|
by Adridharana dasa
During the period of his physical
presence, Srila Prabhupada gave the blue-print for how ISKCON
was to operate. He personally established and gave all the
necessary standards, systems, processes, and teachings that
were to govern how ISKCON would run for the rest of its existence.
ISKCON was set up to run solely under the authority of Srila
Prabhupada. There was no authorisation for any change to be
made to the way he had instructed and set up ISKCON to run.
Thus there was to be a continuity between the way ISKCON ran
whilst he was physically present, and for the rest of ISKCON's
duration. Any deviation from this principle would have needed
express authority from Srila Prabhupada.
This principle
is well understood and accepted as axiomatic by members of
ISKCON. Examples of systems and standards set up for ISKCON
by Srila Prabhupada are: management by the GBC; book publishing
by the BBT; 16 rounds and regulative principles; the morning
program; Srila Prabhupada's books as the 'law books' etc.
etc. Since these things were set up by Srila Prabhupada specifically
for ISKCON, it is accepted by everyone that these things are
meant to endure throughout the life-time of ISKCON. No ISKCON
devotee would ever dare propose changes to these standards
given by Srila Prabhupada. Since every aspect of how ISKCON
should run was set out by Srila Prabhupada, managing the society
should be quite straightforward. There should be no need to
speculate over how to run things, but rather simply a preservation,
continuation and expansion of that which was already given
and established. Thus the standards and processes that were
personally set up and sanctioned by Srila Prabhupada, are
supposed to continue for the rest of the duration of ISKCON.
Let this be known as the 'NO CHANGE IN ISKCON PARADIGM,’
henceforward to be known as N.C.I.P.
(Henceforward
we will refer to that time period up until Srila Prabhupada’s
physical departure as 'pre- samadhi'; and conversely the time
period after Srila Prabhupada's physical departure for the
rest of ISKCON's duration as 'post-samadhi’).
N.C.I.P.
Enshrined By GBC Resolution
Thus, in theory
at least, ISKCON is governed by the N.C.I.P., with ISKCON's
governing body and members expected to maintain and apply
only those standards and practices directly given by Srila
Prabhupada. The very idea of change and speculation being
entirely antithetical to the purposes of ISKCON. From the
very beginning this principle, N.C.I.P., was enshrined within
ISKCON law:
"The GBC has
been established by His Divine Grace A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami
Prabhupada to represent Him in carrying out the responsibility
of managing the International Society for Krsna Consciousness
of which He is the Founder-Acarya and supreme authority. The
GBC accepts as its life & soul His divine instructions
and recognises that it is completely dependent on His mercy
in all respects. The GBC has no other function or purpose
other than to execute the instructions so kindly given by
His Divine Grace and preserve and spread His Teachings to
the world in their pure form." (Definition of GBC, Resolution
1, GBC minutes 1975, emphasis added)
This resolution
was passed specifically to set out and define exactly how
ISKCON would be managed, and was directly approved by Srila
Prabhupada. It specifies very clearly what the responsibilities
and boundaries would be for the GBC, who would be responsible
for running the society.
In running
ISKCON, the GBC:
1. Can only
implement instructions directly issued by Srila Prabhupada:
'The GBC has
no other function or purpose than to execute the instructions
so kindly given by His Divine Grace'
2. The GBC
must keep intact and apply only that which Srila Prabhupada
has taught:
'and preserve
and spread His Teachings to the world in their pure form.'
These being
the two key aspects of GBC governance, we can see the GBC
were intended as the natural guardian angels of the N.C.I.P.
Thus the GBC:
A) Cannot change anything already given by Srila Prabhupada;
B) Or introduce anything other than that already given by
Srila Prabhupada.
Items A) and
B) form the N.C.I.P., since the basis for what the GBC can
'manage' is only that which was given by Srila Prabhupada
pre-samadhi, and so we are dealing with the maintenance and
continuity of everything pre-samadhi into the post-samadhi
period - namely the N.C.I.P.
Evidence From
the Will
The N.C.I.P.
is reinforced by Srila Prabhupada's will:
2. Each temple
will be an ISKCON property and will be managed by three executive
directors. The system of management will continue as it is
now and there is no need of any change. (Srila Prabhupada's
Last Will and Testament)
So however
ISKCON was managed pre-samadhi, that was meant to continue
for the duration of ISKCON. This could hardly have been made
clearer: 'The system of management will continue as it is
now and there is no need of any change.'
