08/13/98 - 2006

What a Folly!

by Radha Krsna dasa, Mexico City (concep@df1.telmex.net.mx)

The renown historian Barbara Tuchman wrote a book called “The March of Folly.” When I read it almost 15 years ago I never imagined that I would view ISKCON in the context of this work. “The March of Folly” deals with the issue of historical follies. Thus, the author defines folly as the pursuit of policies contrary to the self-interest of a society. There are three qualifications of a bonafide historical folly: 1) It must have been perceived as counter-productive in its own time, not merely by hindsight. 2) A feasible alternative course of action must have been available. 3) To separate the problem from the personalities, the policy in question should be that of a group, not an individual ruler, and should persist beyond any one political lifetime.

Has there been a historical folly in ISKCON? Since Srila Prabhpada’s departure we have witnessed numerous serious mistakes in property management, legal cases, community development, etc. But beyond those errors in judgement, the most basic and enduring folly, it could be argued, has been the flawed system of spiritual leadership. This is because guruship lies at the heart and soul of ISKCON as a spiritual institution. Just as Srila Prabhupada’s spiritual leadership created and shaped ISKCON, it is also spiritual leadership that keeps the parampara alive throughout time. If spiritual leadership falters then the goals of the parampara are compromised, even if management and assets somehow continue in place. So does ISKCON’s guru succession system demonstrate the characteristics common to bonafide historical follies as presented by Ms Tuchman? Let us see.

1.- Has ISKCON’s guru system, as established in 1978 along with its reforms, been perceived as counter-productive all along?

Indications that the acarya system established in March of 1978 had problems appeared right away. One of the first instances was the Venezuelan revolution in May of 1978. In response to screaming demands over the telephone by the appointed “acarya” for a full-scale vyasasana and “guru” privileges, the temple devotees simply hung up. They sat to consider their future under the new system and decided to better split off. Thus a whole yatra vanished permanently from ISKCON. Another early warning was Pradyumna’s Prabhu letter to Satsvarupa Goswami, wherein he noted the crazy direction things were taking with the implementation of the acarya system.

The most important evidence of the counter-productive nature of the system was, of course, its negative impact on the life of the “acaryas” themselves. (No need to specifically recall the madness, falldowns and anarthas that developed.) Yet as counter-productive as their behavior was to them, even greater was the pain of those poor souls who got initiated once, twice or thrice. By joining a movement they thought offered them the security of the great acarya Srila Prabhupada, they woke up later to find themselves shortchanged.

The warning signs continued. As grassroots Protestants had claimed to offer freedom from the excesses of the Catholic Church, splinter groups began appearing in the early 1980’s, implicitly (and often explicitly) saying: You don’t have to be a hostage and a peon in a powerplay in ISKCON; there is devotional service elsewhere, too. They didn’t see this step away from ISKCON as deserting Srila Prabhupada, but simply getting relief from the madmen and the madness. It was in many ways an easy choice: bow down to a saintly elder or to a pedophile; serve a senior and learned vaisnava or assist your godbrothers in getting drunk with pride, luxury, or even real booze. In summary, if the leadership in ISKCON wanted to make any claim to spiritual authority it had to earn it, not just demand it like spoiled children.

Then came the internal reform of the mid-1980’s. The odd thing about this reform was is that it didn’t result of the reformers’ work, nor did it have any significant effect. But while the reformers arguments didn’t reshape the Society, change did occur on the strength of falldowns of Bhavananda, Bhagavan and Ramesvara, all within a few months. Afterwards the reformers were reformed, being incorporated into the system. The system underwent only cosmetic alterations: Not 11 guys anymore but 11 times 11; no more acarya names (but those already with one could keep it); no pictures in the altar permanently (but okay during arati); more discret vyasapuja books and ceremonies, pranams okay in private, “I save your soul” still but don’t tell everyone, etc. It was simply a “patched-up” version of the same system that had produced so many problems in the past.

The “reformed” guru system has proved as counter-productive as its predesessor. The indications are everywhere. Confidence in the leadership is at an all time low. Previously devotees would joke, “All rumors are the truth unless disproved,” but now it has become, “All rumors, regardless of how outrageous, are only part of the truth.”

