by Krishnakant

The above phrase at the beginning of the ‘Appt Tape’ has caused a division of opinion in terms of whether it refers to the ritvik or Srila Prabhupada.  What I intend to do here primarily is NOT discuss to WHOM the reference ‘Guru’ applies, but instead discuss WHAT the word ‘Guru’ means.  By understanding what the word ‘Guru’ here means, not only will it clear up the issue of whom it must REFER to, but more importantly it will illustrate clearly that it will be IMPOSSIBLE to reform the current guru system in ISKCON as long as we insist on continuing to associate the above phrase with the ritviks. 

The word Guru is used on the following occasions by Srila Prabhupada throughout the Appt tape.  

(9)   Srila Prabhupada:  He’s guru.  He’s guru.

(11 ) Srila Prabhupada: Yes.  That is formality.  Because in my presence one should not become guru,

(12)  so on my behalf.  On my order, amara ajnaya guru hana, be actually guru.  But by my order.

(25) Srila Prabhupada:  When I order you become guru, he becomes regular guru.

(26) That’s all.  He becomes disciple of my disciple.

Now certain persons have felt that the ritviks must be given some sort of limited guru status, but definitely not the diska guru status they have now.  This group uses the same evidence as the GBC to try and show that Srila Prabhupada did want the ritviks to be gurus - the references to the word guru in the Appt Tape, as given above. 

Let us for a second put aside the debate over WHOM the word ‘guru’ above refers to, and agree with the GBC and the ‘ritvik is a limited guru’ reform camp, that the phrase ‘He’s Guru’ DOES refer to the ritvik.

Now line 11 is the very NEXT statement from Srila Prabhupada after he has stated ‘He’s Guru, He’s Guru’.  Here he says - ‘Yes, that is a formality.  Because in my presence one should not become guru, so on my behalf’.  Later on Srila Prabhupada states that the guru is a ‘regular’ guru who has his own disciples, who will be Srila Prabhupada’s disciples.  Now let us look at the characteristics of these ‘gurus’: 

a)    They cannot initiate whilst the Spiritual master is still present;

b)   They are known as a ‘regular’ guru;

c)    They will initiate their own disciples who will become Srila Prabhupada’s grand-disciples;

Now these characteristics of the guru mentioned by Srila Prabhupada ARE clear, regardless of any debate over whom the words ‘He’s Guru’ in line 9 refers to.

Immediately on seeing this description, one can only conclude that the guru being referred to by Srila Prabhupada is a regular diksa guru just like Srila Prabhupada.  There is nothing here to indicate that Srila Prabhupada is actually speaking of some other entity, especially some quasi-diksa guru entity that he has never even described before.  Characteristic (a) in particular Srila Prabhupada has mentioned in other places when speaking of regular initiating diksa gurus.  In fact it is this characteristic that is the strongest evidence that the ‘guru’ referred to CANNOT be some ‘pancaratrika officiating’ guru, because such entities were allowed to operate and WERE operating even when Srila Prabhupada WAS PRESENT.  Thus these guru entities must be of a completely different nature, and not just CONTINUING to act in the same capacity that is mentioned in the July 9th letter.  Thus, these guru entities definitely CANNOT be the ‘ritvik’ entities who are mentioned in the July 9th letter, since the July 9th letter was meant for application during AND after Srila Prabhupada’s presence.  Thus then there would be NO connection between the July 9th letter and the ‘Appt Tape’ since the tape would be speaking of entities that could ONLY operate when Srila Prabhupada was NOT present, whilst the letter speaks of entities that can function freely both before and after Srila Prabhupada’s departure. 

[Further point a) is more evidence that the ‘He’s Guru’ could NOT be referring to the ritvik, since when SDG asks next - ‘But he does it on your behalf?’ - IF Srila Prabhupada HAD just referred to the ritvik, Srila Prabhupada’s answer would become thus:

“Yes, that is formality.  (Yes the GURU CAN act on my behalf)  Because in my presence on should not be guru.”

Thus Srila Prabhupada is saying that the ‘The guru CAN act on my behalf because in my presence he CANNOT be a guru!’.  This would just be a nonsensical contradiction] 

There is an argument put forward to contradict this picture:  

That when Srila Prabhupada speaks of his ‘presence’ he does NOT mean his ‘physical’ presence but his ‘spiritual’ presence.  Thus, Srila Prabhupada is actually saying that one must act ‘on his behalf’ ALWAYS, since the spiritual master is ALWAYS spiritually present. 

However, this makes no sense since the WHOLE conversation is about and has ONLY been initiated because of Srila Prabhupada’s impending lack of PHYSICAL presence:  

“Then our next question ...   WHEN YOU ARE NO LONGER WITH US”.  

