Dear Sivarama Swami,
Please accept my humble obeisances.
All glories to Srila Prabhupada.
Do you have a projection of how long it will take to define in, resolute terms, the meaning of “ultimate authority of ISKCON”? I have the same question regarding the ISKCON constitution.
I am particularly interested in the Hermeneutic Executive Committee. There are ISKCON Guru’s who explicitly say that Srila Prabhupada’s purports are not on the level of shastra, except in very limited circumstances. Is an official position related to this topic expected to stated in the future? I yes, do you have an idea how long we will have to wait for this?Thank you.
Your servant,
Sita Rama das
I have listened to His Grace Sivarama Swami’s discussion. We saw even during Srila Prabhupad’s time that there were challenges to his authority. We are imperfect individuals and we are ever dependent on the mercy of Sri Sri Guru Gauranga. Even collectively, our GBC did not always come to a conclusion or decision that was perfectly congruent with him. However, Srila Prabhupad always wanted to see that the GBC was working for the spiritual benefit of individuals and the collective ISKCON society. In the end, he knew that the checks and balances of a number of empowered devotees would prevent despotism from over-taking the society. We have seen powerful devotees fall-down, and we have seen admired bhaktas pass away (ie, die). Srila Prabhupad’s genius is that he had perfect faith in Krishna and the process of Krishna consciousness. When he said that the GBC is the management authority, it is in this light…that collectively the individuals could discuss together and come to better decisions than one individual might alone. This must be respected by all of the faithful who consider themselves followers of Srila Prabhupad. Thus, the management decisions of the GBC should be accepted respectfully. If challenged, the authority must also be challenged with due regard and respect. That is a process for the sustainability of the world Society that Srila Prabhupad created for the benefit of generations to come. On the other hand, the GBC must have a collective humility and compassion to understand that the Kali Yuga is the age of quarrel, and it is sometimes going to be challenged in ways less than desired. If, for example, some one should come along (even with many followers backing him) to declare that they have become the final authority, it runs counter to Srila Prabhupad’s will for his society. That would not be acceptable, and the GBC must stand firm to resist such challenges, however charismatic they might be. If someone cannot accept the authority of Srila Prabhupad and his will that the GBC become his extended management arm, then it is better that they not create a disturbance and leave. We must not allow the Society to become splintered by factions. When questions arise regarding the management of the society, therefore, all members should accept the GBC’s judgment, and realize that they also have the capacity to change and evolve as the case may require. Pusta Krishna das
“Managerial authority” seems to me to equate with ecclesiastical authority.
That is, although the GBC does not automatically, by virtue of its position, speak with the force of sastra or of a spiritual master or saintly acarya (sastra, guru, or sadhu), it nevertheless is the ultimate arbiter for the ecclesiastical institution or corporate preaching mission of ISKCON on all matters upon which ISKCON must make decisions.
There may be times when decisions have to be made, or controversies have to be decided, on behalf of or within ISKCON, regarding doctrine or the correct understanding of the conclusions taught by our spiritual authorities. In such circumstances, there really is no other person or instrument or organ of the institution which can claim to have jurisdiction to speak for ISKCON on such matters, unless he or she or it derives such jurisdiction by dint of being recognized or delegated by the GBC to speak on behalf of ISKCON.
Of course, Srila Prabhupada is the Founder-Acarya and the final spiritual authority. Scriptures and recognized previous acaryas speak with the voice of authority. However, when controversies arise about how such authorities are to be understood or applied, and the situation requires ISKCON as an organized preaching institution (in other words, a church) to state its own official position, the authority to speak for ISKCON on such matters necessarily rests with the GBC.
That does not mean that the GBC is necessarily correct. We do not have a doctrine similar to the Roman Catholic dogma that Papal “ex cathedra” pronouncements are infallible, perfectly protected from error by “Holy Spirit” or Krsna. The GBC can make mistakes, has done so in the past, may do so in the future.