Above we see
Srila Prabhupada directly spelling out the N.C.I.P.
It has been
argued that since the above sentence from the will appears
next to a sentence to do with a specific system for managing
temples, the above sentence can only be referring back to
this first sentence, and is thus not all encompassing. In
effect it is being argued Srila Prabhupada specially included
a clause for the exclusive protection of the following practise:
'Each temple will be an ISKCON property and will be managed
by three executive directors.'
This does not
make sense for a number of reasons:
1) The will
says 'The system of management' i.e. it is generic; and is
without any restrictions or referents. It does not say 'This
system of management' or ‘The aforementioned system
of management’. Thus the clause must refer to all systems
of management, not just the one about the three executive
directors.
2) If the ‘no
change’ clause only referred to the ‘executive
directors’ system, then this would imply any other system
could be changed or scrapped altogether. Indeed this would
leave the GBC themselves open to redundancy as the 'ultimate
managing authority' - as given in the first item of the will.
Surely then the GBC themselves would wholeheartedly support
the idea that the call for ‘no change’ must refer
to all systems of management., not just the principle of having
‘three executive directors’ for each temple.
3) Allowing
the 'no change' clause to be generally applicable makes it
consistent with what has already been demonstrated. That the
management of ISKCON must continue as it is and not be changed
- the N.C.I.P.
Thus the Will
merely reinforces the N.C.I.P., which had already been established
years before in the definition of the GBC personally approved
by Srila Prabhupada. In this way everything slots into place
without anomaly or inconsistency.
N.C.I.P.
Supported By the Books
Though the
above is sufficient in itself to establish N.C.I.P., further
supporting evidence is given by Srila Prabhupada's books.
It is accepted without dispute by all in ISKCON that Srila
Prabhupada's books are the 'lawbooks' for ISKCON, meant to
guide ISKCON for the whole of its duration, which could be
up to 10,000 years:
"If death takes
place, let it take here. So there is nothing to be said new.
Whatever I have to speak, I have spoken in my books. Now you
try to understand it and continue your endeavour. Whether
I am present or not present, it doesn't matter." (Arrival
Address, Vrindavan, May 17th, 1977)
This means
that:
1) The books
are definitely applicable for the post-samadhi period just
as much as the pre-samadhi period, since separate books were
not written for each period.
2) The teachings
and standards that were personally established by Srila Prabhupada,
and which are mentioned in his books, are equally applicable
during the pre-samadhi period.
It follows
therefore that the books were written to support an ISKCON
that was meant to continue unchanged from pre to post-samadhi.
Thus the books are meant for an ISKCON where there is a complete
continuity in the application of Srila Prabhupada's instructions
and teachings - whatever was in place pre-samadhi must also
be in place post-samadhi. This is what we term the N.C.I.P.
Is Initiation
an Exception to the N.C.I.P?
As indicated,
the N.C.I.P. is not in any sense alien to modern day ISKCON.
In most areas of ISKCON's theology, practice and management
the N.C.I.P. is vigorously enforced, with devotees proclaiming
proudly that they will never deviate from what Srila Prabhupada
has taught. When there has been any perceived deviation from
the N.C.I.P., strenuous attempts are made to return us to
Srila Prabhupada's standards as practised and taught pre-samadhi.
Indeed the GBC has acted very strongly in recent controversies
over the 'origin of the soul', 'gopi-bhava', and the 'Gaudiya
Matha', to bring things back in line with the N.C.I.P. The
very idea of ‘change’ or ‘speculation’
within ISKCON is severely frowned upon. Thus the N.C.I.P.
is already, in theory at least, the guiding principle for
ISKCON management.
So it is with
some surprise that we find in one specific area, and one area
only, the GBC assert quite forcefully that the N.C.I.P. must
be discarded; even though it is generally applicable everywhere
else. This is in the area of initiation. We do not need to
examine why there is this anomaly. Our only concern here is
to see if there are any supporting instructions from Srila
Prabhupada making a special case for N.C.I.P. to be set aside
with regards to the system of initiation within ISKCON.
Initiation
Specifically Covered Within Proofs
It has been
noted that we have already established N.C.I.P. as an ongoing
principle applicable to every area and aspect of ISKCON. Unless
otherwise demonstrated therefore, initiation must automatically
be covered by the no change paradigm, since the proofs above
did not make any reference to a special 'get-out' clause on
the subject of initiation. To further strengthen the above
assertion, we will now show how Srila Prabhupada's books specifically
set forth the method of initiation for ISKCON, and so there
is no reason to exempt initiation from the N.C.I.P. that is
otherwise staunchly and rightly defended by the GBC.
