain of disciplic succession. Disciplic succession or parampara (lit. one after another) is a chain of gurus only. A guru has one or more disciples who become the next guru(s) in the chain. A committee like the GBC now made up of some Prabhupada direct disciples and some Prabhupada grand disciples cannot be considered as the next link or guru in the guru parampara or disciplic succession. It cannot be the link that connects present ISKCON gurus with Srila Prabhupada. Present ISKCON gurus are mostly directly disciples of Srila Prabhupada they are and always will be connected directly with Srila Prabhupada as his direct disciples. They cannot be said to be connected to him only through a committee some of who’s members may be their Godbrothers or even Godnephews.
Is their direct relationship with Srila Prabhupada dependent on this committee? How? And those ISKCON gurus who are not direct disciples of Srila Prabhupada similarly are connected to him through their own gurus who are direct disciples and again not through the GBC. That is the system of guru parampara or disciplic succession. If what the author is implying is accepted by the GBC then the GBC should place the words “ISKCON GBC” on line 33 just below Srila Prabhupada’s name in the guru parampara listed in his books and all other ISKCON gurus should when listing their guru paramparas include before them the words “ISKCON GBC” rather than directly Srila Prabhupada or their own guru’s name who is a direct disciple of Srila Prabhupada. The author is confusing a post of Institutional Management with a position in the Spiritual disciplic succession.
4. The author goes on to state: “Similarly, ISKCON gurus who are not willing to accept the GBC as the link in the disciplic succession connecting them to Srila Prabhupada, and who do not emphatically teach the same to their followers, may be able offer greater freedom of personal opinions, and other things which jibe with the ideals of the masses in society; ideals which are precious to conditioned souls. They may be able, by personal charisma, to inspire faith in followers who openly have little faith in the GBC and are unwilling to accept it as the, successor acarya. But such gurus will not be able to inspire “intense loyalty to ISKCON and the GBC”. It follows, they will not be able to inspire intense loyalty to Srila Prabhupada, nor to the disciple succession coming from him.”
Again this is mere speculation. The fact is that all members of ISKCON do have faith in their gurus as well as the GBC. Their faith in their gurus does not detract from their faith in the GBC. We should note in this connection that the sastra forbids one to disobey one’s guru, whereas the sastra has nothing to say about the GBC. The best one can say about the GBC is that collectively they represent a type of siksha guru. But like all gurus they loose their authority if they deviate from sastra. Disciples loose faith in their diksha and siksha gurus when any of these deviate from sastra. It is not a mere acceptance of the GBC as the next link in the disciplic succession that makes disciples more prone to have faith in their gurus or in Srila Prabhupada. Disciples have faith in those who follow sastra. They loose faith if they see those who do not follow sastra whether those persons be diksha or siksha gurus or even GBCs.
The author has an axe to grind. He feels that because he was let down in his choice for diksha guru so everyone should accept his new idea that the GBC is the next successor-acarya to Srila Prabhupada in the disciplic succession or guru parampara. However Prabhupada himself never described the GBC like this. And neither does Ravindra Svarupa prabhu’s SPFA document. The author is taking liberties with this document and trying to twist out of it a meaning to suit his own agenda. If Ravindra Svarupa prabhu had meant that the GBC was the next successor-acarya to Srila Prabhupada he would have plainly written it and the GBC would have accepted it. However he did not and they did not. Therefore this new twist on this document needs to be repudiated by the Ravindra Svarupa prabhu and the GBC or others may be confused about it’s meaning.
The author here is right about the need for a consensus on the nature of the guru parampara. However his idea of what it is cannot be accepted as it goes against everything we know if it from Srila Prabhupada and sastra. The disciplic succession or guru parampara is a list of gurus and their disciples who became the next generations gurus. It cannot contain an ever changing group of god brothers/sisters/nephews etc. which continues forever.
The title of the article says it all. The dwindling parampara. The author wants us to understand that the parampara ends on the next line after Srila Prabhupada with the words “ISKCON GBC”. This is akin to rtivikism which also posits an end to the parampara. Parampara doesn’t end. If it ends or is disrupted then the Lord has to come or send someone to re-establish it. That is described in the Gita by Lord Krishna. No, the parampara has not and will not end as long as gurus make disciples and those disciples themselves become bonafide gurus. Whatever role the Insitutional Managers i.e. GBCs have in this system it is certainly not one of holding the successor-acarya title or position to Srila Prabhupada in the disciplic succession. Hopefully this totally wrong idea will be repudiated by Ravindra Svarupa prabhu and/or the GBC.
Part 1 of 4:
Gaurakeshavadas Prabhu,
Please accept my humble obiesances.
All glories to Srila Prabhupada.
Thank you very much for your response. I am hoping Ravindra Svarupa Prabhu, or someone with similar qualification, will clarify the points that we have raised. First, I need to clarify what my perspective actually is.
You assert:
Page one of (Srila Prabhupada The Founder-Acharya of ISKCON) SPFA is described as a GBC foundational document not an ISKCON foundational document as claimed by the author. There is a subtle difference. The founder of ISKCON would have created all foundational documents of ISKCON whereas the GBC can create foundational documents for acceptance by themselves and/or ISKCON only later. The inference of an ISKCON foundational document is that it was created by the founder at the time ISKCON was founded. Whereas in fact this document was created only recently and then accepted by the GBC as foundational in the sense that it.
My response:
I agree.Technically, SPFA is a GBC foundational document which as you say, “should now apply to the GBC and ISKCON”. It was not written by Srila Prabhupada; rather, it is written by those who are the ultimate authorities in ISKCON, as per his instruction.
