Life After ISCON, Interview continued, part 2

GG: What else was happening that effected your leaving?

B: At that time, because of so many abuses by those who were gurus/GBC’s, there was a natural reaction to challenging their authenticity. From this arose the ritvik movement that wanted everyone who is initiated to be the direct disciple of Śrīla Prabhupāda, although he clearly stated that new initiates would be his grand disciples. Unfortunately, amongst god-brothers, it also became an issue of the haves and the have nots and what qualified some to hold the position over those who didn’t. Close relationships began to deteriorate.

The infighting between godbrothers which started seeping into our zone, the feelings of attraction that developed towards the woman I left with, the recognition of how extreme the child abuse was, the strange behaviors of many of my contemporaries in their august positions, and I suppose the sheer weight of the zonal responsibilities, created the vortex for my leaving. Although many people naturally blamed her, I do not see it that way and so I am taking this opportunity to try and explain a very sensitive and complex set of events. Blame often comes before understandings and sometimes gets frozen in place. I hope this helps to clarify the situation.



GG: You are aware how within ISKCON, there has been fracturing about gurus and the initiation process. Being one of the first generation of those giving initiation, do you want to comment on the process? I’m sure people ask you what you would have done differently knowing what you know now.

B: Although people say that everything is there in Prabhupāda’s writings, the room conversation of May 28th was like an astrological moment that set a new house in motion. In a matter of minutes or 2 inches on the scroll bar, questions and answers took place, that to this day are being debated and which have changed the face of the movement he began. To be sure, in his ailing condition, we all had great fears and reservations about bringing up the issue of his passing away and the initiation process. As such, the questioning that came about was very uneasy and cursory.

But to answer your question, I would have been more detailed in my questioning. After all, Prabhupāda was very detailed in organizing - from construction, to finance, to book printing, to traveling. He was the spiritual CEO, the founder-acarya, of an international corporation. The details of how to pass on the reins of management and authority were no small matter that a few sentences would clarify. He expected us to cooperate together out of love for him, but in the minds of many, the initiation issue was never settled clearly in that conversation.

Although he said in his presence, his disciples should not take disciples but act only as officiating acaryas, he does say in that conversation that he will appoint some to carry out this function and after his departure the students they initiate will be his grand disciples. The opposition to this is that some say he never appointed anyone to do more than act as ritvik. So I would have asked if he wanted future disciples to be his direct disciples. I would have asked how we should see ourselves as gurus, so the issue of pure devotee, uttama adhikary, etc. would be clear in the minds of initiating gurus and students. How the next generation of gurus actually see themselves and want their disciple to see them should have been and still should be part of the vetting process for both. Then there are the questions about ritualistic performances - gurupuja, vyasa pujua, guru daksina, householder gurus, sanyasa gurus, etc. Should we do just as he did or modify things to the new times?

It is a complex issue because so much in ISKCON is based around initiations. For the initiate it means turning a corner in life by wanting to experience a spiritual rebirth. For one who initiates, it is an opportunity to help someone break away from a superficial, mechanistic view of life. The problem arises when the two personalities don’t see deeply enough into the internal changes that must take place to pursue these choices. Movement forward and upward needs to grow out of inward movement. Otherwise it is like climbing up the material ladder of perceived success - brahmana, president, GBC, sannyas, guru, BBT …... Once teachers start calculating their projected annual income from their appearance day ceremonies, they begin their disappearance day funerals.



GG: So as a former leader how do you see this quandary being resolved?

B: In the name of initiating someone into bhakti, a process that begins with peace and ends with the highest love of God, so much un-lovingness and hatred has erupted - each side publishing vile literature about the other and taking each other to court. How publishers could think Prabhupāda would take pleasure in reading this diarrhea that is so often spewed forth in hateful internet posts and fault finding contests is beyond comprehension. These faultfinders talk about people in such a way that negates any good they have ever done and actually believe their spiritual master would enjoy reading their internet diatribes.