Nor should ISKCON assert the position that service in ISKCON or in Srila Prabhupada’s disciplic line is the only way of attaining pure bhakti prema or pleasing Krishna. There may be many pure devotees on different branches of Lord Caitanya’s tree, and Krishnadas Kaviraja warns us not to regard one branch as superior to another.
Nevertheless, those of us who want to obey the desires of Srila Prabhupada for creating an organized, unified, effective ISKCON institution for broadcasting the message of Lord Caitanya worldwide, have to accept the legitimacy of the GBC as the final voice of ISKCON on all matters, which should be obeyed especially by our exemplary spiritual leaders, out of deference to Srila Prabhupada’s instructions.
It can be understood in terms of the concept of “jurisdiction” in legal parlance. There are concepts of both “personal” jurisdiction (the power of a court to issue orders and make decisions binding on certain individuals) and “subject matter” jurisdiction (the competence or legal authority of the court to decide certain issues or types of issues.
The GBC can and should recognize limits to its jurisdiction (though it might want to be careful in doing so to leave room for flexibility to deal with unforeseen situations).
Its personal jurisdiction seems to be limited to ISKCON members or those who are interacting with ISKCON in certain ways. Certainly all ISKCON members should expect to be subject to “personal” jurisdiction of the GBC.
Subject matter jurisdiction (sometimes called judicial competence) of the GBC might be more difficult to define. There is no one else, really, to define it. Srila Prabhupada seemed to sum it up in the phrase “ultimate managing authority”. Even if the concept is more defined in GBC decisions or in a constitution that ultimately must be ratified by the GBC, there will not be any person or court or instrument or organ of ecclesiastical government to decide whether the GBC has overstepped its jurisdiction other than the GBC itself (or anyone to whom it delegates such authority).
The GBC should be careful not to try to assert authority outside the range of jurisdiction which might properly be expected of it. If it does so, it loses its moral capital or “legitimacy” as an institution whose decisions ought to be obeyed.
(For example, if the GBC decides, rightly or wrongly, that all members of ISKCON in good standing must … oh, I don’t know… wear their head and face shaven if they are male, it may convince a number of people to shave up who otherwise would not do so, but it may also convince a number of other people that they no longer care to be members in good standing of ISKCON. Such considerations raise the question of whether the GBC should even be making rules on that subject, which might better be left to individuals in consultation with their own spiritual authorities).
The GBC should also, of course, be careful to make as few mistakes as possible (which I am sure it naturally does), even when dealing with matters over which it clearly has jurisdiction, with the understanding that it does lose moral capital and political legitimacy when it makes decisions which go against the beliefs of its constituency.
“Legitimacy” can be seen as the ability to compel obedience even when those whom it compels do not agree. It is easy to obey an authority when one is convinced the authority is correct. It is harder when one believes the authority is wrong. Nevertheless, law abiding citizens are generally expected to obey the laws made by the government, even if they think those laws or decisions are not correct, because the lawmakers and courts are recognized to have legitimate authority to make such decisions.
By attempting to decide matters outside of its ecclesiastical jurisdiction, or by making serious mistakes while deciding matters within its jurisdiction, a strain is put on the GBC’s ability to compel obedience of ISKCON members.
Srila Prabhupada bestowed authority on the GBC to manage ISKCON. Because of our duty to obey Srila Prabhupada we have a corresponding duty to obey the GBC as he wishes us to.
For grand-disciples and great-grand-disciples there is a similar duty, derived from the fact that their gurus and grandfather gurus, as disciples and followers of Srila Prabhupada, feel a duty to obey the legitimate authority of the GBC, and pass on such duty to their disciples (including, of course, a duty to obey even wrong decisions for the sake of institutional unity and the pragmatic necessities of having a large, effective, international preaching force, or church).
However, we have seen in the past that some devotees have felt justified to disobey the GBC (and sometimes even to formally leave institutional ISKCON) when they felt, rightly or wrongly, that their duty to obey the GBC was trumped by a conflicting duty of greater binding force.
By deciding to give up ostensible membership in ISKCON, one can remove oneself from the GBC’s jurisdiction.
