ISKCON's System Of Management
“ There Is No Need Of Any Changes”

By ameyatma das {ACBSP}
June 21, 2004
(Downloadable Word Doc Version)

In Srila Prabhupad’s last will he stated:

“The system of management will continue as it is now. There is no need of any change.”

PURPOSE OF THIS ARTICLE:

This article intends to point out that the system of management that Srila Prabhupad had worked so hard to put into place, to work out and fully test, that was in place and used in managing all of ISKCON for years prior and at the time of those instructions and up to the time of his passing physically from this material world; that system has changed. And it has changed significantly.
This is a deviation from Srila Prabhupad’s order. This article is meant to spark an understanding of this deviation. To inspire a wide-spread interest to correct the deviation. To restore ISKCON’s management back to it’s proper position.

Dedicated To: Jai Om Vishnupad Paramahamsa Paravrajaka Acharya Astotara Sata [108] Sri Srimad His Divine Grace A, C, Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupad Founder-Acharya of the International Society for Krishna Consciousness

 

Chapter One |

The ISKCON System Of Management In Place Prior To November, 1977:

General Management Of The Society

The author of this essay joined in 1973 in Los Angeles, then the world headquarters of ISKCON. I can attest that by and after that date all devotees joining (which became the massive bulk majority of ISKCON by the time of Srila Prabhupad’s disappearance) had extremely very little direct dealings with Srila Prabhupad, if any at all. No direct guidance, no direct question and answer sessions. The system or structure to provide this sort of guidance that was well established by summer of 1973. The structure was that of the GBC/ Temple President (or designated temple authorities) / Sannyasis / respected senior devotees.

This management structure was established and was the system by which all new devotees were trained and guided in their spiritual and new material lives. Our association with Srila Prabhupad was to hear his lectures and read his books. Hear / read his instructions. Understand and accept his instructions. And, most importantly, implement and follow his instructions. The TP / GBC / Sannyasi structure of management provided all other direct guidance. Spiritual/Philosophical guidance as well as social and personal guidance.
For the management of the society Srila Prabhupad, following the instructions of his spiritual master, set up the Governing Body Committee, the GBC. The world was divided into zones and each GBC member was assigned a specific zone to directly manage.

At the time there was only one initiating guru, Srila Prabhupad, and as such he held the ultimate authoritative position, above the GBC. As the initiating spiritual master it was also the duty and position of the disciples to accept him as their ultimate authority, their divine Master.

He instructed that in his physical absence the GBC, as a whole, would become the ultimate authority for ISKCON.

Tasks And Duties Of The GBC And Position Of The GBC Members

One duty of the GBC is to keep up the standards that Srila Prabhupad had personally set and established.

The other duties were to give spiritual and philosophic guidance, and also social and personal guidance. The long-term purpose for this was to prepare the GBC to manage the society in Srila Prabhupad’s absence. The immediate purpose was to handle the tedious tasks of day-to-day management, freeing Srila Prabhupad to translate and write his books.

It is to be pointed out here that these duties and functions are normally performed directly by a guru for his disciples in a small ashram, and were directly performed by Srila Prabhupad in the very beginning.

Chapter Two |

The ISKCON System Of Management Currently In Place (2004)

General Management Of The Society

The GBC still remains as the ultimate authority for ISKCON.

The system remains that the basis of our philosophy is and shall forever remain the teachings of HDG ACBS Srila Prabhupad.

The GBC-temple authority structure that Srila Prabhupad set up to give all other guidance, helping to understand the philosophy, giving social and personal guidance, that system should remain as it was and thus we should derive that guidance from the GBC structure just as we had in the past.

However, this system is today altered and modified and that is the topic of this essay.

By Definition Guru Becomes The Ultimate Authority For Disciple

By definition, one accepts a spiritual Master. One surrender’s one’s very life at the feet of his accepted Master. That is definition of guru and accepting the guru. One is accepting that person as one’s ultimate authority. To take guidance and instructions from the guru, the master. That is guru.

New Conflict Of Authority

This is where we see conflict. Guru means one’s ultimate authority, accepting that person as one’s Master, authority and guide.

But Srila Prabhupad had set up the GBC / Temple structure of management, and authority. The very purpose and duty of that GBC / Temple structure was to give guidance, set and maintain the standards and to retain the position of ultimate authority in the ISKCON ashrams and mission. In this way, the GBC and temple structure of management was designed and set up by Srila Prabhupad to provide virtually all of the duties that would normally be ascribe to the initiating guru. In fact, that is how the bulk majority of Prabhupad disciples were trained themselves.

