Back To Prabhupada, Issue 43, Spring 2014
s part of his potted GBC history, BAD also claims:
"Frankly, as a member of the GBC since 1987, excluding me, they tend to be pretty cautious, kind, gentle people, actually. [...] But my experience is the GBC tends to be pretty lenient, and tries to work things out again and again and again."
Again, let us test BAD's claims against the reality.
The GBC are "kind, gentle and lenient" when it comes to the issue of child abuse. This leniency towards child abuse is reflected in GBC resolution 407, 2006, which allows those convicted of child abuse to still visit ISKCON temples. They only have to abide by certain restrictions while visiting. Even then, such restrictions can be waived if there are "extenuating circumstances". This culture of leniency has meant that persons found guilty by ISKCON of having participated in child abuse, such as Dhanurdhara Swami (ISKCON Central Office of Child Protection decision dated 28/10/99), and ex-guru Bhavananda Dasa (ISKCON Central Office of Child Protection decision dated 1/7/2000) are not only welcome to attend ISKCON temples; but in the case Bhavananda Dasa, even hold a very important leadership position in the Mayapur project. GBC member Hari Vilas Dasa explains the GBC leniency towards the child abuse of GBC-authorised guru Dhanurdhara Swami:
"To complicate matters, Dhanurdara Maharaja is supported by prominent members of the GBC and the movement. Those members who support him and have effectively stopped the hand of justice from acting or the rule of law are also implicated in the unimaginable horror and evil perpetrated by Dhanurdara Maharaja and others involved in the gurukula molestation and abuse. [...] Dhanurdara Maharaja and others with the complicity of ISKCON leaders acted like Putana in the very place where she tried to kill Krishna 5000 years before. He spiritually destructed helpless children who were placed under his guidance for protection and spiritual training. In my estimation, this is pure evil when the preceptor in the garb of a sannyasi is the torturer. The evil continues when the torturer is protected and his due punishment and rehabilitation is mitigated by powerful friends".
(Hari Vilas Dasa, GBC member, 17/6/06)
The GBC's "kind, gentle and lenient" attitude towards those who have directly committed child abuse may be contrasted with their approach to those who merely believe that Srila Prabhupada is the guru of ISKCON. Though child abusers are still welcome to visit ISKCON temples, those who are believers in Srila Prabhupada's guru position (which the GBC labels "rtvik initiation theory") are banned outright:
"The GBC hereby declares that the posthumous rtvik initiation theory is a dangerous philosophical deviation. It is therefore totally prohibited in ISKCON. [...] No ISKCON devotee shall advocate or support its practice. (GBC Resolution 1990-73) It is the desire of the local ISKCON, UK Charity Board of Directors, chaired by His Holiness Sivarama Swami, that I strictly uphold the above mandate, and hence this letter. They have obliged me to ban all persons who advocate, assist, organise or help finance posthumous rtvik theories from coming to Bhaktivedanta Manor."
(Banning letter issued by ISKCON UK Headquarters Bhaktivedanta Manor)
Thus, the GBC's desire to hold on to power as guru successors to Srila Prabhupada is so strong, that those who merely do not believe in their guru position are subject to harsher treatment than those who have actually committed child abuse.
In concluding his "history" of the GBC, BAD states:
"The GBC should not be, is not supposed to be, and to my observation is not a bureaucracy. [...] Prabhupada says they have to be acarya-like, they have to be deep philosophers".
Yet, the very GBC paper which the IRM's The Final Order ("TFO") defeated, had to be withdrawn (GBC resolution 409, 2004), because, as GBC member Sivarama Swami ("SRS") explains, rather than containing deep philosophy, it was full of lies:
"Jayadvaita Swami has been trying unsuccessfully to bring up the lies in this GBC paper to the GBC's attention for over 7 years. It is embarrassing to have as our official ISKCON paper something that stretches the truth and contains poor logic [...] Our official papers should be limited to honest and straightforward writings rather than what we wish the truth was."
(SRS, "'On My Order' Understood" Revision, Minutes AGM, 17/2/04)
Due to this inability to offer any deep philosophy, the GBC then replaced this paper with a simple statement of belief rather than any philosophical explanation. Rather, as we noted in the previous article, whenever the GBC has attempted to philosophically address the issues raised by TFO, they have only ended up contradicting their official position while agreeing with TFO!
As BAD states in the last section, Srila Prabhupada required that the GBC should be "acarya-like":
"Rather, one who is competent, he can be selected to act by the board of the GBC. [...] They must be all ideal acarya-like. In the beginning we have done for working. Now we should be very cautious. Anyone who is deviating, he can be replaced."
(Srila Prabhupada Conversation with GBC, 28/5/77)
But, as our exposi of BAD's bad GBC history over the previous 2 pages demonstrates, the GBC are nowhere near acarya-like, but rather:
a) Have been responsible for introducing deviations in ISKCON;
b) Continue to allow deviations to occur in ISKCON;
c) Their main priority is to allow their members to hold on to power as gurus, even though they are unable to justify such a position philosophically.
Return to IRM Homepage