The Books
In his books,
Srila Prabhupada specifically set out how the initiations
would be carried out in the institution of ISKCON:
"Due to the
necessity of these activities, we do not immediately initiate
disciples in the International Society for Krishna Consciousness.
For six months, a candidate for initiation must first attend
arati and classes in the sastras, practice the regulative
principles and associate with other devotees. When one is
actually advanced in the purascarya-vidhi, he is recommended
by the local temple president for initiation. It is not that
anyone can be suddenly initiated without meeting the requirements.
When one is further advanced by chanting the Hare Krsna mantra
sixteen rounds daily, following the regulative principles
and attending classes, he receives the sacred thread (brahminical
recognition) after the second six months." (C.c. Madhya 15:108)
So we can see
that the books, which naturally support the N.C.I.P., make
specific reference to the initiation system to be applied
in ISKCON. This can only refer to being initiated by Srila
Prabhupada, since this is exactly what happened pre-samadhi
in precisely the manner described above. And by the N.C.I.P.,
the above is exactly what must happen post-samadhi as well.
Neither is there any mention above of the adjustments that
would be required to operate a multi-guru system as is currently
in operation in ISKCON. The multi-guru system currently in
operation in ISKCON does not follow the above stated model
since it requires many different procedures to accommodate
the many new diksa gurus along with the terms and means of
choice and verification of acceptance.
And if ISKCON
were to adopt exactly the same procedures as described by
Srila Prabhupada above, not only would it mean completely
abandoning the current 'M.A.S.S.' guru system in ISKCON, but
also since the process for diksa would be identical to that
which was operating pre-samadhi, why would the identity of
the diksa guru suddenly need to change, since nothing would
have changed? Thus the books mention initiation explicitly,
and since they are to be applied in line with the N.C.I.P.,
again no exemption for initiation is justified.
So it is irrefutable
from every angle that the N.C.I.P. holds, and that there is
definitely no exemption permitted in the case of initiation.
Further
evidence initiation comes within the N.C.I.P.
We have seen
that the N.C.I.P. is a factual reality, taught by Srila Prabhupada
and theoretically accepted and practised by the GBC; and also
that initiation is not exempt since the proofs for N.C.I.P.
specifically encompass this issue. However, there is a third
level of proof put in place that indicates Srila Prabhupada’s
tri-kala-jana sensibilities. Aware that initiation was the
one issue on which exemption might be claimed, Srila Prabhupada
went even further and issued a specific stand alone directive
exclusively on the initiation issue just before he departed,
even though he had already established the N.C.I.P. on two
distinct levels. In this way initiation would be the one issue
over which there could be no doubt.
July 9th
Directive
Srila Prabhupada
specifically issued an institutional directive where the application
of N.C.I.P. to initiation was spelt out very clearly. This
directive was issued on July 9th and sent out to all the leaders
and managers of ISKCON as the policy to be implemented in
ISKCON from that point onwards. In effect, to avoid the very
claims for exemption being made now, it simply formalised,
with some amendments, the practice that had been common in
ISKCON for many years. Only now the amendment meant that the
practice could continue in ISKCON without the need for any
physical involvement from Srila Prabhupada, and it became
enshrined as the official policy for the whole movement to
follow under the management of the GBC.
This directive
was very important since sometimes in religious institutions
the acarya or head issues a document shortly before his departure
detailing how the Guru succession of the institution would
be handed over, perhaps to a certain named individual. However,
with this directive Srila Prabhupada made it clear to the
whole movement that the arrangements which were already in
place, with him as the sole initiating (diksa) guru for the
whole movement, would continue. The directive states that
all new recruits to the movement would be 'initiated disciples'
of Srila Prabhupada only, with the named representatives,
acting only as that, representatives. This point is made 3
times, in a directive which is itself very short (2 paragraphs)
and to the point.
This directive
was the final communication on this issue, and was issued
only 120 days before Srila Prabhupada's departure, and after
the 'Last Will and Testament' had already been registered:
We have already
demonstrated above how the management of such a directive
by the GBC according to the N.C.I.P. would entail this directive
being operational in ISKCON even post-samadhi. In line with
N.C.I.P., the directive naturally sets out a system that is
applicable for the institution of ISKCON generally, and is
not an instruction that was sent out to be specifically terminated
on Srila Prabhupada's departure. The following characteristics
of the directive merely reinforce this point, establishing
it as a permanent management directive for the institution,
applicable both pre- and post-departure equally to the institution.