If one takes property of ISKCON when one does so, one is a thief, and ISKCON has a right, even an obligation, to retrieve ISKCON’s property. But if one simply exercises one’s own conscience to personally secede from ISKCON, alone or with followers and disciples, there is not much ISKCON can do about it other than to try to use persuasion and convince them that they ought to continue to remain as members serving cooperatively under the authority of the GBC.
Therefore, the GBC needs to recognize and act within its own jurisdiction and decide matters in a just and accurate way. Otherwise its ability to command obedience will diminish, even though Srila Prabhupada conferred that authority to it.
A good example is the United States Supreme Court. It is generally recognized in the U.S. system of government to be the highest government authority for deciding the legal meaning of the U.S. Constitution.
(This position was not expressly stated in the constitution itself, but was articulated by the fourth Chief Justice, John Marshall, and became commonly accepted in U.S. political tradition. The Constitution does create the Supreme Court as the highest Federal court, but does not expressly give the Court any higher authority to interpret the Constitution than the other branches of government).
Just because the Supreme Court’s pronouncements on constitutional interpretation are considered legitimate and binding even on the President and the Congress, that does not mean they cannot be mistaken. In fact, journalists, law students, legal scholars, politicians and others frequently argue that the Supreme Court erroneously decided various cases, and should reverse or refine its decisions. However, almost everyone accepts that the Supreme Court is the legitimate organ of U.S. Government to make final pronouncements interpreting the U.S. Constitution.
And still, the Court has developed all kinds of doctrines regarding when it has jurisdiction, and even when, in spite of having jurisdiction, it should “abstain” from exercising it to decide certain matters. For example, certain issues are deemed “political questions” on which the Supreme Court will not weigh in.
The Court is careful to protect its political and moral legitimacy. When it decided the Brown v. Board of Education case in 1954, declaring the practice of racial segregation in the United States unconstitutional and illegal, the nine justices of the Court decided it was important to make the decision unanimous and send a very clear message.
It was a difficult pill for much of the nation to swallow. Segregationists called for the impeachment of Chief Justice Warren. Southern politicians symbolically were arrested to show their defiance of the Court’s decision. President Eisenhower had to mobilize military forces to enforce the decision. There were still bus boycotts and lunch counter sit-ins and “freedom rides” and voter registration drives, and there was terrorism and murder by opponents of integration, church bombings and assassinations and so on. However, the Supreme Court’s legal authority was a major factor in finally stopping the practice of de jure segregation.
The International Society for Krishna Consciousness, as conceived of by Srila Prabhupad and as manifested by the many centers around the world, will persist into the very distant future. As years pass, and there are no immediate disciples of Srila Prabhupad to occupy posts on the GBC, there is much need to keep true to the original spirit of Srila Prabhupad. A Constitution, therefore, of ISKCON is much needed. It should remain the guiding principles in line with the wishes and spirit of Srila Prabhupad. You can imagine the many challenges that might occur to the legitimacy of the GBC in the distant future, when we see even today (so close to the physical time with Srila Prabhupad) that there are challenges to the GBC authority. I have seen leaders of other missions (in order to emphasize their own importance as autocrats of their missions) try to de-emphasize the importance of the ISKCON GBC. So, it is vital to create such a constitution that formalizes the authority of the ISKCON GBC as it relates to matters of the GBC and the ISKCON society itself. If one cannot accept that, even charismatic creatures they may be, then they must leave ISKCON and avoid disturbance to Srila Prabhupad’s society. It is natural in the material world ruled by lust, anger, and greed, that there will be those who consider themselves to have become the sole leader of ISKCON, but they are trying to digest the honor of Srila Prabhupad and his many thousands/millions of dedicated servitors. They will not be able to digest that, and they must either be rectified promptly, or asked to leave the society of ISKCON. Let no one, whatever their pedigree, whatever their line, whatever their charisma, whomever their supporters, try to usurp the authority of Srila Prabhupad’s Will for his ISKCON society’s future.