You assert:
The author states “In “The Founder Acarya” the GBC is described as the “successor acarya” of Srila Prabhupada.” This is just not a fact. This is the speculation of the author as the term “successor” appears 7 times in the book but never “successor acarya”. Neither is the GBC stated to be such a “successor acarya”.
My response:
You are, technically, correct. The word term, “successor acarya” is not found in the document. SPFA simply describes the GBC as Srila Prabhupada’s, “chosen successor” which he appointed to fill the position of an individual acarya.
SPFA Page 82(bold added).
It is customary in India for an acarya to leave his institution to his chosen successor in his will. The action Srila Prabhupada took in 1970-establishing the GBC – allowed him in 1977 to set down as the first provision in his will, “The Governing Body Commision( GBC) will be the ultimate managing authority of the entire International Society for Krishna Consciousness.” By thus establishing the GBC and leaving it as his chosen successor at the head of ISKCON, Srila Prabhupa ensured that the order of Bhaktishidhanta Sarasvati Thakura would continue to work efficaciously in the world and bear fruit.
Yet his spiritual master himself had asked for a governing board to succeed him at the head of his institution. Srila Prabhupada took this request to heart, Here is another desire of Bhaktishidhanta Sarasvati Thakura left unsatisfied , and Srila Prabhupada, the faithful Sarasvata, undertook to satisfy him: He would establish a board , oversee it’s development and have it ready to act as his successor at the head of ISKCON. END QUOTE.
Part 2 of 4:
You assert:
The author goes on to state: “It follows, quite correctly, that the GBC is the link in the chain of disciplic succession connecting ISKCON gurus to Srila Prabhupada.”
This is also false. The GBC is not a link in the chain of disciplic succession. Disciplic succession or parampara (lit. one after another) is a chain of gurus only. A guru has one or more disciples who become the next guru(s) in the chain. A committee like the GBC now made up of some Prabhupada direct disciples and some Prabhupada grand disciples cannot be considered as the next link or guru in the guru parampara or disciplic succession. It cannot be the link that connects present ISKCON gurus with Srila Prabhupada. Present ISKCON gurus are mostly directly disciples of Srila Prabhupada they are and always will be connected directly with Srila Prabhupada as his direct disciples. They cannot be said to be connected to him only through a committee some of who’s members may be their Godbrothers or even Godnephews.
My response:
The cardinal requirement for a guru is that he follows the instruction of his guru. If a so called guru does not accept the GBC as the ultimate managerial authority, as per Srila Prabhupada’s instruction, I refuse to accept him as an authority.
You ask:
Is their direct relationship with Srila Prabhupada dependent on this committee?
My response:
Of course, one’s connection with their guru depends on their following his instructions. Otherwise no one can be an authority. It is hard to understand how anyone can miss this point.
You ask: How?
My response:
Anyone who acts independently and against the order of his guru and at the same time presents themselves as a spiritual authority is a cheater.
You assert:
And those ISKCON gurus who are not direct disciples of Srila Prabhupada similarly are connected to him through their own gurus who are direct disciples and again not through the GBC. That is the system of guru parampara or disciplic succession. If what the author is implying is accepted by the GBC then the GBC should place the words “ISKCON GBC” on line 33 just below Srila Prabhupada’s name in the guru parampara listed in his books and all other ISKCON gurus should when listing their guru paramparas include before them the words “ISKCON GBC” rather than directly Srila Prabhupada or their own guru’s name who is a direct disciple of Srila Prabhupada. The author is confusing a post of Institutional Management with a position in the Spiritual disciplic succession.
My response:
They are directly connected with Srila Prabhupada as long as they follow his instructions to accept the GBC. The list in Srila Prabhupada’s books ends with Srila Prabhuada, any change in this would have to be approved by the GBC and the BBT. This is a detail.
Part 3 of 4
You assert:
The author goes on to state: “Similarly, ISKCON gurus who are not willing to accept the GBC as the link in the disciplic succession connecting them to Srila Prabhupada, and who do not emphatically teach the same to their followers, may be able offer greater freedom of personal opinions, and other things which jibe with the ideals of the masses in society; ideals which are precious to conditioned souls. They may be able, by personal charisma, to inspire faith in followers who openly have little faith in the GBC and are unwilling to accept it as the, successor acarya. But such gurus will not be able to inspire “intense loyalty to ISKCON and the GBC”. It follows, they will not be able to inspire intense loyalty to Srila Prabhupada, nor to the disciple succession coming from him.”
Again this is mere speculation. The fact is that all members of ISKCON do have faith in their gurus as well as the GBC. Their faith in their gurus does not detract from their faith in the GBC. We should note in this connection that the sastra forbids one to disobey one’s guru, whereas the sastra has nothing to say about the GBC.
My response:
Srila Prabhupada’s practical instructions for the management of ISKCON are on the same level as Shastra and he said much about the GBC.
You assert:
The best one can say about the GBC is that collectively they represent a type of siksha guru. But like all gurus they loose their authority if they deviate from sastra. Disciples loose faith in their diksha and siksha gurus when any of these deviate from sastra. It is not a mere acceptance of the GBC as the next link in the disciplic succession that makes disciples more prone to have faith in their gurus or in Srila Prabhupada. Disciples have faith in those who follow sastra. They loose faith if they see those who do not follow sastra whether those persons be diksha or siksha gurus or even GBCs.