In other words, this system of taking guidance from that GBC /Temple authority structure was good enough for Prabhupad’s own direct disciples, and enjoined not only Srila Prabhupad’s approval, but he set it up for this purpose. There fore I find it a lost argument to try and say that such a system is not good enough for ISKCON after his disappearance.

The conflict is when the new initiating gurus take it upon themselves to carry out the functions of giving guidance, whether it be philosophic clarification, social or personal guidance, directly to the new initiated.

Why is this a conflict? Because, these are the very clear duties of the GBC / Temple authority structure Srila Prabhupad had set up, and asked us not to change.

When an initiating guru gives such guidance directly, he is usurping the duties and authority of the management structure that Srila Prabhupad had set up.
I am writing this from personal view. When I joined I very much wanted direct and personal guidance from Srila Prabhupad. But, he instructed the devotees in general – please go through the system of management he had set up. Approach the Temple authorities, the GBC, sannyasis and senior devotees for such guidance. Do not unnecessarily burden him with so many repetitive questions and needs for guidance. He said his instructions were all there, in his books and letters, the leaders were to now give that same guidance to the newer devotees. We were not to directly approach him for such guidance. He had set up the GBC structure of authority for that purpose.
I am not writing this in support of rtvik, but, I am writing it because I see that system has been disrupted and has changed. And I understand that to be a deviation because Srila Prabhupad said the system he set up must not be changed.

But, then, how can one surrender to a guru, accepting him as their ultimate Master, yet, as a member of ISKCON remain accepting the GBC as one’s ultimate authority? One can have only one master, one guru.

It is the purpose of this article to show that this is the foundational problem in current ISKCON. This is the very heart of “guru” issue, and is the source of all the many problems that follow. The problem is, one cannot have two masters. One cannot accept the ultimate authority of the GBC and abide by the system Srila Prabhupad had set up for attaining guidance, and at the same time accept another master.

Trying to do so causes a very disruptive conflict of authority. It is this issue that the GBC have been trying to define for the past 27 years.

New Division of ISKCON Managerial Authority

Specifically many GBC resolutions and discussions have been centered on trying to define what authority or duty belongs to the GBC and what belongs to the current Diksha gurus. So much effort expended on trying to define how the new disciple must see Srila Prabhupad’s teaching as the philosophical guide, the GBC as their ultimate authority and over all guide, and yet the diksha guru also as some sort of master and authority as well. And trying to figure out what guidance the GBC should give, what guidance the guru should give. Yet, in doing so, in many respects, the position and authority of the GBC and temple structure of authority was eroded. How? Because what ever duties were once the responsibility of the previous system Srila Prabhupad set up for how devotees obtained guidance and was given over to the new diksha gurus, by that much the previous system was eroded and changed. So many issues center on these topics, so many resolutions. So much trying to figure this out.
This is crux of the whole guru issue and many problems in ISKCON, just what are the duties and position of the new guru and how their duties and roles integrate with the existing GBC authority and how Srila Prabhupad’s guidance plays into everything.

Duties & Position of the GBC and Current Diksha gurus

We’ve outlined the management system and how new devotees obtained guidance from that system in Srila Prabhupad's physical presence. Since then several systems have been tried since Srila Prabhupad’s disappearance to accommodate the new diksha gurus into that established system.

The Zonal Acharya

This was the first attempt. Many have documented that this idea came from consulting Srila Sridhar Maharaj and possibly Srila Narayan Maharaj, and many also understand that to have been against the desire and instructions of Srila Prabhupad. Srila Sridhar Maharaj’s main point for suggesting the Zonal Acharya system rests at the heart of this issue as I have also pointed out. His point was that you cannot have two authorities. A disciple cannot accept the GBC as ultimate authority, and accept a spiritual master, as the spiritual master, by definition, is taken as one’s master, one’s ultimate authority. You cannot have two such masters

He also insisted that a guru or acharya cannot have any higher authority over him regulating or restricting his authority. That, he saw, as unacceptable. A guru is his own authority, he does not act as guru under any other authority (then his own guru). He was insistent that the rtvik system was not bonafied, and so he suggested major changes to the system Srila Prabhupad had set up.

He suggested that the GBC zones then in existence become zones for the new gurus. The gurus would also be the GBC for those zones. These gurus would be known as Zonal-Acharyas. This way, for the particular zone they presided over, that GBC Zonal-Acharya would be the absolute or ultimate authority for that one zone. And, the GBC as a whole would not really have much authority over the Zonal-Acharyas.

Obviously, this was a major deviation from both the system of management and GBC that Srila Prabhupad had so painstakingly set up, and it was a deviation from his instruction that the system he had set up not be changed.

The result of this system was tremendous upheaval and misdirection of the whole mission.

