Back To Prabhupada, Issue 84, 2025
In the last issue, in the article āProof by Godās Authorityā, we proved using *6* separate numbered proofs that the GBC management system set up by ÅrÄ«la PrabhupÄda meant that he could not have authorised successor GBC dÄ«kį¹£Ä gurus. Below, we document GBC voted-in guru HH PrahlÄdÄnanda Swami (āPASā) confirming this proof. We will refer to the 6 proofs given in the aforementioned article by their respective numbers used in that article. All quotes in shaded boxes are taken from a lecture given by PAS on 24/5/25.
While speaking about the GBC gurus, PAS confirms that they should be seen as āabsoluteā. Which would mean, by definition, that they should have absolute authority, otherwise there is no meaning to being seen as an āabsolute representativeā. To emphasise this point, PAS then states:
PAS here makes the same point as Proof 4, which quotes Cc., Madhya-lÄ«lÄ, 10.136, to prove that the dÄ«kį¹£Ä guru must be treated like Kį¹į¹£į¹a, and that the dÄ«kį¹£Ä guru is free like Kį¹į¹£į¹a is free. Thus, the dÄ«kį¹£Ä guru could not possibly be under the managerial authority of a GBC. Rather, as Proof 1 showed, the GBC is always under the authority of the existing dÄ«kį¹£Ä guru, ÅrÄ«la PrabhupÄda. Thus, since ÅrÄ«la PrabhupÄda designated in his Will that the GBC had to be the āultimate managing authorityā for all of ISKCON, this could not possibly include successor dÄ«kį¹£Ä gurus, as just noted. Hence, ÅrÄ«la PrabhupÄda specifically set up a system in which successor dÄ«kį¹£Ä gurus could not exist.
PAS makes it clear that there are not two sources of authority ā where the GBC has managerial authority and the dÄ«kį¹£Ä gurus would have spiritual authority. Which again would mean that the āabsoluteā successor dÄ«kį¹£Ä gurus PAS mentioned could not possibly exist within a GBC system, as they do not have any spiritual authority independent of the GBC.
PAS confirms that ÅrÄ«la PrabhupÄda did not give any instructions that would accommodate successor dÄ«kį¹£Ä gurus with the āabsoluteā authority PAS has stated they need. Which again means that ÅrÄ«la PrabhupÄda did not authorise successor dÄ«kį¹£Ä gurus.
Realising that successor dÄ«kį¹£Ä gurus cannot exist within a GBC system, PAS proposes a way it could work: strip dÄ«kį¹£Ä gurus of all their authority over their disciples and being able to preach! But Proofs 5 and 6 show, by quoting ÅrÄ«la PrabhupÄda, that a dÄ«kį¹£Ä guruās role demands that they must have this authority. Thus, PAS again actually confirms the IRMās proof. Because he accepts that the only way absolute successor dÄ«kį¹£Ä gurus can co-exist within ÅrÄ«la PrabhupÄdaās GBC management system is to make them non-absolute and take away all their authority and functions, i.e. by making them non-dÄ«kį¹£Ä gurus first! Which means that actual, real successor dÄ«kį¹£Ä gurus cannot co-exist within a GBC system, and thus ÅrÄ«la PrabhupÄda did not authorise them.
PAS states that GBC gurusā function is to just make sure their disciples follow the GBC management system. But PAS admitted that this is a system in which the GBC gurus are not required to manage their disciples, or have spiritual authority over them. Further, all rules, regulations and teachings to be followed in ISKCON have already been given directly by ÅrÄ«la PrabhupÄda. Hence, any member of ISKCON can already follow the GBC management system without the need for GBC gurus at all.
We have just established using PASās statements, which agree with our proofs, that philosophically, successor dÄ«kį¹£Ä gurus cannot exist within a GBC system. PAS now explains, giving a hypothetical example involving a temple president and a GBC guru, how it cannot work practically. Because there will be two conflicting sources of authority, with the temple presidents, who derive their authority from the GBC, clashing with the āabsoluteā authority of the GBC dÄ«kį¹£Ä gurus. And thus, the two co-existing is āimpossibleā and a ādisasterā. Whereas, as explained in Proof 1, such a clash does not exist with ÅrÄ«la PrabhupÄda as dÄ«kį¹£Ä guru, because the GBC is already subordinate to his authority ā rather than the other way around as in the case of the GBC gurus!
PAS attempts to defend the GBC guru system operating within ÅrÄ«la PrabhupÄdaās GBC management system. But in doing so, he only ends up confirming the 6 IRM Proofs that ÅrÄ«la PrabhupÄda could not have authorised such successor dÄ«kį¹£Ä gurus to begin with.
Subscribe for FREE to Back To Prabhupada Magazine - Click Here
Return to "HH Prahladananda Swami" Index
Return to "July 9th, 1977 Directive" Index
Please chant: Hare Kį¹į¹£į¹a, Hare Kį¹į¹£į¹a, Kį¹į¹£į¹a, Kį¹į¹£į¹a, Hare, Hare,
Hare RÄma, Hare RÄma, RÄma, RÄma, Hare, Hare ā and be happy!