My response:
I lose faith in a so called guru if they do not follow Srila Prabhupada’s instructions, just as much as if they do not follow, “Shastra”
You assert:
The author has an axe to grind. He feels that because he was let down in his choice for diksha guru so everyone should accept his new idea that the GBC is the next successor-acarya to Srila Prabhupada in the disciplic succession or guru parampara.
My response:
I have never been let down by my choice of diksha guru. Except for some technical points you have noted, the ideas I have presented logically follow from the SPFA and Srila Prabhupada’s instructions
Part 4 of 4:
You assert:
However Prabhupada himself never described the GBC like this. And neither does Ravindra Svarupa prabhu’s SPFA document. The author is taking liberties with this document and trying to twist out of it a meaning to suit his own agenda. If Ravindra Svarupa prabhu had meant that the GBC was the next successor-acarya to Srila Prabhupada he would have plainly written it and the GBC would have accepted it. However he did not and they did not. Therefore this new twist on this document needs to be repudiated by the Ravindra Svarupa prabhu and the GBC or others may be confused about it’s meaning.
My response:
As you feel my understanding is inaccurate, it is appropriate for you to request Ravidnra Svarupa to clarify the issue; however, there is no need to make personal accusations about my motivations.
You assert:
The author here is right about the need for a consensus on the nature of the guru parampara. However his idea of what it is cannot be accepted as it goes against everything we know if it from Srila Prabhupada and sastra. The disciplic succession or guru parampara is a list of gurus and their disciples who became the next generations gurus. It cannot contain an ever changing group of god brothers/sisters/nephews etc. which continues forever.
My Response:
We need clarification because what you say the parampara “can’t be” is what I understood to be the conclusion of SPFA
You assert:
The title of the article says it all. The dwindling parampara. The author wants us to understand that the parampara ends on the next line after Srila Prabhupada with the words “ISKCON GBC”. This is akin to rtivikism which also posits an end to the parampara.
My Response.
The parampara does not end with the GBC, it continues through it.
You assert:
Parampara doesn’t end. If it ends or is disrupted, then the Lord has to come or send someone to re-establish it.
My response:
Our duty is to do the best we can to see it is not disrupted.
You assert:
That is described in the Gita by Lord Krishna. No, the parampara has not and will not end as long as gurus make disciples and those disciples themselves become bonafide gurus.
My response:
Bonafide guru means to follow the instruction of their guru which for followers of Srila Prabhupada means to accept the GBC. You have not acknowledged this. That is the difference between our perspectives.
You assert:
Whatever role the Insitutional Managers i.e. GBCs have in this system it is certainly not one of holding the successor-acarya title or position to Srila Prabhupada in the disciplic succession. Hopefully this totally wrong idea will be repudiated by Ravindra Svarupa prabhu and/or the GBC.
My response:
I agree to accept, as conclusive, Ravindra Svarupa’s (or someone equally qualified and authoirized by the GBC) clarification of these points.
Gaura Kesava prabhus analysis is very good.
One additional point – it seems that the author’s use of the term “successor acharya” is an interpretation of the following statement in the referenced book.
The Founder-acharya book states:
“By thus establishing the GBC and leaving it as his chosen successor at the head of ISKCON, Śrīla
Prabhupāda insured that the order of Bhaktisiddhānta Sarasvatī Ṭhākura would continue to work efficaciously in the world and bear fruit.”
The term “chosen successor at the head of ISKCON”, to my mind, has not been adequately explained in the book leading to speculative conclusions like “successor acharya”.
In the article above I said that the document; Srila Prabhupada: The Founder Acarya of ISKCON(SPFA). described the GBC as the “successor acarya.” While going back over the text I found that this term was absent. What I did find on page 82, twice, was the phrase CHOSEN SUCCESSOR AT THE HEAD OF ISKCON. On page 97 we read: “Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Gosvami therefore called for an organization in which the ultimate authority would reside not in the person of a single autocratic acarya but rather in a board of directors which he called the “Governing Body Commission.” This is directly followed by a description of the GBC instituted by Srila Prabhupada in ISKCON which includes: “Thus a governing board is more stable, stronger and far more resilient than a single acarya” (p. 98).
We need to accept, as an axiom, that a spiritual institution needs a spiritual head. Srila Prabhupada did not appoint a single acarya as the spiritual head of ISKCON. It follows that what Srila Prabhupada described as the ultimate managerial authority (the GBC) must be the spiritual head of ISKCON. We cannot indulge the sentiments of those who lack the intelligence to realize the need for such a head. The GBC cannot be seen as simply an institutional management board; this would beg the question, what, or who is the spiritual head?
I anticipate appeals to emotion in reply to my responses where I state that connection with Srila Prabhupada is contingent on acceptance of the GBC. I mean this only in the context of being a guru. As stated in SPFA we should deal with those who leave ISKCON “With a clear and incisive understanding of their deviations; with a generous, well-wishing attitude; and with endless patience”(p. 104). My personal attitude is, they cannot be considered ordinary conditioned souls nor bonafide guru’s; but these are not the only two possibilities, they are somewhere in between and it is not my duty to try to ascertain exactly where that is.
Dear Sita Rama prabhu, Thanks for taking the time to analyze my points. If I have suggested wrong motives on your side let me apologize for that. Actually I am interested in only clarity on these points. I also hope that Ravindra Svarupa das and/or the GBC can clarify your “logical conclusions”.
One major problem I see with your “logical conclusions” based on SPFA is that you take SPFA as a sastra like text and you quote it as though we are all supposed to take it over and above everything else we have heard and read from Srila Prabhupada and sastra. This is the first problem.
