To address the challenges of preaching in the West, Śrīla Prabhupāda made adjustments within ISKCON. He made Americans and Europeans into brāhmaṇas, he gave them sannyāsa, and he established brahmacāriṇī-āśramas for women and engaged them in preaching side-by-side with men. He said the “jealous fools” who criticized him for these policies “would have to be satisfied with their foolishness,” because “their stereotyped methods will never help spread Kṛṣṇa consciousness.” It is on this principle that Prabhupāda met with great success in the creation of ISKCON and its propagation the world over.
On the same principle, especially given the potential for expanding the movement, should the ISKCON GBC also consider adjusting the pāñcarātrika-dīkṣā system to allow qualified women devotees to serve as dīkṣā-gurus? If the answer is “yes,” and we are certain that many will agree, then why should the GBC not also make a further adjustment and let women take sannyāsa? Some ISKCON members will agree even to this, but, at least for the time being, many more will not. This shows that adjusting the rules and regulations of the scriptures according to time, place and circumstances (TPC) is not as simple as imagining a positive outcome that will please Prabhupāda. Sometimes short-term positive outcomes hide long-term negative consequences. To err is human. How, then, should TPC adjustments on behalf of ISKCON be conducted?
Some say that Prabhupāda made the GBC ISKCON’s Ultimate Managerial Authority and gave it the adhikāra to make TPC adjustments on behalf of ISKCON. This is true. However, in recent years there was the case of one GBC member who felt that the majority opinion of his colleagues on an important moral issue was gravely mistaken. He felt so strongly about it that he gave up his GBC membership in protest. This shows that even a sabhā like the GBC does not guarantee freedom from human error.
But Prabhupāda was a perfect devotee—a liberated ācārya who cannot commit any mistake. Any TPC adjustment he made is above reproach. Yet there will necessarily be circumstances that Prabhupāda said little about or nothing at all, and a TPC decision will still be needed. In the absence of a pure devotee like Prabhupāda, what is the process of TPC adjustment that is 100% free from human error, not 98 or 99% free? The śāstras give such a perfect process.
Before TPC adaptations can be made, the GBC must carefully consider three key factors:
- Outcome versus scriptural integrity
- The adhikāra (eligibility) and yogyatā (capacity)
- Precedent versus imitation
Outcome versus scriptural integrity
A risk of TPC adaptations not sanctioned by the scriptures is that they may give desired outcomes in the short term but result in serious flaws over the long term.
The ṛtvik example
Ṛtvik followers—especially ISKCON Bangalore—have gained wealth, influence, and numbers. They claim that making posthumous disciples of Śrīla Prabhupāda is the only cure for ISKCON’s corruption. Madhu Paṇḍita Dāsa has even offered to merge with ISKCON if it accepts their system of initiations. If time, place, and circumstance (TPC) decisions are based primarily on outcomes, should ISKCON take Bangalore’s success as proof and agree?
Not at all. Doing so will result in ISKCON embracing an apasampradaya. The ṛtvik concept of making posthumous disciples for Śrīla Prabhupāda has no sanction in śāstra. Because it has no sanction in śāstra, the ṛtviks do not truly represent Śrīla Prabhupāda’s vision and mission for ISKCON.
Analysis of the ṛtvik deviation
Advocates of ṛtvikism say that because there is no doubt that Prabhupāda is a bona fide guru, whatever he says must necessarily be aligned with śāstra. However, they do not consider whether their own understanding of Prabhupāda is aligned with śāstra. Since Prabhupāda said “the śāstra is the center for all” and since śāstra provides no sanction for a guru to initiate disciples after his physical departure, the ṛtvik reading of Prabhupāda’s use of the word “henceforward” is inadmissible. The ṛtviks have imposed an interpretation that lacks scriptural authority, rendering their system of posthumous initiations speculative. Because śāstra does not authorize ṛtvik initiations after an ācārya’s departure, such a system cannot represent Prabhupāda’s intention. This reinterpretation of Prabhupāda’s words illustrates how outcome-driven innovations, when separated from scriptural sanction, erode the integrity of tradition and fracture the spiritual lineage.
