25TH APRIL 2000 This year's GBC resolutions have their usual mix of contradictions and absurdities. Though being mindful of that, this years seem to be the shortest ever on record, with only around 40 resolutions passed. It seems the GBC themselves, surveying their rapidly ever-shrinking empire, realise that there is just not that much to say anymore. We will comment on some of these resolutions here:
It now seems to be an annual tradition for the GBC to apologise to the many different groups and individuals that they have mistreated in the past. They have already done the Gurukulis, Pradyumna prabhu (twice) amongst others, and this year it was the turn of the women: "THEREFORE IT IS RESOLVED THAT: 501 [STATEMENT] 1. The members of the Governing Body Commission of the International Society for Krishna Consciousness offer their humble apologies to the women of Srila Prabhupada's society who, because of our own shortcomings and those of the Society, have suffered due to a lack of protection, support, facility and appreciation for their service, devotion and vast contributions to the Society, and ..." This raises the following points: a. Is there any group left the GBC have NOT mistreated? b. If this continues, maybe the GBC will be apologising to the ritviks before long as well, since they seem to want to apologise to anyone who will listen?
Due to the overwhelming pressure put on the GBC by the success of the IRM, the GBC always tries to pass a resolution to appease those who maybe sympathetic to the Ritvik position. This year was no exception: "Section 600: INTERNAL ISKCON Srila Prabhupada's Siksa Position 601 [ISKCON LAW] A duly initiated disciple in ISKCON can accept Srila Prabhupada, the founder-acarya of ISKCON, as his principle siksa-guru. During his devotional life, he may experience that he derives more spiritual inspiration from Srila Prabhupada's books and vani than from his own diksa-guru." This raises the following points: a. If Srila Prabhupada can give MORE spiritual inspiration than the 'living' diksa guru, then how can the 'living guru' be a necessity, since the GBC admit that he may not even give the same level of spiritual inspiration as a 'non-physical' guru? b. According to the GBC Srila Prabhupada can give lots of 'spiritual inspiration' via his books and vani, but he does not possess the spiritual potency to give diksa. For that we still need the 'non-spiritually inspiring' 'living' guru! c. All these attempts at moving closer and closer to the IRM position, raises the absurdity that every year the GBC have continued to 'deviate' towards a position that they claim is the most deviant!
Having imposed a bogus Guru system on the long-suffering devotees for over 23 years, you would have thought that the GBC would at least be sure that the Gurus we have are actually Gurus. Unfortunately not. This year the GBC have decided that our Gurus are so advanced that they need a committee to evaluate them for highly esoteric qualifications such as whether or not they are: a. Chanting a minimum of sixteen rounds per day and having a visible sadhana, b. Responsibly engaged in his service within the Society,
c.
Has an appropriate understanding of the siddhanta of
Krishna consciousness as given by Srila Prabhupada They have also decided that maybe now it would be a good idea to:
"B.
Establish committees to research and deal with the philosophy and
practical issues concerning gurus within ISKCON."
We have all heard about 'better late than never' but this is
ridiculous. It also raises the obvious question that how do we know
that the members who are on this 'Guru Services Committee'
have themselves reached these highly advanced states of realisation
that they are checking for in the Gurus?
Though we are supposed to follow the GBC because all their position papers are according to 'Guru, sadhu and sastra', very often (i.e. usually every year), they realise that maybe their papers are not according to 'Guru, sadhu and sastra' after all, and that instead they need to be 'reviewed and reassessed' to see if they are 'still correct' : "Disciples Initiating in the Presence of Their Spiritual Master 610 [ACTION ORDER] A subcommittee shall be formed by the newly appointed GBC Guru Services Committee to review and reassess the GBC Law 6.3.2 on Srila Prabhupada's grand disciples initiating as well as the GBC position paper on disciples initiating in the physical presence of their diksa-guru." Please note we were expecting this 'review' for a long time since the GBC position paper in question has given the IRM some of their best arguments. For instance the paper states famously (as quoted in 'The Final Order'):
"In
Logic Later Statements Take Precedence Over Earlier Statements". The paper also states that the 'law of disciplic succession' as given in the letter to Tusta Krishna Dasa, and which is used as the GBC's main evidence against the IRM position, is not really a law after all! We await this review with interest. If they do nothing then their position remains hopelessly flawed, and if they change, then that proves that as little as 5 years ago they were in complete illusion and have been forced to change by the IRM papers.
It also seems that our Sannyasis are very keen to make sure that the Grhasta asrama is continually receiving a healthy influx from their number, just in case we run short of householders. In the meantime devastation is wreaked upon the many unfortunate disciples:
"Sri
Padambhuja Das 613 [ACTION ORDER] 1. Sri Padambhuja Das (formerly
known as Bhakti Abhay Caran Swami) shall not be privileged to wear
saffron cloth and shall be referred to by his initiated name given
by Srila Prabhupada. He is indefinitely suspended as a spiritual
master, therefore, he cannot initiate nor maintain an absolute siksa
position in relation to his disciples and he must follow other
aspects of suspension as per ISKCON Law. In the meantime we are told to make do with Srila Prabhupada - but if we had decided to accept Srila Prabhupada BEFORE our Guru falls down then we are labelled the biggest deviants ever known in Vaisnava history!
In their desperation for money the GBC are not beyond telling lies to fill up their coffers. In a cynical ploy to extract money from Indian temples, the GBC have decided to scare them into thinking that the IRM court cases propose a threat to their properties and hence their livelihoods:
"WHEREAS, the ritviks are presenting a dangerous concocted
philosophy and we stand to lose ISKCON properties if we do not
defend with the best legal help. The truth, as the GBC very well know, is that the court cases do not involve ANY temple properties at all. The cases relate only to the manner in which the Guru system is operated by the GBC. Therefore it is impossible for any properties to be 'lost' since the individual temples are not subject to any court action. The only thing that could possibly be 'lost' as a result of the court cases is the diksa gurus flying into the temples and siphoning off tons of money in Guru daksina - money which otherwise would have been going to the deities.
The GBC also never cease to amaze us with their hopes for regulation of the Gurus. They now claim that they are going to get a full declaration from all GBC's and Gurus of all their assets and funds:
"IT
IS RESOLVED THAT: 614 [LAW] 1. All GBC Body members, gurus,
sannyasis, international project directors, Regional Secretaries and
Temple Presidents are required to file annual personal financial
reports to the Executive Committee of the GBC Body and, where
requested, their national executive body. These reports shall
contain a standard Income Statement and Balance Sheet (to be
reported in a Quickbooks or other standard software format). The
report should also include a list of all ISKCON related bank
accounts (including account names, signers and balance) for which
these individuals are a signer or have some control. All guru-daksina
must be included in this report. We await with bated breath this 'annual report' and no doubt will not be surprised at all to discover that most ISKCON Gurus are very poor, and have no bank accounts in Switzerland. After all the declarations will no doubt be totally honest and fully comprehensive!
The GBC are also very confident at how all those who have pledged money will actually come through with these commitments. We are told that the Child Protection Office should be receiving a quarter of a million dollars for the coming year:
"1.
US$15,000 of the GBC annual assessment funds will be allocated to
the Child Protection Office in the year 2000.
We remember how this time last year the same Child Protection Office
was also confidently pledged a million dollars, no doubt to try and
appease the Gurukuli lawsuits. We wish the Child Protection Office
the best of luck in receiving this money, and assume that they will
be more successful in receiving these funds than they were in
receiving the 'million that never was'.
If you would like to receive any of the back issues of the
Newsletter please let me know. |
