May 7, 1999 - The following are extracts from a letter sent by H.H. Jayapataka Maharaja to all his disciples, dated 24th March, 1999 The extracts shall be enclosed by speech marks, thus " ", with our comments following underneath.

"I would like to explain to you something about the new GBC resolutions which are a big change in ISKCON, at least in relation to how we have been doing things. I want you to be clear about my understanding and my dedication to following the GBC. I agree fully with many of the decisions, and particularly with the principles they are meant to fulfil."

Since Maharaja only agrees 'fully' with 'many' of the decisions, there obviously are some decisions he does not agree with either fully or at all.

So in that way he is not much different to us. We also agree with 'many' GBC decisions. The only difference is that when WE disagree with other decisions we get expelled. If you do not believe me, let all the TP's who do not agree with the GBC on the 'ritvik' issue, state this disagreement, and see what happens!

"There was a lot of confusion after Srila Prabhupada's physical departure, or samadhi, and in the wake of that, we, the members of GBC, believed many things supposedly said by Srila Prabhupada which later turned out to be inaccurate."

This totally destroys the argument that Srila Prabhupada's 'best men' knew what Srila Prabhupada wanted. If there was 'a lot of confusion', and the GBC believed 'many' things inaccurately regarding what Srila Prabhupada was supposed to have told them regarding the issue of future initiations, then:

The GBC could also be mistaken about the 'ritvik' system;

Maybe now, following Maharaja's frank admission, they will avoid putting forward this line of argumentation, and just stick to presenting verifiable facts and evidence.

"We were told Srila Prabhupada "appointed" us to be gurus and it as taken by many as some kind of certification that we were on the platform of paramahamsas or something. Later we realized that His Divine Grace named us to be authorized to fulfill his orders to act as spiritual masters. It didn't mean that Srila Prabhupada said we were automatically by definition paramahamsas."

Well if the idea that they were 'appointed' is incorrect, then why do the GBC still peddle their 'minutes' of the May 28th discussion with Srila Prabhupada as some sort of evidence, when these 'minutes' state that Srila Prabhupada had just 'appointed' them? Further following Maharaja's frank admission above, why do the GBC insist that these 'minutes' are any kind of evidence at all, since it is now admitted by maharaja, that they were 'confused' 'a lot', and believed 'many' incorrect things. Maharaja is giving excellent reasons for having such hearsay evidence thrown out, especially when it specifically contains one of the inaccuracies Maharaja has admitted to - viz. that they were 'appointed' as gurus.

Maharaja has finally admitted what the IRM has been saying all along - that authorisation for diksa guru-ship is only given by Srila Prabhupada specifically NAMING persons. Maharaja admits that it was Srila Prabhupada's NAMING THAT authorised them to be diksa Guru:

'His Divine Grace NAMED us to TO BE AUTHORISED to fulfill his orders to act as spiritual masters'.

Maharaja is admitting that ONLY if Srila Prabhupada specifically NAMED persons, where they authorised to 'fulfill his orders to act as spiritual master'. Thus the GBC argument that there was ALREADY a 'standing' authorisation via the - 'amara ajnaya' verse, the 'many' times that Srila Prabhupada stated 'become guru', and the letter to 'Tusta Krishna Das and the 'law of disciplic succession' - has been blown out of the water by Maharaja himself, who agrees with the IRM that authorisation comes from SPECIFIC naming of individuals to act in the diksa guru capacity. Maharaja has thus contradicted the GBC explanation that the May 28th conversation was simply the -RECONFIRMING of an authorisation that was ALREADY there.

Thank you Maharaja. At least we are now agreed that at least until May 28th, 1977, NO ONE in ISKCON was authorised to act as diksa guru and 'fulfill his orders to act as spiritual master'. Thus all that is required now is to demonstrate that the May 28th conversation ALSO does not give this authorisation for diksa guruship, and with the kind help of Maharaja, the GBC's case is demolished, and the debate is over. No one was authorised to act as diksa Guru, and the July 9th directive stands.

