1

Autumn 2007

As stated in the BTP Special Issue (proof 6), the GBC had withdrawn their position paper on how they were authorised by Srila Prabhupada to act as diksa gurus, On My Order Understood, because they accepted it contained "lies".  It was this paper, that The Final Order, the IRM's position paper, defeated, and the GBC officially withdrawing this paper, merely confirmed this defeat:

"RESOLVED: "On My Order-Understood" is replaced as official GBC policy by the following statement: The GBC officially accepts the following conclusions about continuing the disciplic succession: […] the GBC concludes that Srila Prabhupada intended his disciples to become "regular Gurus" after he physically departed.
[GBC Resolution 409, 2004]

The entire paper was replaced only with the paper's conclusion, with all the evidence offered to support this conclusion (that Srila Prabhupada can be replaced as ISKCON's diksa Guru) simply removed; evidence for which the paper had relied entirely on the May 28th, 1977 conversation. We have now discovered that the GBC were forced to withdraw the paper after agreeing with an analysis of the paper and the May 28th conversation given by HH Jayadvaita Swami ("JS") in an e-mail dated December 13th, 2003. This analysis is reproduced in the tinted panels, with JS's quotes from the paper itself prefixed by ">".
 

Load of bull

>“Srila Prabhupada said he

> would give his ‘order’. . . “ 

Oh, bull! What Srila Prabhupada said was, “Because in my presence one should not become guru, so on my behalf, on my order... Amara ajnaya guru haya. Be actually guru, but by my order.”
How does that equal “I will give my order”?       

So the GBC accept that Srila Prabhupada did not state he will give any order for diksa gurus, and it is “bull” to claim otherwise.
 

No order

>When Srila Prabhupada was

>asked who would initiate after

>his physical departure he

>stated he would “recommend”

>and give his “order” to some of

>his disciples who would

>initiate on his behalf during

>his lifetime and afterwards as

>“regular gurus,” whose

>disciples would be Srila

>Prabhupada’s grand-disciples. 

Again, this is what we might reasonably conclude from what Srila Prabhupada stated. But it is not directly what he stated.”       

Srila Prabhupada did not order the ritviks (officiating priests) to become “regular gurus” and initiate their own disciples. 
 

Never says it

Srila Prabhupada never quite comes out and says:

“I select some of you to take up the service of initiating new disciples,” does he? Yes, I agree it’s implicit.  

Again, Srila Prabhupada authorising ritviks to turn into diksa gurus is at best “implicit”, meaning it is not Srila Prabhupada’s order but the GBC’s interpretation.
 

Jive talking

What he “recommended” some disciples to do was “to act as officiating acaryas.”

(TKG: “Is that called rtvik-acarya?”
SP: “Rtvik, yes.”) (from May 28th conversation).

Now, I agree that what His Divine Grace intended by this was that these rtviks, after his departure, would initiate disciples on their own and that this is implicit in the conversation. But then, say so, for crying out loud. Don’t try to jive me …  

Again, Srila Prabhupada never stated that the ritviks would become diksa gurus, but rather it is assumed that it is “implicit” that this was what was “intended”.  
 

Only named ritviks

> “After Srila Prabhupada named

> some disciples to initiate. . . " 

This is a finesse. To initiate whom? In context (events in July 1977), the only straightforward answer is “To initiate people who would then become Srila Prabhupada’s disciples.” 

The only persons actually ordered were ritviks, and not gurus. 
 

Wishful fabrication

>”Thus, by delegating that duty

>to the GBC, Srila Prabhupada

>personally detailed the

>procedure for increasing the

>number of initiating guru. 

Is this an outright fabrication or not? That Srila Prabhupada “personally detailed the procedure for increasing the number of initiating guru[s]” is something we can only wish. Or falsely tell the Society he did.”  

JS states that Srila Prabhupada never gave the GBC a procedure for increasing the number of initiating gurus, and to say otherwise is just a fabrication. (This, however, did not stop JS from relying on the GBC “increasing the number of initiating gurus” to become a GBC voted-in initiating guru himself, or from allowing his own disciple, HH Kadamba Kanana Swami, to also become a GBC voted-in guru!)
 

Playing games with the truth

“Again, what I object to is that the GBC resolution takes what it wishes us to conclude from the conversation, turns it into a crystal-clear statement, and then tells us that Srila Prabhupada made it.

This, to me, is “playing games with the truth.”

The GBC’s paper was simply pretending that Srila Prabhupada had said what the GBC wished he had said.
 

Conclusion

This is an amazing admission by the GBC, as their guru program is based on the ritviks appointed by Srila Prabhupada ceasing to act in this capacity because they were supposedly ordered in the May 28th conversation to transmogrify into diksa gurus (Modifications 'A' and 'B' of The Final Order).  The GBC have now accepted JS's arguments that the May 28th conversation contains no order to this effect, and that their abandonment of Srila Prabhupada's ritvik system is based only on their mind-reading what Srila Prabhupada supposedly "implicitly intended".  Since the active principle in spiritual life is the order of the spiritual master (C.c.  Adi-lila, 12:10), it follows from this GBC admission that their guru program is unauthorised, and thus the ritvik system it displaced must be immediately re-instituted in ISKCON. 

The very fact that the GBC had withdrawn their position paper and offered no alternative detailing how Srila Prabhupada authorised them to be diksa gurus was in itself enough to render their position defeated.  That the GBC now accept that this lack of a position is due entirely to a lack of evidence, ensures this defeat is now established as a permanent historical fact.