Dear Sivarama Swami,
Please accept my humble obeisances.
All glories to Srila Prabhupada.
Do you have a projection of how long it will take to define in, resolute terms, the meaning of “ultimate authority of ISKCON”? I have the same question regarding the ISKCON constitution.
I am particularly interested in the Hermeneutic Executive Committee. There are ISKCON Guru’s who explicitly say that Srila Prabhupada’s purports are not on the level of shastra, except in very limited circumstances. Is an official position related to this topic expected to stated in the future? I yes, do you have an idea how long we will have to wait for this?Thank you.
Your servant,
Sita Rama das
I have listened to His Grace Sivarama Swami’s discussion. We saw even during Srila Prabhupad’s time that there were challenges to his authority. We are imperfect individuals and we are ever dependent on the mercy of Sri Sri Guru Gauranga. Even collectively, our GBC did not always come to a conclusion or decision that was perfectly congruent with him. However, Srila Prabhupad always wanted to see that the GBC was working for the spiritual benefit of individuals and the collective ISKCON society. In the end, he knew that the checks and balances of a number of empowered devotees would prevent despotism from over-taking the society. We have seen powerful devotees fall-down, and we have seen admired bhaktas pass away (ie, die). Srila Prabhupad’s genius is that he had perfect faith in Krishna and the process of Krishna consciousness. When he said that the GBC is the management authority, it is in this light…that collectively the individuals could discuss together and come to better decisions than one individual might alone. This must be respected by all of the faithful who consider themselves followers of Srila Prabhupad. Thus, the management decisions of the GBC should be accepted respectfully. If challenged, the authority must also be challenged with due regard and respect. That is a process for the sustainability of the world Society that Srila Prabhupad created for the benefit of generations to come. On the other hand, the GBC must have a collective humility and compassion to understand that the Kali Yuga is the age of quarrel, and it is sometimes going to be challenged in ways less than desired. If, for example, some one should come along (even with many followers backing him) to declare that they have become the final authority, it runs counter to Srila Prabhupad’s will for his society. That would not be acceptable, and the GBC must stand firm to resist such challenges, however charismatic they might be. If someone cannot accept the authority of Srila Prabhupad and his will that the GBC become his extended management arm, then it is better that they not create a disturbance and leave. We must not allow the Society to become splintered by factions. When questions arise regarding the management of the society, therefore, all members should accept the GBC’s judgment, and realize that they also have the capacity to change and evolve as the case may require. Pusta Krishna das
“Managerial authority” seems to me to equate with ecclesiastical authority.
That is, although the GBC does not automatically, by virtue of its position, speak with the force of sastra or of a spiritual master or saintly acarya (sastra, guru, or sadhu), it nevertheless is the ultimate arbiter for the ecclesiastical institution or corporate preaching mission of ISKCON on all matters upon which ISKCON must make decisions.
There may be times when decisions have to be made, or controversies have to be decided, on behalf of or within ISKCON, regarding doctrine or the correct understanding of the conclusions taught by our spiritual authorities. In such circumstances, there really is no other person or instrument or organ of the institution which can claim to have jurisdiction to speak for ISKCON on such matters, unless he or she or it derives such jurisdiction by dint of being recognized or delegated by the GBC to speak on behalf of ISKCON.
Of course, Srila Prabhupada is the Founder-Acarya and the final spiritual authority. Scriptures and recognized previous acaryas speak with the voice of authority. However, when controversies arise about how such authorities are to be understood or applied, and the situation requires ISKCON as an organized preaching institution (in other words, a church) to state its own official position, the authority to speak for ISKCON on such matters necessarily rests with the GBC.
That does not mean that the GBC is necessarily correct. We do not have a doctrine similar to the Roman Catholic dogma that Papal “ex cathedra” pronouncements are infallible, perfectly protected from error by “Holy Spirit” or Krsna. The GBC can make mistakes, has done so in the past, may do so in the future.