Secondly there are many statements that you have made that are not precise. For example nowhere is Ultimate Managerial Authority equated by Srila Prabhupada (or in sastra) with Ultimate Authority or Ultimate Spiritual Authority. You have made this logical equation based on the proof given only from SPFA. But SPFA is not a sastra or perfect document that we may prove such things from. We cannot say that in SPFA it says that the GBC is the successor acarya to Srila Prabhupada (even though Prabhupada himself never said so) and then for proof quote the SPFA. That would be circular logic.
Gaurakeshavadas Prabhu,
Although I am certainly a novice in the field, I did receive a MS in conflict resolution from the University of California Dominquez Hills. The motto of this in the field is “move toward the conflict”. If there are underlying, conflicting, views among two or more people, it is counterproductive to stifle these views because they then never become resolved and inevitably they erupt at times in unproductive ways. Another cardinal point is, conflicts are rarely about the discussions surrounding a topic. We have to identify the underlying causes.
I think your statement above identifies an underlying perspective which is leading to disagreements. That is regarding the nature of the authority of the GBC. My perspective is, despite the fact that a GBC document may have some imperfections, it is the official teaching of ISKCON and it represents the teaching of the parampara coming from Srila Prabhupada. We must accept an ultimate authority in spite of the absence of a perfect authority. Paradoxically we are on the transcendental level when we do this because it is the instruction of the Srila Prabhupada the Founder Acahrya. Obviously you, and many others do not accept the GBC on this level.
We must clarify two separate issues that have been brought up. One is the question of what SPFA actually says, the other is the level of authoritativeness of the document. We have to avoid flip flop, for instance when the question of the meaning is raised, instead of responding with a potential answer, we change to a question about authoritativeness.
Thirdly you suggest that a good disciple always follows the instructions of his guru. I agree. However many people may have many different understandings of those instructions and how to apply them in different times, places and circumstances. One cannot blanket condemn a disciple who does not follow one or more of his gurus instructions or follows them in a slightly different way that we ourselves do due to some difference in interpretation or emphasis. Thus surely following the GBC is predicated on the GBC actually properly interpreting and implementing the instructions of Srila Prabhupada and not that Srila Prabhupada wanted us to follow persons who might appear to be his GBC but yet do not interpret or implement his actual instructions. I also point you to the example of Vasudeva das of Fiji whom I know very well having served there. He was a big Indian businessman in that place and arranged for all the initial preaching and acquisition of land for the ISKCON Fiji temple in Latoka. Yet he refused to work under the chosen GBC member that Srila Prabhupada wanted him to do. Prabhupada then wrote to him that he could remain his disciple but could not collect or advertise that he was a part of ISKCON.
Letter to: Vasudeva
76-07-29
My Dear Vasudeva das;
Please accept my blessings. I am in due receipt of the undated joint letter from you and Upendra dasa and have noted the contents with care. Regarding the situation in Fiji, it is necessary that we come to a proper understanding as to the status of the land and the organization of ISKCON Fiji itself. The first point is that the governing board of ISKCON may have yourself and your brother as members, but must also have the GBC for the zone, Gurukrpa Swami, the GBC Chairman, Tamala Krsna Goswami , and Upendra das as members. The second point is that after ISKCON has been organized in the above way the land which the temple is being constructed on must be leased to ISKCON Fiji with a 99 year unconditional lease with option to renew which I shall approve.
In case you do not like this arrangement then you may keep the temple as your private property AND AS MY DISCIPLE I WILL GIVE YOU GUIDANCE. (Caps mine for emphasis) But you may not use the ISKCON name to collect funds or to take loans. In this connection until this matter is resolved no loan may be taken from the bank or elsewhere and all collections in the name of ISKCON, must stop. If you desire to keep the temple as private property then Upendra das may return to Hawaii and ISKCON Fiji may be dissolved. If you want to consider this project as an ISKCON project then you must abide by the orders and direction of the GBC, which you do not like to do. Now whatever you like let me know.
I hope this meets you in good health.
Your ever well wisher,
A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami
ACBS/pks
You write:
One cannot blanket condemn a disciple who does not follow one or more of his gurus instructions or follows them in a slightly different way that we ourselves do due to some difference in interpretation or emphasis.
My response:
I agree, and I addressed this in a previous comment. I am not condemning anyone for not following one or more of Srila Prabhupada’s, or their guru’s instruction. The point is, I can feel that someone is not surrendered enough to be a guru without condemning them. Nor do I feel someone is necessarily wrong because they judge differently than me. I am talking about a general principle regarding the nature of the parampara in ISKCON. It is up to authorities and disciples to make detailed judgements.
You write:
Thus surely following the GBC is predicated on the GBC actually properly interpreting and implementing the instructions of Srila Prabhupada and not that Srila Prabhupada wanted us to follow persons who might appear to be his GBC but yet do not interpret or implement his actual instructions.
My response:
This is ambiguous. You might be implying that the GBC is improperly interpreting and implementing things right now, which makes them unqualified to represent Srila Prabhupada. If that is the case, please leave that for a different discussion. That is a detailed subject. The topic here is a general principle. It is true that Srila Prabhupada wanted his disciples to reject “authorities” when they taught that Srila Prabhupada was God. This is a matter of duress. We may have to do one forbidden thing (reject an authority or even the GBC) to avoid doing something which is worse. But if someone has now rejected the GBC under a plea of duress our discussion here has no meaning.
Dear Sita Rama das, Now let me look at your replies in detail:
You said in reply to my first point (see above): “I agree.Technically, SPFA is a GBC foundational document which as you say, “should now apply to the GBC and ISKCON”. It was not written by Srila Prabhupada; rather, it is written by those who are the ultimate authorities in ISKCON, as per his instruction.”
