An important goal of the GBC is to ensure that their members maintain unity in diversity. However, diversity should be united by śāstra. Śāstra is the lynch pin that unifies diverse opinions and keeps ISKCON united.
Śrīla Prabhupada’s statements and exemplary behavior are generally sufficient to guide us (sa yat pramāṇam kurute…). But there are certain subjects for which Śrīla Prabhupada statements are not so many, equivocal or subject to different interpretations. In such cases, the statements of the ācāryas and especially śāstra will be necessary to understand the subject properly.
For example, in case of the Ratha-yātrā issue, leaders of the Śrī Jagannātha Temple Administration are in a different sampradāya. They are not obligated to accept Prabhupāda’s authority. So, we cannot defend Prabhupāda by telling them “Prabhupāda said so.” They will accept śāstra only and no other evidence.
Similarly, in the case of the Ṛtvik issue, in Prabhupāda’s July 9th, 1977 letter, Ṛtvikists give a clever interpretation to a single word, “henceforward.” But Prabhupāda himself said little about what to do when a guru falls down. Therefore, we cannot settle this matter without reverting to previous ācāryas and śāstra.
The female dīkṣā-guru issue is another example of a subject on which Prabhupāda has not only said very little but also said different, seemingly incompatible things at different times. This also cannot be settled without reverting to previous ācāryas and śāstra.
As stated by Śrīla Prabhupada himself, even if the evidence is correct, “the person himself is in danger of being misled due to his material defects,” and that “there is a chance that an interpretation may not be perfect.” Therefore, only “a direct presentation can be considered evidence,” and direct evidence is only śāstra (CC Madhya 6.135).
Only śāstra is free from the defects of human life. In his Introduction to the Śrī Īśopaniṣad, Śrīla Prabhupada says that “Vedic principles are accepted as axiomtic truth, for there cannot be any mistake.” Although the stool of the animal is impure, the Vedic injunction says the stool of the cow is pure. “Actually, it is contradictory from the ordinary point of view,” says Prabhupāda. “But it is not false. It is fact.”
There are many other instances in which controversial matters are settled via śāstras, as cited through some examples below:
- Śrīla Prabhupāda cites previous Gauḍīya ācāryas who cite śāstra to establish that Mother Lakṣmī is not a Jīva, as argued by some followers of Madhvācārya (SB 6.19.13 purport).
- SB 1.3.15 purport shows that the differences in views between Śrīpāda Śrīdhara Svāmī and Śrī Jīva Gosvāmī regarding the devastation after the change of every manu was resolved using definite proofs from śāstras (like Viṣṇu-dharmottara, Mārkaṇḍeya Purāṇa, Harivaṁśa,).
These two examples show that even the opinions of liberated ācāryas, who are above the four defects of conditioned life, must be subordinate to śāstra. Śāstra is accepted as the final, overarching pramāṇa even among the opinions of liberated ācāryas.
Even the GBC is prone to the four defects of conditioned life, what to speak of the rest of us, the GBC is duty-bound to resolve doctrinal matters first and foremost by śāstra.
Although, Śrīla Prabhupāda said that GBC resolutions should be decided by majority vote, majority decisions not fully supported by śāstra are still speculative.
For example, one time, HG Praghoṣa Prabhu, a GBC member himself, had resigned from the GBC body disagreeing with the GBC majority. And he publicly stated his reasons as to why he felt the majority was misguided. The point here is not whether he was justified. The point is that resolutions decided without the full support of śāstra are prone to the four defects of human error. And it is right to challenge such defective decisions.
Nonetheless, śāstra is often ignored and Prabhupāda’s words are considered the overarching principle of interpretation. This is the so-called “Prabhupāda lens.” The Ṛtviks, however, are also careful to use only Prabhupāda’s statements as evidence; they can also say they are using the “Prabhupāda-lens.” But Rūpa Gosvāmī says bhakti that ignores the regulations of the śāstras only creates a disturbance in society. Nevertheless, despite using only Prabhupāda’s words as their evidence, the Ṛtvik understanding is not bona fide because it contradicts the śāstras. The proper lens is the “śāstra-lens,” which is also called śāstra-cākṣuṣaḥ, litteraly, “the eye of śāstra.”
Śrīla Prabhupāda affirms that śāstra is the central pramāṇa. He says,
“The actual center is the śāstra, the revealed scripture. If a spiritual master does not speak according to the revealed scripture, he is not to be accepted. Similarly, if a saintly person does not speak according to the śāstra, he is not a saintly person. The śāstra is the center for all.” – [CC 2.20.352 purport]
Therefore, many controversies can be easily resolved by keeping śāstra as the center.
For example, The Pādma-saṁhitā (4.10.155) and the Bhāradvāja-saṁhitā (2.7–11) affirm that a living guru under unforeseen circumstances—such as incapacity or absence—may appoint a ṛtvik to complete a ritual on his behalf. There is no sanction for new ritual such as an initiation to be started on behalf of the departed guru.
Key terms in these verses—asamarthaḥ (inability), mṛtaḥ (deceased), śeṣam (remaining portion), samāpayed (to conclude), and tadanujñayā (with permission)—show that any representative must be explicitly authorized prior to the guru’s passing. Thus, a designated individual such as a son, disciple, god-brother, or qualified ṛtvik (mantravit) may complete a specific ceremony started by the living guru with prior sanction.
As per these śāstras, the Ṛtviks’ understanding of the word “henceforward” has to be rejected, because the śāstra gives sanction for a living guru to authorize his representative to finish an incomplete initiation, not the autonomy for the representative to conduct new ones even after the guru’s demise.
Actually, even when considering only Prabhupāda’s words or behavior, they are actually śāstra but in a more indirect form. In Bhakti-rasāmṛta-sindhu, in the śloka before śruti-smṛti-purāṇādi…, in explaining what is meant by sādhu-vartmānuvartanam, following the path of the sādhus, Jīva Gosvāmī in his commentary says, tac ca sādhu-vartma śruty-ādi-vidhy-ātmakam eva, “And that path of the sādhus is indeed constituted by the injunctions of the śruti and allied scriptures.” So, the path of the sādhus is none other than śāstra.
For most matters, Prabhupāda’s statements or exemplary behavior are sufficient in order for us to understand what to do and what not to do. But in the case of subjects for which Prabhupāda said little or said different things, it must be explicitly recognized that śāstra is the topmost pramāṇa.
All other approaches of deciding the female dīkṣā-guru issue will result in a defective resolution, and such defective resolutions may be rightfully challenged. Only the śāstra-centered approach will be able to unite all diverse views on the female dīkṣā-guru issue, because this is the only approach that is free from the four defects of conditioned human existence.