By 1985-87 this issue came to a head, and ISKCON and the GBC admitted that system was a deviation and was wrong. The Zonal-Acharya system was abandoned.

The Current Diksha Guru

At that time, the GBC still held on to the conviction that the rtvik system was not bonafied, that Srila Prabhupad wanted us all to become guru, thus, that system would not be considered at all. Rather, the GBC began to contain, control, rope-in many of the freedoms of the gurus. The GBC tried to retain the original idea that the GBC remained the ultimate authority, even over and above the gurus. (This was one of the points made by Sridhar, that this is not consistent with definition of guru.) However, that GBC authority was also shared with the diksha gurus. Thus, in abolishing the Zonal-Acharya system the GBC set forth a number of resolutions trying to define the duties and position of the guru. Even controlling where and how they were to be worshipped Even the dakshin given to the initiating guru. This has proven to be an on-going struggle by the GBC to continually define what is the position and duty of the guru, and where their authority fits in. What guidance should the guru give, what guidance the GBC-Temple authorities give?

However, it has to be noted that when the Zonal-Acharya system was established the system Srila Prabhupad had set up and that was in place was severely changed and limited. When the Zonal-Acharya system was established the previous system of how devotees obtained guidance was totally changed. New devotees no longer sought personal direction and guidance from the GBC / Temple Authorities, Sannyasis or Senior Devotees, but all such guidance was to be taken only from the local Zonal Acharya and those they designated. When the Zonal/Acharya system was disbanded the GBC did not restore the system of management, that of how new devotees were to get personal guidance and direction from the GBC/Temple/Sannyasi/Senior devotee system as was set up under Srila Prabhupad. Rather, they continued to support the idea of this guidance for the new devotees to be taken directly from their initiating gurus, whether that guru was a local GBC or not, or whether they even were a GBC. Basically the GBC were simply taking the Zonal-Acharya system and trying to curb it down, reform it, reshape it, but did not actually restore the previous GBC-Temple Authority system that was in place for giving all guidance. Many aspects of giving guidance were still given to the diksha guru.

GBC-Provided Guidance Is Today Disrupted.

By abolishing the Zonal Acharya system and yet not re-establishig the original system of guidance and authority the result was further complications and eroding of the system Srila Prabhupad set up. Since the new devotees, which by 1987 were the greater majority in ISKCON, especially since many of Srila Prabhupad’s disciples had left due to their rejection of the Zonal Acharya system, the majority of devotees, the new devotees, now took their personal guidance from their respective diksha gurus and not the local GBC or local temple authorities, local sannyasis or senior devotees. Thus, the social position of those social entities diminished tremendously from their social position and the social respect they carried in the system of management that existed prior to 1978. And, since 1987 the social position or social importance of the local GBC, local temple authorities, sannyasis and senior devotees has continued to diminish.

Another problem this has created is that of the older devotees, the direct Prabhupad disciples? Previously all devotees took their guidance from the system of management Srila Prabhupad had set up, ie the GBC/Temple authorities, etc. With the introduction the Zonal Acharya system the local or Zonal GBC not only retained the social prominence but actually their prominence increased in an unauthorized and detrimental way. The Zonal GBC was now the Zonal Acharya and now acted alone as the absolute authority for their zone. This was not the GBC system SP has set up where the GBC as a whole was the ultimate authority and not individual GBCs. But, under the Zonal-Acharya system the Zonal-Acharya-GBC became like monarcial dictators for their zone. Under that system the authority and social prominence of the temple authorities, sannyasis and senior devotees was diminished and severely weaken as the ZonalAcharya because the all-powerful authority of their zone. This was a major deviation from Srila Prabhupad’s system of management he had set up. However, under that scenario it at least kept in tact one feature of the original system of management. That was that it provided, as before, a single system of authority for both the older devotees, the direct disciples of Srila Prabhupad, and the new devotees. As long as you resided in a specific zone, that zone had one authority and all devotees were able to seek guidance from that one authority, regardless if they were new or older devotee.

However, when the Zonal Acharya system was disbanded, this aspect was also disrupted. Because the original system of personal guidance and authority was not restored back to that of the GBC / Temple / Sannyasi / Senior devotees, but that personal guidance was to remain, for the new devotees only, with their guru. Such authority for giving such guidance was not handed back to the original system of management. This created so further division. No longer were there Zonal Acharyas. A new devotee could now seek initiation from any guru anywhere in the world. I may live in Los Angeles, but I can now take as guru someone who has no authority in LA temple. They may serve mostly in India, or Europe, or East Coast US, it no longer mattered. So, a 10 new devotees living in a temple could now have 10 different authorities, each their own authority, from whom they now desire to seek their personal guidance from. And, it could well be that none of those 10 authorities have anything managerial positions in their local temples. This is a complete and total deviation from the system that Srila Prabhupad had set up.