1) This directive
was issued with two signatures, one the secretary of the institution
(who sent it out) and one from the head of the institution,
Srila Prabhupada, who approved it. Though the directive was
issued on July 9th, 1977, it was sent out to all GBC members
physically on July 21st in a letter written by another GBC,
Ramesvara Swami. In this letter the directive is referred
specifically to as a 'document' along with the Last Will and
Testament, which was also sent out at the same time. (This
letter is enclosed). Thus the validity and importance of this
directive is beyond question.
2) The recipient
of the directive is an institution (via the trustees/managing
officers of the institution), that was set up specifically
to exist after the departure of the Founder.
3) The nature
of the directive relates to activities to be conducted only
by the institution’s managing officers in the future.
4) The purpose
of the directive as given at the outset of the document, is
given in generic not specific terms - ์the purpose of performing
initiations, both first initiation and second initiation.๎
Though the rest of the document makes it clear that those
initiated will definitely belong to the Founder only, and
specific officers are named to assist in the process, the
fact that the purpose is stated generically establishes that
the instruction was to remain in force within the institution
for as long as that purpose needed servicing. In this case
that purpose would be the need for ‘performing initiations,
both first initiation and second initiation’. This purpose
of course will need to fulfilled as long as the institution
exists.
Thus the nature,
the recipient, the executors and purpose of the directive
all tie its applicability to the institution. In such a circumstance
only the demise of the institution would have any legal or
logical effect in determining the longevity of the system
set out in the directive, not the demise of the Founder who
assented to the instruction. Thus the system set out in the
directive must remain in force as the system for the institution,
as long as the institution remains.
Supporting
Instructions
The directive
opens by confessing itself to be the outcome of a previous
conversation that took place with Srila Prabhupada’s
senior disciples in Vrindavana. The GBC have insisted that
this previous conversation is the May 28th 'appt tape'. However
this conversation makes it clear that the representatives
to be appointed, as set out in the directive, were for 'particularly
at that time' when Srila Prabhupada 'is no longer with us'.
Thus this conversation tends to confirm the directive, not
contradict it.
In addition
to this directive further instructions were issued re-conforming
this directive, and also specifically emphasising the permanence
of this instruction, with words such as 'continue' and 'future'.
(See letters from the secretary to Kirtanananda and Hamsaduta
Swamis).
Also in the
last will and testament, having seen the evidence from statements
1 and 2 above, we can turn to statement 3, whereby the following
instruction regarding the appointment of future executive
directors for certain ISKCON properties in India is given:
"The executive
directors who have herein designated are appointed for life.
In the event of the death or failure to act for any reason
of any of the said directors, a successor director or directors
may be appointed by the remaining directors, provided the
new director is MY INITIATED DISCIPLE following strictly all
the rules and regulations of the International Society for
Krishna Consciousness as detailed in my books, and provided
that there are never less than three (3) and five (5) executive
directors acting at one time." (Statement 3, The Last Will
and Document, Emphasis Added)
Here we see
a post-departure arrangement for the institution, that is
consistent with the directive in question, using the same
language as the directive, and which could only be implemented
if the directive was implemented. This is because in the absence
of the directive there would be no arrangement for the production
of future 'INITIATED DISCIPLES' of Srila Prabhupada, and thus
the pool of potential executive directors would soon be exhausted.
Thus the last will and testament also enshrines the N.C.I.P.
in another place specifically in relation to initiation.
In summary,
so there could be no room for doubt on this issue, Srila Prabhupada
went to the trouble of:
1) Enshrining
the N.C.I.P as the parameter for how his institution was to
be managed; 2) Giving specific applications of this in the
matter of initiation; 3) Explicitly setting out separate instructions
for initiation in the last days before his departure.
Really this
should be the last subject on which anyone could claim exemption
from the N.C.I.P.
Current
GBC Paper Enshrines N.C.I.P.