Again you are being imprecise. The SPFA was not written by the GBC, and neither are they the Ultimate Authorities. It was written by Ravindra Svarupa das and accepted by the GBC who are the Ultimate Managerial Authorities of ISKCON as per Srila Prabhupada’s last will and testament.
The meaning of Ultimate Managerial Authority in the context of Srila Prabhupada’s last will and testament has not been exactly clarified. Many believe that it means that the GBC are Ultimate Authorities in ISKCON for all things managerial and spiritual, for doctrinal interpretation, or like you that this makes them collectively the successor acarya of ISKCON. However many do not take this to be the meaning. If we look at the context of the term in the will it seems to apply only to management of ISKCON immovable properties. However historically we know that the GBC members and GBC body in ISKCON did deal with many other matters during Srila Prabhupada’s presence. Never however did we see them making decisions on interpretation of spiritual doctrine. Srila Prabhupada personally, his teachings and sastra were always the final words on such purely spiritual matters and not a majority vote of the GBC or the opinion of one or more of them. The Ultimate Authorities for all Vaisnavas are guru, sadhu and sastra. Ultimately guru and sadhu take their views only from sastra.
tasmāc chāstraṁ pramāṇaṁ te kāryākārya-vyavasthitau jñātvā śāstra-vidhānoktaṁ karma kartum ihārhasi
One should therefore understand what is duty and what is not duty by the regulations of the scriptures. Knowing such rules and regulations, one should act so that he may gradually be elevated. BG 16.24
You see the sastras cannot be changed. Whereas the acceptance of SPFA was accepted by the GBC by majority vote and can in future be rejected in part or whole also by another majority vote. The SPFA is not sastra which cannot be accepted or rejected by majority vote. Today it is accepted, but if it is seen to be unclear or misunderstood or wrong in some way in the future it may need to be changed or modified or even abandoned altogether.
You write:
However historically we know that the GBC members and GBC body in ISKCON did deal with many other matters during Srila Prabhupada’s presence. Never however did we see them making decisions on interpretation of spiritual doctrine.
My response:
That is acknowledged in SPFA. The point is, in Srila Prabhupada’s physical absence there has to a means for answering questions that arise. If the GBC is not meant to perform this task, then who is? How are they directly authorized to do so by Srila Prabhupada? These are rhetorical, the answer is Srila Prabhupada took great pains to set up a GBC system for the continuation of ISKCON. Like any organization, there has to be a person or group to make official decisions. Members of millions organizations in the material world remain loyal to them despite the fact that they disagree with the ultimate authorities in those organizations. We also need to do this if we want Srila Prabhupada’s movement to continue. Therefore, in terms of my spiritual attitude, I do not make a distinction between loyalty to Srila Prabhupada,loyalty to ISKCON, and loyalty to the GBC.
You write:
The SPFA is not sastra which cannot be accepted or rejected by majority vote. Today it is accepted, but if it is seen to be unclear or misunderstood or wrong in some way in the future it may need to be changed or modified or even abandoned altogether.
My response:
I must agree with this. It appears to be a strong argument because Srila Prabhupada used a similar point against the acceptance of scientific theories. Because they said one thing before and something different now- what they say now means nothing- later they will say something different. The point is Srila Prabhupada wanted us to accept the GBC although it is imperfect, because without an ultimate managerial authority no organization can exist. If you do not accept the SPFA then then you can write an article explaining why it should be disregarded, what we are discussing here is how to properly understand and implement it’s conclsuions.
Dear Sita Rama das you quoted from SPFA Page 82 (although you transposed the quotes, the last part of the quote which comes first is) as follows:
“Yet his spiritual master himself had asked for a governing board to succeed him at the head of his institution. Srila Prabhupada took this request to heart, Here is another desire of Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakura left unsatisfied , and Srila Prabhupada, the faithful Sarasvata, undertook to satisfy him: He would establish a board , oversee it’s development and have it ready to act as his successor at the head of ISKCON.”
Ravindra Svarupa here is also not being precise. Here is Srila Prabhupada explaining exactly what Srila Bhaktisiddhanta wanted and which Ravindra Svarupa should be suggesting Srila Prabhupada also wanted. Instead of however stating that the GBC is a successor acarya what Prabhupada says is that Srila Bhaktisiddhanta wanted the GBC to MANAGE the preaching and that whoever would come out as a successful preacher would be the self effulgent acarya. Not that the GBC itself would be an acarya but that the GBCs management would facilitate successful preachers who would be acaryas. The GBC would manage and the successful preachers would be self effulgent acaryas. Self effulgent not appointed or voted by the GBC.
Letter to: Rupanuga — Tirupati 28 April, 1974
74-04-28
Washington D.C.
My dear Rupanuga Maharaja…
My Guru Maharaja used to lament many times for this reason and he thought if one man at least had understood the principle of preaching then his mission would achieve success. In the latter days of my Guru Maharaja he was very disgusted. Actually, he left this world earlier, otherwise he would have continued to live for more years. Still he requested his disciples to form a strong Governing body for preaching the cult of Caitanya Mahaprabhu. HE NEVER RECOMMENDED ANYONE TO BE ACARYA OF THE GAUDIYA MATH.(Caps mine for emphasis) But Sridhara Maharaja is responsible for disobeying this order of Guru Maharaja, and he and others who are already dead unnecessarily thought that there must be one acarya. IF GURU MAHARAJA COULD HAVE SEEN SOMEONE WHO WAS QUALIFIED AT THAT TIME TO BE ACARYA HE WOULD HAVE MENTIONED.(Caps mine for emphasis) Because on the night before he passed away he talked of so many things, but never mentioned an acarya. His idea was acarya was not to be nominated amongst the governing body. He said openly you make a GBC and conduct the mission. SO HIS IDEA WAS AMONGST THE MEMBERS OF GBC WHO WOULD COME OUT SUCCESSFUL AND SELF EFFULGENT ACARYA WOULD BE AUTOMATICALLY SELECTED.(Caps mine for emphasis)
You write:
Not that the GBC itself would be an acarya but that the GBCs management would facilitate successful preachers who would be acaryas. The GBC would manage and the successful preachers would be self effulgent acaryas. Self effulgent not appointed or voted by the GBC.