And, it is even worse. For as the new devotees came, less and less did the new devotees look toward their local GBC as any sort of authority at all. It is not unusual that among 10 new devotees at a particular temple they may now take 10 different personal authorities, 10 different initiating gurus from whom they each seek their personal guidance from. This has rendered the post of local virtually impotent, especially if that GBC is not an initiating guru.

To further complicate matters, during the Zonal Acharya days many Zonal Acharya GBC men became so dictatorial, so tyrannical, that many Prabhupad disciples totally rejected their authority. Since they were GBC-Zonal gurus, many older devotees in rejecting their unjust and imbalanced authority wound up rejecting the whole idea of GBC authority. It was a natural backlash of resentment. In leading temples, even, such as LA, the previous world headquarters, senior Prabhupad men in 1987 and for some years totally rejected the idea of operating under any GBC authority. The Zonal-Acharya GBC’s were so oppressive, dictatorial, that there was a major backlash against them, that when the Zonal Acharya system was abolished many older devotees and whole temples and communities rejected the whole idea of GBC authority.

This was simply just another deviation and disruption of the original system of management that Srila Prabhupad had established. When the Zonal Acharya system was abolished that original system was not restored, but it actually became more dismantled.

What took place in many temples was that the older devotees no longer looked toward the GBC as any type of authority, and no longer turned to them for their guidance. Yet, the new devotees turned to their Diksha gurus as their personal authorities. Basically, you wound up with the majority of Prabhupad disciples no longer having any direct authority, no longer having anyone to turn to for personal guidance. The only ones obtaining guidance were the new devotees. But, they were no longer obtaining that guidance in accordance with the system Srila Prabhupad had set up. Instead of the new devotees turning to the local GBC, local temple authorities, sannyasis and senior devotees, they turned to their multiple and respective gurus who may be local, but in many cases are not. And the post of local GBC diminished further and further. While the new devotees have a system of getting personal guidance, it is not at all in accordance with the system Srila Prabhupad had set up, and the older devotees, if they need it, have no longer any system of obtaining such guidance.

It is now a major problem to restore the system of local GBC authority. Why? If we take all such duties away from the diksha guru and give them back to the previous system, then what really becomes the duty or position of the diksha guru?

Today, as soon as one determines they want to accept a certain guru in ISKCON, the new devotee then seeks out that guru for all such guidance. In many ways, the system Srila Prabhupad had set up to manage ISKCON, the GBC and temple authorities, sannyasis and senior devotees are not approached at all by the new disciples. Many new devotees and the gurus argue that this is the proper duty of a regular guru, to give their disciple such guidance.

In most instances a Diksha guru will advise his disciple to follow the local authorities for many issues, because this is an area where the GBC is still trying to work out, but, there remains a very large degree of new disciples by-passing the previous ISKCON system of management and obtaining such guidance directly from their guru, not from the GBC structure of management.

This is not the system of management that Srila Prabhupad had worked so hard to put into place for his ISKCON society to follow. He had fully tested the previous system and he had ordered us not to change that previous system.

Previously such new devotees would have gone first to their temple authorities, sannyasis, senior devotees then to the local GBC. And if needed to the full GBC. This is not the case today. Gurus encourage and disciples think that the guru must be approached for most such forms of guidance, spiritual, philosophical, social or personal. It is often directly taught that these are the proper functions of a regular guru, and thus new devotees feel obliged to seek out such guidance from their diksha guru. On one side this can become complicated, as I have seen in large temples. Sometimes an issue at hand involved disciples from 3-4 different gurus, and Prabhupad disciples, then it is obvious that seeking guidance from 3-4 or 5 different ‘authorities’ is not going to work. In such instances then the GBC is reverted to just to maintain peace.

But, even for so-called personal advice and guidance, often ‘personal’ is related to marriage issues, which involved at least 2 or more, making them social issues and thus are again best handled by a single system of authority, the system Srila Prabhupad has set up.

The thing is, for us, the vast majority of Prabhupad disciples, we had to use the system Srila Prabhupad set up. But, newer devotees, they no longer follow that system. And that is the real deviation.

The GBC Has Been Weakened – Sannyasi Position Weakened, Senior Devotees Not Properly Respected

 The whole social system of hierarchy that was created by the system Srila Prabhupad set up is disrupted and weakened Previously devotees, Prabhupad disciples, would take guidance and give respect to senior devotees, even if they had no other formal post or managerial position. They would take guidance from the sannyasis, etc. Today, I have seen newer devotees only accept their guru,