Nor should ISKCON assert the position that service in ISKCON or in Srila Prabhupada’s disciplic line is the only way of attaining pure bhakti prema or pleasing Krishna. There may be many pure devotees on different branches of Lord Caitanya’s tree, and Krishnadas Kaviraja warns us not to regard one branch as superior to another.
Nevertheless, those of us who want to obey the desires of Srila Prabhupada for creating an organized, unified, effective ISKCON institution for broadcasting the message of Lord Caitanya worldwide, have to accept the legitimacy of the GBC as the final voice of ISKCON on all matters, which should be obeyed especially by our exemplary spiritual leaders, out of deference to Srila Prabhupada’s instructions.
It can be understood in terms of the concept of “jurisdiction” in legal parlance. There are concepts of both “personal” jurisdiction (the power of a court to issue orders and make decisions binding on certain individuals) and “subject matter” jurisdiction (the competence or legal authority of the court to decide certain issues or types of issues.
The GBC can and should recognize limits to its jurisdiction (though it might want to be careful in doing so to leave room for flexibility to deal with unforeseen situations).
Its personal jurisdiction seems to be limited to ISKCON members or those who are interacting with ISKCON in certain ways. Certainly all ISKCON members should expect to be subject to “personal” jurisdiction of the GBC.
Subject matter jurisdiction (sometimes called judicial competence) of the GBC might be more difficult to define. There is no one else, really, to define it. Srila Prabhupada seemed to sum it up in the phrase “ultimate managing authority”. Even if the concept is more defined in GBC decisions or in a constitution that ultimately must be ratified by the GBC, there will not be any person or court or instrument or organ of ecclesiastical government to decide whether the GBC has overstepped its jurisdiction other than the GBC itself (or anyone to whom it delegates such authority).
The GBC should be careful not to try to assert authority outside the range of jurisdiction which might properly be expected of it. If it does so, it loses its moral capital or “legitimacy” as an institution whose decisions ought to be obeyed.
(For example, if the GBC decides, rightly or wrongly, that all members of ISKCON in good standing must … oh, I don’t know… wear their head and face shaven if they are male, it may convince a number of people to shave up who otherwise would not do so, but it may also convince a number of other people that they no longer care to be members in good standing of ISKCON. Such considerations raise the question of whether the GBC should even be making rules on that subject, which might better be left to individuals in consultation with their own spiritual authorities).
The GBC should also, of course, be careful to make as few mistakes as possible (which I am sure it naturally does), even when dealing with matters over which it clearly has jurisdiction, with the understanding that it does lose moral capital and political legitimacy when it makes decisions which go against the beliefs of its constituency.
“Legitimacy” can be seen as the ability to compel obedience even when those whom it compels do not agree. It is easy to obey an authority when one is convinced the authority is correct. It is harder when one believes the authority is wrong. Nevertheless, law abiding citizens are generally expected to obey the laws made by the government, even if they think those laws or decisions are not correct, because the lawmakers and courts are recognized to have legitimate authority to make such decisions.
By attempting to decide matters outside of its ecclesiastical jurisdiction, or by making serious mistakes while deciding matters within its jurisdiction, a strain is put on the GBC’s ability to compel obedience of ISKCON members.
Srila Prabhupada bestowed authority on the GBC to manage ISKCON. Because of our duty to obey Srila Prabhupada we have a corresponding duty to obey the GBC as he wishes us to.
For grand-disciples and great-grand-disciples there is a similar duty, derived from the fact that their gurus and grandfather gurus, as disciples and followers of Srila Prabhupada, feel a duty to obey the legitimate authority of the GBC, and pass on such duty to their disciples (including, of course, a duty to obey even wrong decisions for the sake of institutional unity and the pragmatic necessities of having a large, effective, international preaching force, or church).
However, we have seen in the past that some devotees have felt justified to disobey the GBC (and sometimes even to formally leave institutional ISKCON) when they felt, rightly or wrongly, that their duty to obey the GBC was trumped by a conflicting duty of greater binding force.
By deciding to give up ostensible membership in ISKCON, one can remove oneself from the GBC’s jurisdiction.
