The GBC’s Irrational ‘Rationale’
Back To Prabhupada, Issue 58, Vol 2, 2018
G
BC member and ex-GBC Chairman Praghosa Dasa has written a paper entitled History and Rationale of the "No Objection" Procedure, (posted 10/2/18), which seeks to justify the GBC program for authorising successor diksa gurus to Srila Prabhupada. Excerpts from this GBC paper will be presented in the shaded boxes, with all emphases added.
However, it is a matter of historical record that:
a) There is only one place that Srila Prabhupada named "eleven devotees to initiate". This was the July 9th, 1977 directive.
b) They were "named to initiate" only on Srila Prabhupada's behalf as representatives ("rtviks"), who would make disciples for Srila Prabhupada, thus enabling him to remain ISKCON's diksa guru. And they were "named to initiate" on the basis of whoever was nearest, i.e., geography:
"Temple Presidents may henceforward send recommendation for first and second initiation to whichever of these eleven representatives are nearest their temple. After considering the recommendation, these representatives may accept the devotee as an initiated disciple of Srila Prabhupad"
(July 9th, 1977 directive)
Hence, although the 11 were only "named to initiate" as rtviks, they falsely acted as diksa gurus.
The paper states that the subject of who would initiate after Srila Prabhupada's physical departure was "seriously broached" and "eventually discussed" with Srila Prabhupada only "quite late in the day". And that, in response, Srila Prabhupada stressed "geography" as much as anything else. Therefore, the paper accepts:
a) That Srila Prabhupada did not even directly address, never mind give orders for, who would initiate after his physical departure, until the very end;
b) And then Srila Prabhupada did not recommend diksa gurus but rtviks – for the issue of "geography" can have no relevance to a bona fide diksa guru who cannot be restricted based on "zones". However, geographical considerations can and do apply in the use of "rtviks" who would initiate on behalf of Srila Prabhupada, as was proven in the previous section.
Thus, the paper contradicts the myth that Srila Prabhupada had always ordered his disciples to become diksa gurus "from the very beginning", and that he had ever recommended that his disciples initiate as diksa guru successors after his physical departure.
There are a few statements from Srila Prabhupada – such as the letter quoted above – where Srila Prabhupada cautions his disciples that they must at least wait until after his physical departure before becoming diksa gurus. The paper correctly explains that these statements were made only to "throw cold water" on the "ambitions" of those desiring to be guru. This contradicts the myth that such cautionary statements were actually Srila Prabhupada authorising successor diksa gurus! Indeed, in the previous section, we saw the paper admit this could never be the case since Srila Prabhupada did not even address the question until the very end.
The paper offers the following quote as evidence:
"But sometimes, if a spiritual master is not properly authorized, and only on his own initiative becomes a spiritual master, he may be carried away by an accumulation of wealth and large numbers of disciples."
(The Nectar of Devotion, Chapter 14)
The above quote speaks of a guru who is "not properly authorized", being "carried away" by an "accumulation of wealth or a large number of followers". Indeed, many GBC gurus have been "carried away" in this fashion as the appalling "fall-down" statistics of GBC gurus attest. Therefore, the paper's own evidence proves that the GBC guru system creates gurus who are not "properly authorized". Therefore, the whole GBC guru system itself must be "not properly authorized", since it is responsible for creating such "not properly authorized" gurus.
The paper accepts the GBC guru system is not given in sastra. This is ironic considering we are continually told by ISKCON leaders that it is the system wherein rtviks were "named to initiate" by Srila Prabhupada, that is not sastric. But it is admitted that it is the GBC guru system which replaced the "geographic" rtvik system Srila Prabhupada gave, that actually has no sastric basis!
The paper concludes by saying of the GBC guru system – in which gurus are made via other devotees voting if they have any "objection" to a person becoming a guru – that:
But the rationale for any activity in ISKCON is that it is "right" due to having received direct authorisation from Srila Prabhupada, since he is ISKCON's Acarya and Supreme Authority. The rationale is not that ISKCON can do anything as long as we can argue "who can say its wrong"! But, as we have documented in this article, since the GBC paper has been unable to offer any authority from Srila Prabhupada for the GBC's guru system, this is all it can weakly offer for it.
Yet again the GBC has attempted to achieve one thing – justifying the GBC guru system – but ended up proving the exact opposite: that it is not authorized by Srila Prabhupada!
Please chant: Hare Krishna, Hare Krishna, Krishna, Krishna, Hare, Hare,
Hare Rama, Hare Rama, Rama, Rama, Hare, Hare. And be Happy!