In QNN 22, we ran a story about GBC member and voted-in guru Param Gati Swami (“PGS”) and his predilection for dancing at rave parties, and showed a photograph of him engaging in this activity while dressed as a “raver”.
We stated:
“How can those who are supposed to be self-realised ‘as good-as-God’ gurus, representing Srila Prabhupada and connecting us to Krishna, be any of these things, if they do not even know the most basic rules of behaviour?”
In his defence, PGS argued:
“My intention, when I participated in these programs was to be more close to the devotees, “less distant”, specially of the young generation.”
Now once again BTP, empowered by Krishna to defend Srila Prabhupada from the guru hoaxers, has been proven to be prescient. As the following GBC resolution demonstrates, PGS came just a little too “close to the devotees”:
“The Governing Body Commission of ISKCON wishes to announce that Param Gati
Swami has resigned from the GBC and will no longer accept disciples for initiation. The GBC has determined, following a careful investigation, that Param Gati Swami recently made sexual advances to a male devotee. The man did not welcome these advances and matters advanced no further.
In pursuance of GBC direction, Param Gati Swami will be staying in Mayapur for the next year for a directed course of counseling and spiritual restoration under GBC supervision. Those who are his initiated disciples should approach their local temple or regional authorities, as well as other trusted senior devotees, for personal guidance and direction. By virtue of strong association with good devotees and a deep relationship with our Founder-acarya Srila Prabhupada, they will be able to overcome any impediment and continue to advance on the path of devotional service.”
(GBC Executive Committee, 2009)
1) It may be noted that though PGS has been stripped of his GBC and guru position, he is still allowed to continue as a sannyasi (renunciant) and that he is now undergoing a process of “spiritual restoration”, implying that he could once again be reinstated as a “good-as-God” guru. If making sexual advances to young devotees under one’s care is compatible with sannyasa status, just as having an affair with a married disciple was in the case of Satsvarupa Das “Goswami” (see BTP 19), we wonder what exactly one has to do before the morally bankrupt GBC will actually rescind one’s sannyasa position?
2) It is also stated that if PGS’s disciples cultivate a “deep relationship” with Srila Prabhupada they will be able to “continue to advance on the path of devotional service”. But then why would one require to get initiated by a GBC guru such as PGS in the first place? Rather, it must be Srila Prabhupada who is the bona fide Guru with whom one can have “a deep relationship” as a direct disciple and thereby “advance on the path of devotional service”, just as Srila Prabhupada himself teaches:
“First we must find a bona fide guru, establish our relationship with him, and act accordingly. Then our life will be successful, for the guru can enlighten the sincere disciple who is in darkness.”
(The Science of Self-Realization, chapter 2)
By also directing these disciples to take “personal guidance and direction” from all other senior devotees in ISKCON, the GBC resolution also confirms Srila Prabhupada’s statement that only he is the initiator guru, while everyone else in ISKCON – including the GBC themselves - are simply to act as teachers or instructor gurus:
“The GBC should all be the instructor gurus. I am the ini tiator guru, and you should be the instructor guru by teaching what I am teaching and doing what I am doing. ”
(Srila Prabhupada Letter, August 4th, 1975)
Thus the IRM’s position that Srila Prabhupada is the only authorized and bona fide diksa (initiating) Guru in ISKCON is once again vindicated, as the GBC are again forced to admit.