Adhikāra and yogyatā
The real problem boils down to the fundamental question: how can we discern the correct kāla-deśa-pātra (TPC) adaptation of a change or new principle while addressing present-day issues? The answer is that an uttama-adhikārī is needed to make such decisions.
An uttama-adhikārī—a devotee deeply versed in scriptural injunctions, expert in reasoning, and firmly fixed in faith upon the Lord (SB 11.3.21 and CC 2.22.65)—has the adhikāra (eligibility) and yogyatā (capacity) to implement such changes.
Śrīla Rūpa Gosvāmīalso describes the characteristics of an uttama-adhikārī in Bhakti-rasāmṛta-sindhu (1.2.17). In chapter three of Nectar of Devotion, Śrīla Prabhupāda comments further on Śrīla Rūpa Gosvāmī’s verse. He says that an uttama-adhikārī has great faith and strictly follows the rules and regulations and obeys his spiritual master in accord with revealed scriptures. Faith and expertise in the conclusions of the śāstras are required.
Śrīla Prabhupāda himself repeatedly demonstrated his own mastery of scriptural conclusions—combining logic with conviction and love for Kṛṣṇa. By contrast, his disciples and today’s ISKCON leaders are generally on the madhyama level. Prabhupāda says, “A neophyte Vaiṣṇava or a Vaiṣṇava situated on the intermediate platform can also accept disciples, but . . . it should be understood that they cannot advance very well toward the ultimate goal of life under his insufficient guidance” (NOI 5). Problems arise from their incomplete understanding of Kṛṣṇa-tattva.
Many of ISKCON’s past problems—the gurukuli crisis, the zonal-ācārya debacle, and ongoing confusion over dīkṣā—stem from leaders functioning more as managers than as scriptural authorities. Even the Shastric Advisory Council (SAC), the GBC’s designated body for scriptural guidance, has shown serious shortcomings. For example, its papers on female dīkṣā-gurus (FDG) and brahma-gāyatrī reveal clear lapses. The SAC’s FDG paper (2005) still insists there is no scriptural evidence against FDG in pāñcarātrika texts, despite direct contrary evidence from the Nārada-pāñcarātra Bhāradvāja-saṁhitā.
Precedent versus imitation
As Śrīla Prabhupāda states in the introduction of the Śrī Īśopaniṣad, we must understand that the Vedic scriptures and liberated souls do not have the four kinds of defects that conditioned souls have. Courses like Bhakti-śāstra, Bhakti-vaibhava, and Bhakti-vedānta, must undertake deep study of Hari-bhakti-vilāsa and other key pāñcarātrika scriptures. As stated in CC 1.2.117 (siddhānta baliyā…) the GBC must not hesitate to analyze the root causes for FDG and ṛtvikism, treating them as controversial topics. Decisions on important issues—especially theological ones—must be carefully decided according to śāstra and the traditional means of understanding it, not just socio-political expedience. This has been the standard in Vedic civilization since time immemorial. Following Prabhupāda’s instructions in a way that aligns with śāstra is anusāranam, or following in his footsteps. Otherwise, it is anukaraṇam, mere imitation.
In order to avoid imitating Prabhupāda, we feel these guidelines will be helpful and practical:
- ISKCON should not rely primarily on managerial bodies to decide scriptural matters such as FDG or ṛtvikism.
- From Prabhupāda’s few statements, the GBC must avoid speculative extrapolations that appear designed to fit pre-determined outcomes.
- Systematic study of the works of previous ācāryas—across Vaiṣṇava sampradāyas—together with orthodox precedents (sadācāra) is essential.
- The application of traditional, established principles of śāstric reasoning (pramāṇa-śāstra) are also essential for resolving doubts.
TPC adaptations or changes introduced without demonstrating greater competence in śāstric study puts the GBC and their followers at risk of unwittingly imitating Srila Prabhupāda without having his level of qualification. Above all, any decision reached by the GBC on this matter must explicitly and comprehensively corroborate its fidelity to śāstra, as confirmed by previous ācāryas, including Prabhupāda. Doing so will enable the GBC to convincingly present its judgments and legislations as absolutely (100%) free from the four defects of conditioned human life.