Concerns for Prabhupada’s Movement – TPC adjustment requires adhikāra

CONCERNS FOR PRABHUPĀDA'S MOVEMENT

Presentation by representatives of the ISKCON India Leadership on the FDG/VDG controversy

February 8, 2026 — Śrīdhāma Māyāpura

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────

TPC adjustment requires adhikāra

Kṛṣṇa-kīrti dāsaḥ

Convenor, ISKCON India Scholars Board

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────

Dear Mahārājas, Prabhus, and Mātājīs, Please accept my humble obeisances. All glories to Śrīla Prabhupāda.

In my presentation before you, if there is one thing I would like you to remember, it is that our conception of “time, place and circumstance” (TPC) is not the same as Prabhupāda's. And I would additionally like you to remember that the current female dīkṣā-guru (FDG) controversy is a result of persons on all sides being inadequately qualified to make an authorized TPC decision.

TPC is different in the minds of different devotees due to their experience and realization in Kr̥ṣṇa Consciousness. Prabhupāda says that if one does not accept the principles of Vedic knowledge, “the scriptures will be interpreted in many different ways, and everyone will claim his own philosophy is supreme.”¹⁴ If everyone does that, then, just as night is certain to follow day, schism will follow. Quoting William Blake's couplet “Both read the bible day and night” does nothing to save us.

¹⁴ CC Madhya 9.49.

To find a way back from schism, we should ask, “What is the qualification of someone fit to make a TPC adjustment to scripture?” The answer, according to Manu-saṁhitā, is someone who is called a “cultured brāhmaṇa”—a śiṣṭa-brahmana.

anāmnāteṣu dharmeṣu kathaṃ syāditi ced bhavet |
yaṃ śiṣṭā brāhmaṇā brūyuḥ sa dharmaḥ syādaśaṅkitaḥ || 108 ||

“If the question should arise—'How should it be in regard to those points upon which the laws have not been declared?'—[the answer is]—what the cultured Brāhmaṇas declare, that shall be the undoubted law.”—(12.108)¹⁵

¹⁵ Ganganatha Jha, trans., Manusmriti with the Commentary of Medhatithi, Verse 12.108, Wisdom Library.

But what is the qualification of a śiṣṭa-brāhmaṇa? The qualification is given in the next shloka:

dharmeṇādhigato yaistu vedaḥ saparibṛṃhaṇaḥ |
te śiṣṭā brāhmaṇā jñeyāḥ śrutipratyakṣahetavaḥ || 109 ||

“Those Brāhmaṇas, by whom the Veda, along with its supplements, has been learnt in the right manner, and who are guided directly by the revealed texts,—shall be regarded as 'cultured.'”—(109)

Manu's definition is very similar to the definition of the uttama-adhikārī given by Prabhupāda in Nectar of Devotion, chapter 3.

“The first-class devotee never deviates from the principles of higher authority, and he attains firm faith in the scriptures by understanding with all reason and arguments. When we speak of arguments and reason, it means arguments and reason on the basis of revealed scriptures.”

Though not the same as an uttama-adhikārī Vaiṣṇava, the concept of a śiṣṭa-brāhmaṇa tells us who is allowed to say what to do in situations the scriptures do not explicitly cover. An uttama-adhikārī Vaiṣṇava necessarily has the same authority to make TPC adjustments.

Not being an uttama-adhikārī means lacking expertise in śāstra, which increases the risk of making TPC adjustments contrary to śāstra. When such devotees attempt adjustments, problems arise. Prabhupāda notes in NOI 5 that disciples of non-uttama-adhikārī gurus cannot advance well under their gurus' “insufficient guidance,” which results in poor TPC decisions. ISKCON's history shows many adjustments failed or caused serious issues. For the past twenty-five years, the FDG controversy has been fraught with adhoc, divisive rulings.

Thus, we should begin with the presumption that our knowledge is deficient and requires further study. The ISKCON India Scholars Board, especially Śrīdhara-śrīnivāsa Prabhu, has researched dīkṣā across our paramparā and other Vaiṣṇava traditions. Findings reveal that practices once thought to be mere TPC details—such as japa-mālā with 108 beads, bead size progression, or blessings from elders before becoming a dīkṣā-guru—are in fact scripturally grounded.

Therefore, only TPC rulings firmly grounded in śāstra and consistent with all evidence—pro and con—can be accepted. Anything less is partial or speculative, and unfit to guide ISKCON's future. A śāstra-based understanding of TPC alone can resolve the controversy without doubt or division.

https://iisb.co.in/fdg