So I think the initiation process should slow down and go in careful, thoughtful steps that can reunite Prabhupāda’s vision. The temple president usually knows the new devotee the best. When Prabhupāda was present, we used to chant on beads, give names, perform yajnas, etc. The president or whichever brahmana knows the individual could be the first initiating guru and give hari nama initiation. It should be clearly discussed between the two, how they see each other and what is expected. Presently, when one takes hari nama, that guru is his guru for life and all eternity. In many cases, this can be quite an immature and uneducated leap of faith.

Prabhupāda wanted second initiation to take place after one became philosophically and scholastically competent as a bhaktishastri, bhaktivibhava, etc. Obviously, this should be given by one who has these brahminical qualities themselves - man or woman. These initiations are done on behalf of the guru parampara of which Prabhupāda is the representative, founder acarya of ISKCON. As such, the initiate has respect for his teachers, the guru parampara, and of course sees Prabhupāda as his siksha guru. At this level there can be unity between presently opposing opinions. Even if the person giving initiation leaves, it is not so traumatic to the initiate. There is nothing objectionable about multiple personalities helping in the rebirthing process - the first being the parents, then teachers, etc.

After some years of practicing, learning, teaching and hearing from many practitioners, one might come in touch with an individual who opens them up in ways no one has yet done. Such a person enables a qualified initiate to see where resistance to Radha Krishna hides internally in ways they could not see before. She or he reveals what loving God looks like and feels like in ways they have never seen or felt before, answer questions in ways you have never heard before and gives a taste like you never had before. At this point a student finds a living master who completes his or her connection to God. So here is yet another and perhaps final initiation.

It is important to learn from history. Someone who is accepting to be a guru should first study themselves and be clear how they want to be seen and accepted by an initiate. They should look within to see if and where there is any resistance to God. Clear, honest communication between the two is far more relevant than ritualistic worship or blind surrender.



GG: Have your understandings of gurus and GBC changed over all these years?

B: Guru/GBC/ sanyasa are positions that can devolve into designations that imprison and confine, rather than liberate. The test of whether something has become an addiction or pattern, is to see if you can do without it and still be secure and effective. Position needs to be flexible like Lord Ramachandra showed. Without attachment to the designation of king, He never diminished His potency and ability to establish dharma. Patterns, positions, rituals and relationships need to be tested and modified to keep them from becoming materialistic or inflexible behavior. A child can teach his parents, a teacher can learn from the student, a woman can humble a sadhu by her wisdom. Remember it was an old derelect that suggested to Prabhupāda to exercise and walk more.

At this point, it might be worth considering the worldwide association of temple presidents deciding how many GBC’s are actually needed to be effective and vote to reorganize the map. This was his idea in the direction of management,



GG: How would you apply that thinking to the present leadership in ISKCON?

B: At some point, for their own good, GBC’s can voluntarily allow others to take their place and evaluate who they have become. In Prabhupāda’s direction of management, he suggested elections. Then, in his room in Vrndavan, he decided there should be no change. I’m sure he wanted to maintain some level of stability, knowing he was about to leave.

Whenever there is control over people and money, patterns of self-interest and manipulation can take root. Unconditional acceptance of who one actually is, in present time, is necessary to be real. To whatever degree we are real, we are potent. If one is not true to himself, he can not be true to others. That is why so much destruction takes place in the name of religion. Sabbaticals are a healthy break in routine to regenerate. In a spiritual society, letting go should come naturally and voluntarily as welcomed steps towards freedom, especially for those who are sannyasis. No doubt, one can get stuck in the quicksand of titles, positions and designations.

What starts out spiritual can become dense or material. Being attached to title, power, position and control, is often born out of an insecurity of “what will become of me if I don’t hold onto this position?” One’s whole life can become defined by titles. The measure of how real someone is, should never be calculated in terms of money, fame, disciples or buildings, but rather in how one can keep letting go of external identities and still keep higher understandings flowing – unmotivated by and immune to material ego. Bharata couldn’t wait to give the kingdom back to Rama and considered himself to be nothing more than the caretaker.