he conflict between the IRM's Srila Prabhupada as diksa guru and ISKCON's GBC guru system, can actually be categorised to provide a historical reference, as follows:
1) A singular Acarya system in which one person alone is its supreme authority and diksa guru, henceforward the "SA";
2) Multiple diksa gurus who are under the authority of a governing body, the GBC, i.e. a GBC guru system, henceforward "MG". (Emphases in article added.)
Historical claim for MG
When the Gaudiya Matha institution was founded by Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakura ("SBST"), Srila Prabhupada's own guru, it was run with a singular Acarya, SBST. Similarly, when Srila Prabhupada founded ISKCON, he followed the same model, with himself as ISKCON's singular Acarya. However, following Srila Prabhupada's physical departure, the guru system for ISKCON was changed from SA to MG. To support this change, it has been claimed by ISKCON's leadership that SBST had ordered the Gaudiya Matha to also change from a SA to MG system after he physically departed. Thus, the GBC has released a new official paper titled Principles & Practices/Diksa-guru Projects, in which it is claimed:
"Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakura instructed his disciples to form a GBC, thus diverging from the age-old tradition of handing down authority to a single successor acarya [...] in deference to that instruction [...] some forty years later Srila Prabhupada adopted the same GBC model for ISKCON."
Similarly, in his HR paper, ISKCON "scholar" HH Hridayananda Dasa Goswami ("HD") also claims:
"The essence of the Gaudiya Matha's collapse as a united institution, as Prabhupada always taught, was the failure to place the gurus under the ultimate authority of a collegial governing body."
It is thus claimed that:
1) The Gaudiya Matha was not supposed to follow a SA system after SBST physically departed;
2) Instead a GBC system, which would have authority over multiple gurus, i.e. MG, was to be followed;
3) And Srila Prabhupada also ordered the same MG system for ISKCON to follow after his physical departure.
We will now compare each of these claims to the evidence.
SBST order for SA
In regard to claim 1), Srila Prabhupada has stated that SBST ordered the following:
"His idea was acarya was not to be nominated amongst the governing body. He said openly you make a GBC and conduct the mission. So his idea was amongst the members of GBC who would come out successful and self effulgent acarya would be automatically selected."
(Srila Prabhupada, Letter, 28/4/74)
"His idea was "Let them manage; then whoever will be actual qualified for becoming acarya, they will elect. Why I should enforce upon them?" That was his plan. "Let them manage by strong governing body, as it is going on. Then acarya will come by his qualification.""
(Srila Prabhupada, Room Conversation, 21/9/73)
So, there cannot be any room for misunderstanding – Srila Prabhupada makes the same point twice:
a) SBST wanted a single successor Acarya to succeed him.
b) This single Acarya required the GBC to be the instrument by which he would become selected.
Thus, the GBC was to be formed just so that each GBC member would demonstrate their ability, and one of them would then emerge as the "self-effulgent" successor Acarya, who would then be accepted by the rest of the GBC as the next Acarya of the Gaudiya Matha.
This was what SBST ordered.
No order for MG
In claim 2), HD claims that Srila Prabhupada "always taught" that the Gaudiya Matha failed because they did not place the "gurus" under the authority of a GBC. But Srila Prabhupada does not mention this even once, never mind "always". There are many hundreds of references to the Gaudiya Matha in the Vedabase, and we have checked every single one of them, and we invite our readers to do the same. Srila Prabhupada states exactly why the Gaudiya Matha failed and it is not the reason HD gives. Rather, it is because, instead of following the "successor Acarya" via GBC method SBST ordered as mentioned above, they simply declared an Acarya immediately upon SBST's physical departure, even though SBST had not appointed a successor:
"Why this Gaudiya Matha failed? [...] They never thought, "Why Guru Maharaja gave us instruction so many things, why he did not say that this man should be acarya?" They wanted to create artificially somebody acarya, and everything failed. [...] They declared some unfit person to become acarya."
(Srila Prabhupada, Room Conversation, 16/8/76)
Srila Prabhupada's Acarya system
Thus, SBST gave an order for the Acarya system to continue in the Gaudiya Matha, using the GBC as the instrument by which the Acarya system could continue. Srila Prabhupada did the same, in that he ordered that the Acarya system would continue in ISKCON after his physical departure, only in this case, he himself would continue to remain that Acarya, which even the GBC accepts:
"As Founder-Acarya Srila Prabhupada holds a unique position in ISKCON. We need to understand it deeply. As acarya, his exemplary personal behavior is the model and norm for all ISKCON devotees."
(Srila Prabhupada: The Founder-Acarya of ISKCON, GBC, p. 21)
And the GBC would continue to remain the instrument that would allow this to happen, as it would manage ISKCON on Srila Prabhupada's behalf in his physical absence in exactly the same way it did when he was physically present. But Srila Prabhupada did not authorise the GBC to create successor diksa gurus. Both these points were proven in the previous 2 articles. Hence, in regard to claim 3), Srila Prabhupada did follow the same model as SBST, only it was the SA, and not the MG.
Conclusion
The orders for both the Gaudiya Matha and ISKCON were to continue the Acarya system rather than create a MG system.
Subscribe for FREE to Back To Prabhupada Magazine - Click Here
Return to "Order to Be Guru" Index
Return to IRM Homepage