My response:
I agree that self- effulgent acaryas are not appointed by the GBC. But I do not accept that anyone can be self realized to the point that they are above the management of the GBC. If someone reaches the stage of perfection, they will remain in ISKCON as per the order of Srila Prabhupada, and by their influence the GBC will become more perfect.
Above Srila Prabhupada has precisely explained Srila Bhaktisiddhanta’s view and we agree that was his view also. Yet you are misrepresenting this view by interpreting SPFA to mean that the GBC is a successor acarya. This may be because Ravindra Svarupa has not been precise in his description of what Srila Bhaktisiddhanta wanted or what Srila Prabhupada said on this matter. Srila Prabhupada’s words above are a higher and more precise proof of what he and his spiritual master wanted than the SPFA or your logical conclusion based only upon the SPFA.
Dear Sita Rama das, although you transposed the quote from Page 82 of SPFA, here is my comment on the next part (which you placed first although it is second in the actual text). I will deal with your SPFA quotes in their correct order:
“It is customary in India for an acarya to leave his institution to his chosen successor in his will. The action Srila Prabhupada took in 1970-establishing the GBC – allowed him in 1977 to set down as the first provision in his will, “The Governing Body Commision( GBC) will be the ultimate managing authority of the entire International Society for Krishna Consciousness.” By thus establishing the GBC and leaving it as his chosen successor at the head of ISKCON, Srila Prabhupada ensured that the order of Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakura would continue to work efficaciously in the world and bear fruit.”
I have no problem with the first two sentences which just give the facts. The last sentence seeks however to interpret the meaning of the first two. It is Ravindra Svarupa’s interpretation of the facts given in sentences one and two. By his choosing the term “his chosen successor” for the GBC he is interpreting Srila Prabhupada’s statement in his will. Srila Prabhupada however never termed the GBC as “his chosen successor”. Yes, he termed them as the ultimate managerial authority of ISKCON in his will. But not as “his chosen successor” and certainly not as “successor acarya” your so-called logical conclusion.
Here is a link to the original document in question in case anyone else was looking for it.
http://www.founderacharya.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/FounderAcharya.pdf
It is always a good idea to link to the document you are discussing so that other readers can compare your statements to the original. Not because we don’t trust you but because even some senior devotees have been know to fudge the facts assuming the readers would not check the original documents. To see what I mean do a search on the following: “and the 3rd Ellipsis” including the quote marks.
Shyamasundara Prabhu,
Please accept my humble obiesances.
All glories to Srila Prabhupada.
Thank you. I did not know an electronic version was available. Cutting and pasting will ensure no typing errors when quoting.
Ys,
SRd
You write:
Srila Prabhupada’s words above are a higher and more precise proof of what he and his spiritual master wanted than the SPFA…
My response:
The GBC says SPFA is based on Srila Prabhupada’s words, instructions and desires. You say Srila Prabhupada’s words give a higher and more precise proof of what Srila Prabhupada wanted. In principle I accept that an individual devotee can have a more precise understanding of Srila Prabhupada’s desire than the GBC, but if someone claiming this does not work within the jurisdiction of the GBC they disqualify themselves: as it is a fact that Srila Prabhupada wanted devotees to work with the GBC. Devotees have created great changes in the GBC while still accepting it as the ultimate managerial authority.
Dear Sita Rama prabhu, Thanks for agreeing with me on so many points. I think that I have shown clearly that your so-called “logical conclusion” that the GBC is Srila Prabhupada’s successor acarya is just plain wrong. We agree on many things and no doubt there is much value in the SPFA. However I have also shown how it is imprecise in describing the actual system that Srila Bhaktisiddhanta and Srila Prabhuapada wanted for their institutions after their disappearances with my clear quote from Srila Prabhupada. Thank you for your time and effort.
Gaura Keshava das
Part 1 of 2
Gaurakeshavadas Prabhu,
You write that you have a problem with the SPFA:
The last sentence seeks however to interpret the meaning of the first two. It is Ravindra Svarupa’s interpretation of the facts given in sentences one and two. By his choosing the term “his chosen successor” for the GBC he is interpreting Srila Prabhupada’s statement in his will.
My response.
We need to agree on the definitions of our terms. You are denying that the GBC is Srila Prabhupada’s, “chosen successor”. Obviously, to you, the term implies something unacceptable. What exactly the GBC means, and what you disagree with, has not been determined. Let’s turn to an “Official GBC Policy Paper” which is much shorter and, arguably, more concrete in it definitions.