In fact so
strong is the case for the .N.C.I.P., that even the current
GBC themselves have acknowledged the validity of the N.C.I.P.,
by explicitly stating it in their authorised 'final siddhanta'
paper - 'On My Order Understood' (From 'Gurus and Initiation
in ISKCON', GBC, 1995). This paper has further also been added
as an appendix to the 'ISKCON LAW BOOK, (ISKCON GBC Press,
1997). There the GBC state:
"If an advanced
devotee's spiritual qualities are ‘self-effulgent,’
devotees may naturally accept him as an ‘acarya’
or advanced or realized spiritual master and his association
and guidance will be sought, but the GBC cannot ‘rubber
stamp’ him nor change ISKCON's system of management
consequently. ISKCON will continue to be managed as Srila
Prabhupada provided without ‘change’ by the GBC.
That is Srila Prabhupada's instruction." (Emphasis added)
Please note
here that the GBC have not only agreed with the thesis put
forward in this paper, but also have stated the N.C.I.P. specifically
in the context of the issue we are discussing - the emergence
of a highly realized spiritual master. Even in such an extreme
situation, the GBC insist that we adhere rigidly.
Srila Prabhupada
Seals the Case
In a specific
question and answer exchange, to do with the parampara, and
the manner of its continuation for both before and after Srila
Prabhupada's physical departure, Srila Prabhupada answered
as follows:
GANESHA: Srila
Prabhupada, if the knowledge was handed down by the saintly
kings, evam parampara-praptam, how is it that the knowledge
was lost?
SRILA PRABHUPADA:
When it was not handed down. Simply understood by speculation.
Or if it is not handed down as it is. They might have made
some changes. Or they did not hand it down. Suppose I handed
it down to you, but if you do not do that, then it is lost.
Now the Krsna consciousness movement is going on in my presence.
Now after my departure, if you do not do this, then it is
lost. If you go on as you are doing now, then it will go on.
But if you stop... (end).
(Room Conversation,
May 9th, 1975, Perth, Australia)
Here Srila
Prabhupada tells us exactly how the parampara must be continued
after he departs - 'go on, as you are doing now'. This is
exactly what the N.C.I.P. is stating:
'Whatever we
('you') were doing pre-77 ('now') we ('you') must 'go on'
with 'after departure".
The 'doing
now' then definitely did not involve the system that is currently
in place in ISKCON, nor was there any whiff of the disciples
acting as diksa gurus. Indeed the very fact that Srila Prabhupada
states the above in the context of continuing the parampara
means that Srila Prabhupada is speaking on a topic where this
change - that they should also become future diksa gurus in
order to ensure that the parampara continued without disruption
- would need to be explicitly stated, if it was applicable,
as it is directly relevant to the issue at hand.. This is
made all the more ironic by the fact that the need to continue
the parampara is a main reason offered by GBC to justify the
current Diksa Guru system in ISKCON. The argument that Srila
Prabhupada is only speaking about the principle of 'handing
down knowledge' is not applicable, because Srila Prabhupada
also mentions how that knowledge was to be handed down - 'as
you are doing now' - thus the mode and manner must also be
the same. That means not acting as diksa gurus, but acting
as we were acting in 1975 - the N.C.I.P..
Evidence
Needed for Exemption of Initiation
Now what has
gone so far should actually serve as over-kill in the matter
of demonstrating that not only is the N.C.I.P. applicable
for ISKCON now, but also that initiation is the one area where
there cannot be any case for deviation from the N.C.I.P. Consequently
the onus is firmly and squarely on anyone who dares to propose
some deviation from this official, standard ISKCON tradition.
Obviously the quality of evidence required would need to be
staggeringly unambiguous and overwhelming clear to justify
such a major change. In summary the evidence would need to
satisfy the following 3 criteria:
1) It must
be completely clear-cut, and overwhelming, with no room for
doubt whatsoever, due to the magnitude of the change proposed.
2) It must be directed at and applicable for implementation
by the GBC, since this was the only channel established by
Srila Prabhupada authorised to make such a change. 3) It must
also specify the specific time-limited nature of the exemption
i.e. The exact claim that is made is NOT that initiation is
exempt from the N.C.I.P. per se, but rather that initiation
is exempt only after a certain time period - i.e the moment
after Srila Prabhupada departed. If there is not specific
reference made to the conditional nature of the exemption
in terms of its time for applicability, then the evidence
is not actually supporting that which is actually claimed.
This establishes
the background. Lets us now examine if evidence satisfying
these 3 criteria does indeed exist.
The Evidence
Put Forward
The evidence
put forward for claiming exemption from N.C.I.P. for initiation
falls into 2 categories:
A) Evidence
from the May 28th tape. B) Evidence from the repeated orders
to 'become guru '.