If Srila Prabhupada was going to be speaking of his ‘spiritual’ presence, the conversation could not have even proceeded past this point since Srila Prabhupada would have just answered that ‘I am always going to be with you’.  In fact Srila Prabhupada answers the question in the context of his ‘physical presence’ and continues the discussion accepting SDG’s assumption that Srila Prabhupada WILL soon no longer be PHYSICALLY present.  To argue that he will then immediately start talking in terms that would have anyway rendered the whole conversation irrelevant to begin with makes no sense. 

So the references to the word ‘guru’ on the tape, speak ONLY of an entity:

a)    That is totally consistent with a normal diksa guru;

b)   Which can operate ONLY in the absence of the Spiritual master;

c)    That cannot have any connection with the entities referred to in the July 9th letter, which is describing an amphibious entity, that operates freely without change both pre and post samadhi.

d)   Further there is absolutely NO evidence on the tape SUPPORTING the proposition that the word ‘guru’ here must mean a ‘limited guru’ without any privileges. 

Some ‘limited guru’ advocates have argued that the very fact that Srila Prabhupada is ‘recommending’ the ritviks, is evidence supporting the notion that the ‘guru’ must be a ‘limited’ guru since Srila Prabhupada stated in reference to the Gaudiya Matha, that diksa gurus COULD NOT be APPOINTED.  Unfortunately, this is not true.  Srila Prabhupada NEVER stated this.  Srila Prabhupada ONLY states that SBS did NOT nominate a successor, not that he COULD NOT nominate a successor:

"They did not consider even with common sense that if Guru Maharaja wanted to appoint somebody as acarya, why did he not say?"
(RC Bombay, 76-08-16) ]

Now point c) above in itself demonstrates that Srila Prabhupada was speaking in the 3rd person in ‘He’s Guru, He’s Guru’, since the ‘Guru’ referred to is NOT the entity spoken of in the July 9th letter.  But if you are also arguing that the ritvik cannot go onto be a fully-fledged diksa guru, then points a), b) and d) totally seal the case.  Thus the GBC position only has one point against them; the ‘limited guru’ advocates have 4 points against them. 

However, leaving this aside the real point I want to demonstrate here is that for a ‘limited guru’ advocate to use the tape to argue his case is madness, since all the evidence ONLY proves that the tape is speaking of a normal diksa guru.  Thus once a ‘limited guru’ advocate accepts that ‘He’s Guru’ refers to the ritvik, he has stepped into a GBC trap that he cannot escape from, for he will subsequently then HAVE to accept that the guru is a normal fully fledged diksa guru.  So when a ‘limited guru’ advocate gets hope from the fact that ‘anyone’ he shows the transcript to will automatically assume that the ‘He’s Guru’ will refer to the ritvik, please beware, for there is no reason why the same person won’t ALSO think that the ‘Guru’ referred to is a normal guru, especially since the rest of the tape goes on to make that clear.  The one conclusion he definitely will NOT reach is that the ‘Guru’ referred to here is actually some quasi-guru entity, that Srila Prabhupada has never even ever spoken about before.  So to even contemplate going down this path is extremely dangerous, for as well being fallacious, it is also a path that will simply deliver us into the lap of the GBC.   

Please note in this paper I have tried to avoid giving arguments for why the ‘He’s Guru’ must be referring to Srila Prabhupada.  These are given more extensively in the paper ‘The Real Appointment Tape’.  Rather I have tried to concentrate on the nature of the ‘Guru’ referred to.  Though this exercise in itself has demonstrated that the ‘He’s Guru’ DOES refer to Srila Prabhupada, the real point it has highlighted is the futility of anyone trying to use the tape to try and change the current ISKCON guru system AND keep the ritviks with some guru status.  In fact it has shown to be highly dangerous, for it merely gives ammunition to the GBC to maintain the status quo, which is the very opposite of which the ‘limited guru’ advocates are trying to achieve. 

In addition, as an aside, we may note that there are two issues which the ‘limited guru advocates’ ignore that have led them into being tricked into thinking that the tape may support their thesis:  

1)    A complete dis-regard for the 3rd person paradigm.  Yet the irony is that in normal conversation, we understand it very well, that if someone is asked a question in the 3rd person, they normally answer in kind: 

e.g.   A reporter is interviewing a chief minister:

Now no one would think for one second that either the ‘He’ refers to the secretary, or that it is strange for the chief minister to answer in the 3rd person; yet when Srila Prabhupada does it on the tape we are mystified.  

2)    Trying to examine the tape in the first place to modify the letter.  Because in the beginning of the letter, it states that the letter is nothing but a written record of the tape: 

“Recently when all of the GBC members were with His Divine Grace in Vrndavana, Srila Prabhupada indicated that soon He would appoint ...”

How then can the TAPE MODIFY ITSELF ?