Harmonizing ISKCON’s Lines of Authority
http://www.dandavats.com/wp-content/uploads/harmonizing_iskcons_lines.pdf
Like yourself, this document establishes a distinction between spiritual authority and managerial authority. Like yourself the GBC acknowledges the distinction between its authority and “absolute, infallible authority—such as the authority of scripture…”
Managerial Line of Authority
In the managerial line of authority, and in accordance with Srila Prabhupada’s instructions, the supervision of the Society and the enforcement of its rules proceed from the GBC. When we use the word “authority” in the context of the managerial structure, we do not mean an absolute, infallible authority—such as the authority of scripture—but the mandate to organize the preaching movement so that it is aligned with the instructions of Srila Prabhupada(P. 4).
Although the GBC does not claim to be perfect, as with my earlier descriptions, it places itself, in one sense, as a managerial authority over spiritual authorities.
Spiritual Line of Authority.
The spiritual line of authority begins with Lord Krishna and continues to Brahma, Narada, Vyasa, and the entire disciplic succession through Srila Prabhupada, our Founder-Acarya. Those who are submissive to our sampradaya and who serve under the authority of the GBC are authorized to give siksa and shelter in this spiritual line, under the auspices of ISKCON (p.3).
These leads to another section:
Spiritual Masters Are Not Independent
Many spiritual organizations have one spiritual master operating as the sole head of the institution, whereas ISKCON has many spiritual masters within one organization, in addition to a “governing body” that operates as the “ultimate managing authority” for the institution as a whole. Those serving as spiritual masters in ISKCON are meant to follow the instructions of Srila Prabhupada and work under the GBC Body. The spiritual masters are thus obligated to follow the Society’s policies and codes of conduct, including those outlined in this GBC-approved paper, and to abide by the decisions of its management (P. 7).
Part 2 of 2.
The thesis of my article is that in most cases spiritual seekers do not rely on a scriptural text alone, they seek out and follow “faith intermediaries”. They have to estimate the probability that following the path, instructions, and advice of intermediaries will lead to the desired goal. They need to believe the intermediaries have access to special knowledge, can transmit the will of God, communicate what His will is for them, and not take advantage of their submission.
The faith intermediaries in ISKCON are both the GBC and individual gurus. A rational justification for believing that one can act in accordance with the will of God through following these intermediaries is, essentially, impossible if these intermediaries are teaching contradictory perspectives. When that it the case, one or both of them must be teaching their own personal opinion. One or both of them must have an ulterior motive for doing this because personal opinion is an entirely different substance then a transmission from God; and interjecting it into the relationship is not in the spiritual interest of the followers.
The aspect of Lines of Authority that I find unsatisfying is the statement that the policy makers are waiting for feedback to update and improve the policy. However much we may improve in the future we need to be decisive and ensure people we can teach them how to act in accordance with the will of Krishna, RIGHT NOW.
I moved into an ISKCON Temple in 1980. By following the system, the GBC had established, at that time, I was directly connected with Krishna through the parampara. This is not some sentimental belief. In the first three years, I made more advancement (got more mercy) then I have in the 33 years since that then. It is not required that the GBC, or an individual guru be absolutely perfect. What is required is that they are following the order of the perfect Founder Acarya, and transmitting his teachings to the best of their ability. That was the implicit guarantee of Srila Prabhupada when he left ISKCON in the hands of an ultimate managerial authority and individual gurus, although none of these are infallible. I know for a fact that, as it was possible to get Krishna’s mercy by following the GBC in 1980 it is possible to do so now. But the mercy will be harder to achieve, in other words the potency of ISKCON will dwindle, if we do not establish concrete doctrines and require all authorities to teach them strictly.
Let do a complete review to clarify terms so we can have an intelligible discussion about and the logical conclusion based on agreed definitions.
GBC= successor acarya: This term is not found in SPFA. I concede to the argument that I should not take the liberty to introduce new terms. The term used to describe the GBC is “chosen successor at the head of ISKCON” (SPFA p. 82).
It was argued that the GBC= Ultimate Managerial not Spiritual Authority: In contrast I made at least one statement that, because the GBC is meant to be the head, it is a spiritual authority.
As was argued, in “Harmonizing ISKCONS Lines of Authority” (Harmony) it is written that the GBC is the ultimate managerial authority and they are distinct from spiritual authority. As was argued the GBC is not an infallible authority on the level of scripture. As written in Harmony:
“When we use the word “authority” in the context of the managerial structure, we do not mean an absolute, infallible authority—such as the authority of scripture—but the mandate to organize the preaching movement so that it is aligned with the instructions of Srila Prabhupada” (P. 4.).
In spite of all this, the essence of my assertions are correct because Harmony also states:
The spiritual line of authority begins with Lord Krishna and continues to Brahma, Narada, Vyasa, and the entire disciplic succession through Srila Prabhupada, our Founder-Acarya. Those who are submissive to our sampradaya and who serve under the authority of the GBC are authorized to give siksa and shelter in this spiritual line, under the auspices of ISKCON (p.3).
Those serving as spiritual masters in ISKCON are meant to follow the instructions of Srila Prabhupada and work under the GBC Body. The spiritual masters are thus obligated to follow the Society’s policies and codes of conduct, including those outlined in this GBC-approved paper, and to abide by the decisions of its management (P. 7)
Some argued against my assertion that the GBC was a link in the parampara. Again I should not take liberty to introduce such terminology as it might exaggerate the points made by the GBC themselves, and it may seem to imply things one can give valid objections to. But, again, the essence of my assertion is substantiated here. To be a spiritual authority in the chain coming through Srila Prabhupada one must serve, “UNDER THE AUTHORITY OF THE GBC” (Harmony p. 7 Capitals added).
If I removed from my article the term successor acaraya, and the assertion that the GBC is the current link in the parampara and replaced them with the precise descriptions above it would simply result in a more precise explanation of my intended thesis. It would in no way diminish it.