The reforms also failed to protect the spiritual leaders against themselves, as the falldowns, crazyness, material pitfalls and anarthas has continued. An exodus to other vaisnava camps for the sake of sanity also continues. But, as before, ISKCON keeps blaming it on external negative influences instead of looking deep inside (like Ravindra Swarupa’s recent paper on Srila Narayan Maharaja). Internal philosophical dissent has become the order of the day, no matter what ideology, as long as it gives hope for change.

Efforts are made to dampen the impact of falldowns and excesses by arguing that overall things are still going on nicely. But this is not true. Srila Prabhupada gave the example that you can check if the rice is cooked by taking one grain of rice and pressing it. Well, in ISKCON sixty percent of the preparation has been pressed and it’s still raw. The guru falldowns this year are testimony to this fact.

Another indication of the problems with today’s guru system is that it creates a caste system with first and second class citizens. Seniority in spiritual life does exist and one should learn to appreciate the qualities of other devotees. But the current system uses birth as principle, not qualifications. Birth in ISKCON as a disciple of Srila Prabhupada or someone else. Of course, if you are a guru or GBC you are still above; and if your guru fell down (and there are thousands of devotees in that predicament now) then you are almost an outcaste. The brotherhood that originally characterized Srila Prabhupada’s movement is gone, supplanted by polarization. Thus if a guru falls down he can attempt to take along not only his daksina investments but also his followers. This happened since the Jayatirtha days and could happen again this year.

2. Have feasible alternative courses of action been available all along?

Yes. But rather than promoting a particularistic solution, I would point to some often overlooked courses of action: Wisdom, humility, simplicity, selfless search for the truth, freedom from an offensive mentality, plain common sense, eradication of anarthas, etc. I find that these principles have not being applied properly, for the obvious reason that if they had ISKCON wouldn’t have assumed such an artificial posture regarding spiritual leadership and wouldn’t be in the mess it is now, obvious to all except to those in complete denial. The karma ran over the dogma a long time ago but some haven’t noticed it yet!

Other courses of action are available. There exist a series of laws and resolutions in ISKCON to improve the credibility of the spiritual leadership in relation to personal assets, Srila Prabhupada’s special position, sannyasa, evaluations of the leaders’ performance, etc. However, these laws are neglected either in letter or spirit. Beyond that, we have so many direct instructions from Srila Prabhupada to assure the credibility of the leadership, and these are being ignored!

Then there is the issue of checks and balances. Self-realized souls don’t require them, but an institution of aspiring vainavas does. Power is a necessary evil to organize a society. But power corrupts and more power means more corruption. Thus checks and balances help limit abuses. In ISKCON balances hardy exist. There is only one power, the GBC, in a magical symbiosis with the local guru, with all the executive, legislative and judicial attributions. Exisiting councils, deputies and local leaders are fully dependant on the GBC. And the checks are only those approved by the GBC. Thus the timid reviews of the individual GBC members presented by some deputies last March.

3. Has the spiritual leadership folly being that of a group (as opposed to an individual), and has it persisted beyond any one political lifetime?

In both cases the answer is yes. ISKCON’s Governing Commission as a group remains convinced that it can mass-produce hosts of parampara-class gurus in spite of the negative indications all along. The 1998 GBC Resolutions don’t present any proposals to end the folly. Even Harikesa’s Executive Committe letter right before his breakdown dealt with everything (even cows), but made no mention of this longstanding folly. And, as mentioned, it has endured even the reform efforts of the 1980’s, which suppossedly marked a turning point in ISKCON’s life.

On this basis, it seems fair to state that ISKCON’s guru system qualifies as a bonafide historical folly. And although much has been lost already, there is still hope to turn it around. Can the spiritual leadership system be reformed to end the folly? Yes. Will it be reformed? Who knows. Considering the lethargy manifested so far I think that it is time that different groups within ISKCON, like householders, temple presidents, godbrothers, enchanted and disenchanted disciples, farm communities, educational groups, matijis, etc., take a proactive role. This folly has affected us all, including the new disciples, and will continue to do so until the highest qualities of spiritual and practical leadership are present, and then the true spirit of cooperation that Srila Prabhupada requested will become a reality.