(And as has been shown many times, the May 28th tape only gives authorisation for diksa guruship 'WHEN I Order'. The persons NAMED are only done so as ritviks - the only NAMING that ever went on was in the July 7th conversation and the July 9th letter. Here ONLY ritviks are mentioned, and there is NO mention of diksa guruship. There is no record to date of any NAMING being done in connection with diksa guruship. Maybe this record will mysteriously be produced by the GBC in court.)

"His Divine Grace was giving some of his disciples a chance to try to perform the devotional service of being a regular diksa (initiating) guru."

Just in case there was any mistake, Maharaja has reconfirmed the SPECIFIC authorisation paradigm advanced by the IRM - Maharaja states that Srila Prabhupada was GIVING SOME of his disciples the CHANCE to perform the devotional service of being a regular diksa guru. The word 'giving' is in the present tense and means that such authorisation had not already been GIVEN. The word 'SOME' again states that only the hand-picked '11' were authorised by Srila Prabhupada. And the word 'chance' means that Srila Prabhupada needed to activate his specific authorisation NOW in order for the devotees to be ALLOWED to 'perform the devotional service of being a diksa guru'.

Please contrast the above statements from Maharaja with the common view promulgated that 'EVERYONE' had ALREADY been GIVEN authorisation to act as diksa Guru - not that SOME were BEING given the CHANCE on May 28th.

"It isn't some kind of magical transformation, that by Srila Prabhupada giving an authorization to perform the guru service, suddenly, all those asked to do this devotional service have transformed into fully realized souls even if they don't follow Srila Prabhupada."

Here Maharaja confirms for the 3rd time, that specific authorisation by Srila Prabhupada is required to act as diksa guru. And we all know how stressing something 3 times makes it irrevocable:

"So as soon as one thing is three times stressed, that means final."
(SP Bg. Lecture, 27/11/68, Los Angeles)

Again Maharaja states that in order to act as diksa Guru, it will require Srila Prabhupada 'giving' AN authorisation - this is specific; and the individuals concerned must have been 'ASKED' to act in this way, and that it is only 'those' who are 'asked' in this way, that have been authorised.

This admission as well as destroying the GBC's case, will be very helpful to us in responding to the GBC reply to our petition in the current court case, since the GBC reply relies on promoting the idea that the July 9th directive is superceded by the idea that disciples will simply 'assume' the role of diksa guru, and NOT that they actually need to be SPECIFICALLY authorised so as to be given the CHANCE to do this by being NAMED by Srila Prabhupada, as Maharaja has correctly pointed out.

We are surprised that the GBC are prepared to allow themselves to be continually embarassed in this manner.

"By carrying the "divya-jnana" that the spiritual master received from Srila Prabhupada and giving it, unaltered and pure, to the disciples, the spiritual master is able to deliver the disciples who carefully follow those instructions. Actually it is Lord Krishna who delivers the disciples and He uses the spiritual master as His external transparent medium. That is the mystic opulence of devotional service. I am trying sincerely and humbly to give to you the divya jnana that I received from Srila Prabhupada."

Maharaja has many disciples he has probably only met once or twice, and he has never written to or spoken to.

Also he is contradicted here by Ajamila Das, who currently on COM is acting as the main spokesmen for DEFENDING Maharaja and the GBC from the IRM and their court case:

True, Srila Prabhupada's books will impart divya jnana for the next 10,000 years and in that way Srila Prabhupada will be the predominent siksa guru for all ISKCON Vaisnvasas.
(Ajamila Das, Com text 2293998, 6th May)

The whole thing is becoming a farce. The more they open their mouths the more they shoot themselves in the foot. Please note this comedy of errors:

1) 1978 - the GBC give us one theory - that only '11' are 'appointed' as diksa gurus.