Hare Krishna
Sita Rama prabhu wrote:
“The GBC cannot be seen as simply an institutional management board; this would beg the question, what, or who is the spiritual head?”
This was the problem the first GBC of the Gaudiya Math faced. After Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati Thakur Prabhupada departed, his leading disciples did form a GBC of initially 12 persons.
BUt they could not conceive of an institution without an Acharya. SO at some point the majority (at least of the sannyasis) elected Ananta Vasudev prabhu.
The following appears to be a fairly good compilation of statements about this history:
http://www.bvml.org/contemporary/JD_tsots.html
I believe there is a significant difference between the functions of the governing head of a spiritual institution and an Acharya. I believe that both Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Prabhupada and our Srila Prabhupada envisioned many acharyas working cooperatively under one governing body.
This means that guru-sadhu-shastra, with Srila Prabhupada, as the Founder-acharya, as the primary guru element, remain our ultimate spiritual authority.
However, THe GBC are responsible for the spiritual health of the institution, plus their service in managing ISKCON is also a spiritual activity and must be spiritually empowered. Therefore when there is a need for establishing acceptable doctrine or practices it is the GBC’s responsibility to do this as best they can, in line with Srila Prabhupada.
In my opinion. we, the members of ISKCON, are not obliged to agree with their conclusions if we find them unsupported by guru-sadhu-shastra. But we are obliged to either cooperate with their directions in terms of our interactions within the institution or leave.
A good example is the GBCs handling of the “jiva’s origin” issue. In this case the GBC simply restated a quote from Srila Prabhupada’s Bhagavatam purports that seems quite clear and then states:
“No ISKCON devotee shall present or publish any contrary view as conclusive in any class or seminar or any media (print, video, electronic, etc.).”
IN other words the GBC did not categorically state that contrary views are prohibited (heretical) but that they should not be presented as conclusive in ISKCON’s public forums. Note that they did not address the prerogative of ISKCON devotees to hold contrary views.
In my opinion, they did not try to act as we might expect a “successor acharya” to act and give a “siddhanta” clarifying everything, but rather made a managerial decision regarding acceptable behavior by ISKCON members.
I believe Srila Prabhupada wanted us to maintain unity in diversity by honoring him as the spiritual head of ISKCON, with the GBC as the executors of his will and authority.
The difference between this and being the “successor acharya” may be subtle but I think it is important.
Part1 of 2.
Pancharatna Prabhu,
Please accept my humble obiesances.
All glories to Srila Prabhupada.
I acknowledged in previous comments that, successor acarya was not a term quoted by the GBC and I should not have introduced a term which may imply something inappropriate. I take your comment as a detailed explanation of how that might manifest, and I essentially agree.
The GBC is not an acarya because it cannot give sidhanta’s; rather, I believe they describe their function as ensuring that Srila Prabhupada, the Founder Acarya’s, books and teaching are accepted as absolute and conclusive. And I agree that the way they dealt with the fall of the jiva is an example of this.
In GBC resolution 1995-79 the first line reads “Vaikuntha is that place from which no one ever falls down”. This was followed by prohibiting ISKCON centers from selling the book: In Vaikuntha not even the leaves fall”. So it is not exactly clear to me what they are saying is the ultimate conclusion. And a year or so ago, four article on the subject, with a total of more than 200 comments, appeared on dandavats with arguments about the ultimate conclusion.
What must be accepted without argument is section 2-3 of Resolution 1995-79:
2) In resolving philosophical controversies, the teachings, instructions, and personal example of His Divine Grace A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada shall be the first and primary resource for ISKCON devotees. We should understand Vedic literature, the writings of previous acaryas, and the teachings of current bona fide acaryas outside ISKCON through the teachings of Srila Prabhupada. Where we perceive apparent differences, we may attribute them to our own lack of understanding or (more rarely) to “differences among acaryas.” When acaryas apparently differ, we shall defer to what is taught by His Divine Grace, our Founder-Acarya.
3) The GBC rejects the speculation that Srila Prabhupada, while teaching about the original position of the jiva, did not mean what he said. The GBC finds this speculation unwarranted, poorly supported, unintentionally offensive to Srila Prabhupada, and, as a precedent, dangerous… END OF QUOTATIONS.
Part 2 of 2
You made two statements, I accept both.
1).This means that guru-sadhu-shastra, with Srila Prabhupada, as the Founder-acharya, as the primary guru element, remain our ultimate spiritual authority”.
2). I believe that both Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Prabhupada and our Srila Prabhupada envisioned many acharyas working cooperatively under one governing body.
However, there are those who use the same terms to argue a totally different conclusion. Some say “The GBC is a managerial authority in terms of legal technicalities, but Srila Prabhupada indicated I (or my guru) should be the spiritual head of ISKCON”. Or some “would be” spiritual head is being suppressed because the GBC has assumed a position beyond the jurisdiction that they inherited, from Srila Prabhupada.
Another complication is that there is a, somewhat natural, tendency for a disciple to see their guru as self- verifying due to the sweetness of his character, alone. To avoid fanatical sentimentality, the truth regarding the need to accept the GBC must be stressed in spite of the fact that many devotees, at one time or another, have been disappointed by their policies and decisions.
Srila Prabhupada emphasized that it was essential for his disciples to know that his authority was based on the fact that he was strictly following the order of his guru. In the article above I explain how the parampara will dwindle if ISKCON gurus do not emphatically teach their disciples that they are authorized based on the fact that they are accepting the GBC as per the order of their guru, Srila Prabhupada.