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