Emasculating the Guru

By Krishna dasa - 9.10 2015

Over the years, the GBC has been creating laws that give more powers to local authorities and less to ISKCON gurus. The reason is obvious: a number of high-profile gurus have proven themselves to be untrustworthy, fallen, and disruptive in dealing with local authorities, and for the sake of continuity it is better to give autonomy to local authorities rather than insist that they defer to travelling gurus, each with his own idea of how to manage a yatra.

In a recent Dandavats article, Praghosa Prabhu argued that if we don't understand this authority structure, there is a "risk of ISKCON becoming like reality TV's shooting stars – short lived and inconsequential".

There are, no doubt, benefits to some of those laws as they help prevent abuse of power, but we have almost reached the point where the guru no longer serves any purpose. Furthermore, these laws have perhaps given too much power to local authorities, many of whom are less qualified to lead the preaching movement than the gurus.

Here are some ISKCON rules:

1. The guru cannot award first or second initiation to a devotee unless the local authorities sanction it.

One unfortunate consequence of this is that local authorities use this power to control devotees. Devotees are motivated to follow their local authority if they know that it is the only way they will be approved for initiation. After receiving initiation, devotees tend to be more independent. To prevent this, local authorities withhold approval for initiation. Some sincere devotees have been waiting over a decade for first or second initiation, and the guru can do nothing about it.

2. The guru cannot decide what service his disciples will engage in. Instead, the local authorities decide.

This means the local authorities can exploit devotees for their own selfish ends. In theory the guru can complain to the GBC if his disciples are being used and abused, but in practice very little will change, as the GBC tends to ignore complaints.

3. As I pointed out before, according to Hari Vilasa Prabhu, one cannot give donations directly to the guru. Instead, donations should first be given to the local authorities who will decide how much is allocated to the guru and how much is allocated to themselves. 

Scripture dictates that charity should be given to appropriate persons. This law erodes the freedom of the benefactor to choose who receives the donation.

4. The guru must respect the local authorities' preaching strategy (if there is one), and he can't create his own preaching program unless he gets permission from the local authorities.

The problem here is that if the local authorities are cripple-minded they need to hear and follow the advice of the travelling gurus.

One ISKCON guru recently pointed out that Srila Prabhupada did not want managers to dictate every detail to empowered sannyasi preachers. He also pointed out that the ISKCON bhakta course explains what to do if the guru interferes with the temple manager, but does not explain what to do if the manager interferes inappropriately. This imbalance is hard to justify.

Also, according to the Sastric Advisory Council, " the GBC has said that Srila Prabhupada may be considered one's main guru (as siksa-guru), placing thediksa-guru in a subordinate or peripheral role". Whether or not this vision is correct, I do not know, but it indicates that the disciple can effectively ignore the guru and rely on Srila Prabhupada's books.

Considering all these points, we may ask, what is the practical purpose of the guru? Is he a mere functionary? It is clear that in many respects local authorities are the de facto gurus of ISKCON---they control the preaching strategy, the day-to-day service of the devotees, and decide who is allowed to be initiated. So we may note that current legislation has placed gurus in the submissive, female role, a role that is hard to reconcile with scripture, and uninspiring for disciples who are supposed to see their guru as saksat hari.

I know that behind the scenes some gurus are unhappy with this GBC power grab. If local authorities with vaisya mentality run the society, it will speed up the descent into mundane religiosity. Qualified brahmanas must be in control, and I would not be surprised if empowered preachers revolt against the laws that control and restrict their preaching.

When the Gaudiya Matha deviated from the instructions of Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati, Srila Prabhupada formed his own society, for the sake of Lord Caitanya's movement. ISKCON should stay on track lest history repeats itself. The well-intentioned lawmakers think they are saving ISKCON from fracture, but maybe they are endangering ISKCON by undermining the guru-disciple relationship.

Here is a relevant anecdote.

Pita: When he was in his room, Srila Prabhupada talked about his God-brothers. He said, "I am the only son of my Guru Maharaj. The son inherits the father's business and of my God-brothers, I'm the only one who has inherited my father's business. The rest of my God-brothers are like daughters because the daughters stay within the house of the father. They don't inherit the business. My Guru Maharaj had only one son and that is me. The Gaudiya Math deviated so much from our spiritual master. But next to me they're still the best representatives of Lord Chaitanya on this planet."