2) 1985 - Ravindra Svarupa turns this on its head with his paper 'Under My Order' - where he states EVERYONE has been authorised to be diksa Guru.

3) 1995 - 'Gurus and Initiation in ISKCON is published by the GBC', which then semi-resurrects the '11' had been 'appointed' idea.

4) 1997 - 'Disciple of My Disciple' contradicts 'Gurus and Initiation in ISKCON'.

5) 1998 - 'Prabhupada's Order' contradicts 'Disciple of My Disciple'.

6) 1999 - HH Jayapataka Maharaja contradicts 'Prabhupada's Order'.

7) 1999 - Ajamila Das contradicts BOTH 'Gurus and Initiation in ISKCON' and HH Jayapataka Maharaja.

Need we go on. And they expect a Judge to take all of this seriously in the face of a clear signed directive sent to the whole movement shortly before Srila Prabhupada departed!

"Actually the scriptures mention that the guru can be called by such names as Visnupada, Prabhupada, Acharyadeva. Nonetheless the GBC felt that being attached to this particular scriptural instruction has been counter-productive as many devotees felt that it was artificial to accept such names. [...] At first I was quite upset because this was not according to Srila Prabhupada's instructions given in his books. [...] Actually, as soon as we accepted the position of a spiritual master it became the practice to have a name like that since it was mentioned in Srila Prabhupada's books.

Although in sastra using such names for a guru are authorized, but in a society like ISKCON there should be some approved procedure or etiquette for doing so. [...] Considering the time, place and circumstances we are in there is some merit in this decision although it apparently contravenes a direct instruction of Srila Prabhupada given in his books."

Here Maharaja DIRECTLY states that the GBC are not acting in line with Guru OR sastra. We are always reminded that everything must be in line with Guru and sastra and sadhu. Well Maharaja is admitting that the GBC on this point are NOT in line with Guru and sastra. Of course he has given 'practical reasons' to justify this, but one can give reasons to justify anything. We are always taught everything MUST be in line with 'Guru, sadhu and sastra'. Maharaja is also supporting this decision in saying that 'Guru and sastra' can be overuled by 'time, place and circumstance, since in doing this there is 'merit' in the decision of the GBC. Thus as well as pointing out the deviation of the GBC body, Maharaja is also endorsing this deviation, and proposes that this deviation can be supported on the basis of 'time, place and circumstance', which is also a bogus idea. By this logic one could overule any order of the Guru and any sastric injunction.

"But it is Srila Prabhupada's instructions that we should all cooperate with the GBC. The system is that if you don't agree with something then you can make an appeal to them and hopefully they will give you a proper reply and listen to whatever your concerns are."

Maharaja is stating here that 'hopefully' the GBC will give you a PROPER reply, and LISTEN to our concerns. Now in our case never mind 'listening, or even getting a 'proper' reply, we were simply EXPELLED with NO reply to our 'No Change' presentation that was 100% based on Srila Prabhupada's instructions, when we appealed to the GBC this year. Maharaja himself is hinting at this sort of inappropriate behaviour from the GBC by stating 'hopefully' the GBC will act correctly. Thus putting together all the facts that Maharaja has already revealed to us:

  1. That Maharaja himself does not agree with all GBC decisions.
  2. That the GBC were CONFUSED A LOT on the Guru issue, and believed MANY false things regarding what Srila Prabhupada was supposed to have said.
  3. That the GBC are WRONG now in arguing that EVERYONE already had a blanket authorisation to take up the role of acting as diksa guru.
  4. That Maharaja himself disagrees with GBC supporters who state that Srila Prabhupada's books are giving Divya Jnana.
  5. That the GBC have acted against Guru and sastra.
  6. That the GBC may not always respond appropriately to devotee's concerns

Then add to that the continually changing contradictory nonsense the GBC have put forward since 1978, as revealed above, and that they simply EXPELLED us for putting forward an alternative view, which was based 100% on Srila Prabhupada's instructions.