If one takes property of ISKCON when one does so, one is a thief, and ISKCON has a right, even an obligation, to retrieve ISKCON’s property. But if one simply exercises one’s own conscience to personally secede from ISKCON, alone or with followers and disciples, there is not much ISKCON can do about it other than to try to use persuasion and convince them that they ought to continue to remain as members serving cooperatively under the authority of the GBC.
Therefore, the GBC needs to recognize and act within its own jurisdiction and decide matters in a just and accurate way. Otherwise its ability to command obedience will diminish, even though Srila Prabhupada conferred that authority to it.
A good example is the United States Supreme Court. It is generally recognized in the U.S. system of government to be the highest government authority for deciding the legal meaning of the U.S. Constitution.
(This position was not expressly stated in the constitution itself, but was articulated by the fourth Chief Justice, John Marshall, and became commonly accepted in U.S. political tradition. The Constitution does create the Supreme Court as the highest Federal court, but does not expressly give the Court any higher authority to interpret the Constitution than the other branches of government).
Just because the Supreme Court’s pronouncements on constitutional interpretation are considered legitimate and binding even on the President and the Congress, that does not mean they cannot be mistaken. In fact, journalists, law students, legal scholars, politicians and others frequently argue that the Supreme Court erroneously decided various cases, and should reverse or refine its decisions. However, almost everyone accepts that the Supreme Court is the legitimate organ of U.S. Government to make final pronouncements interpreting the U.S. Constitution.
And still, the Court has developed all kinds of doctrines regarding when it has jurisdiction, and even when, in spite of having jurisdiction, it should “abstain” from exercising it to decide certain matters. For example, certain issues are deemed “political questions” on which the Supreme Court will not weigh in.
The Court is careful to protect its political and moral legitimacy. When it decided the Brown v. Board of Education case in 1954, declaring the practice of racial segregation in the United States unconstitutional and illegal, the nine justices of the Court decided it was important to make the decision unanimous and send a very clear message.
It was a difficult pill for much of the nation to swallow. Segregationists called for the impeachment of Chief Justice Warren. Southern politicians symbolically were arrested to show their defiance of the Court’s decision. President Eisenhower had to mobilize military forces to enforce the decision. There were still bus boycotts and lunch counter sit-ins and “freedom rides” and voter registration drives, and there was terrorism and murder by opponents of integration, church bombings and assassinations and so on. However, the Supreme Court’s legal authority was a major factor in finally stopping the practice of de jure segregation.
The International Society for Krishna Consciousness, as conceived of by Srila Prabhupad and as manifested by the many centers around the world, will persist into the very distant future. As years pass, and there are no immediate disciples of Srila Prabhupad to occupy posts on the GBC, there is much need to keep true to the original spirit of Srila Prabhupad. A Constitution, therefore, of ISKCON is much needed. It should remain the guiding principles in line with the wishes and spirit of Srila Prabhupad. You can imagine the many challenges that might occur to the legitimacy of the GBC in the distant future, when we see even today (so close to the physical time with Srila Prabhupad) that there are challenges to the GBC authority. I have seen leaders of other missions (in order to emphasize their own importance as autocrats of their missions) try to de-emphasize the importance of the ISKCON GBC. So, it is vital to create such a constitution that formalizes the authority of the ISKCON GBC as it relates to matters of the GBC and the ISKCON society itself. If one cannot accept that, even charismatic creatures they may be, then they must leave ISKCON and avoid disturbance to Srila Prabhupad’s society. It is natural in the material world ruled by lust, anger, and greed, that there will be those who consider themselves to have become the sole leader of ISKCON, but they are trying to digest the honor of Srila Prabhupad and his many thousands/millions of dedicated servitors. They will not be able to digest that, and they must either be rectified promptly, or asked to leave the society of ISKCON. Let no one, whatever their pedigree, whatever their line, whatever their charisma, whomever their supporters, try to usurp the authority of Srila Prabhupad’s Will for his ISKCON society’s future.
Sincerely,
Pusta Krishna das