Let us examine
each of these evidences in turn:
May 28th Tape
This evidence consists of a short taped segment of conversation
held between Srila Prabhupada and his disciples. Ignoring
interruptions, the conversation consists effectively of 6
questions posed by disciples with Srila Prabhupada answering
them. The first question is the key question, with all the
subsequent questions merely being attempts to try and clarify
this initial question and its answer. Below we reproduce this
conversation with these 6 exchanges given the same numbering
for both the question asked and the corresponding response
given by Srila Prabhupada to that question:
Satsvarupa:
Then our next question concerns initiations in the future,
particularly at that time when you're no longer with us. We
want to know how first and second initiation would be conducted.
(1)
Srila Prabhupada: Yes. I shall recommend some of you. After
this is settled up, I shall recommend some of you to act as
officiating acaryas. (1)
Tamala Krsna: Is that called rtvik-acarya? (2)
Srila Prabhupada: Rtvik, yes. (2)
Satsvarupa: Then what is the relationship of that person who
gives the initiation and the... (3)
Srila Prabhupada: He's guru. He's guru. (3) Satsvarupa: But
he does it on your behalf. (4)
Srila Prabhupada: Yes. That is formality. Because in my presence
one should not become guru, so on my behalf, on my order...
Amara ajnaya guru hana. Be actually guru, but by my order.
(4)
Satsvarupa: So they may also be considered your disciples.
(5)
Srila Prabhupada: Yes, they are disciples. Why consider? Who?
(5)
Tamala Krsna: No, he's asking that these rtvik-acaryas, they're
officiating, giving diksa. Their... The people who they give
diksa to, whose disciples are they? (6)
Srila Prabhupada: They're his disciples. (6)
Tamala Krsna: They're his disciples. Srila Prabhupada: Who
is initiating. He's granddisciple. (6) Satsvarupa: Then we
have a question concer...
Srila Prabhupada: When I order, "You become guru," he becomes
regular guru. That's all. He becomes disciple of my disciple.
That's it. (6)
The following
points are to be noted:
1) In an investigation
into the authenticity of the taped conversation, sponsored
by the GBC, their own expert concluded that until and unless
a full forensic examination is conducted on the tape, it cannot
be relied on as authentic evidence. To date no such examination
has been conducted by the GBC.
2) Though the
conversation is very short, already the GBC have officially
given 5 different transcripts for the above conversation.
Above we have simply selected one of them. Thus there is no
clarity even over WHAT exactly the evidence consists of.
3) A key word
'He's' used twice, in exchanges 3 and 6, and on which the
whole GBC case rests, cannot be clearly identified by the
naked ear as being the word 'He's' rather then the word 'His',
since the sounds are very similar. Even the GBC have themselves
used the latter rendition in one of their transcripts. The
one thing which can be said with certainty though is that
only one word is spoken. Thus the rendition 'He is' can definitely
be rejected. To appreciate the importance of this, please
note that if the word in exchange 6 was 'His', rather than
'He's', then it can be established without doubt that Srila
Prabhupada does speak in the 3rd person in that part of the
conversation. This is because the term in exchange 6 would
be 'HIS Grand-disciple', and the 'HIS' here could ONLY refer
to Srila Prabhupada, since as even the GBC admit, it is only
he who could possibly have grand-disciples.
4) Out of the
6 exchanges, the clearest and unambiguous exchanges on the
tape - Nos 1, 2 & 5 - half of them, including the key
opening exchange, actually all verbatim support the N.C.I.P.,
with them all being directly congruent with the July 9th directive,
which was actually the written output from this discussion,
as indicated in the opening statement of the directive itself.
Even the same language is used - 'ritviks', and 'disciples'
of Srila Prabhupada. And the rest of the exchanges, depending,
on the transcript adopted ( see point above) can also in any
case be given an explanation in line with the N.C.I.P. (Indeed
so damning is the opening exchange, that the GBC where forced
recently to overturn all their teaching on the 'ritvik' heresy
for the last 20 years because of their inability to explain
this opening exchange, and state that Srila Prabhupada DID
indeed order ritviks to act for after his departure; the very
notion that they had been opposing all along. But only now,
the GBC claims, the word 'ritvik' is just another term for
'diksa guru'! However such somersaults have yet to be accepted
by many other members on the GBC, who are still operating
under the old paradigm that ritviks can only act in the presence
of the spiritual master, and are entities that are completely
different to diksa gurus, acting only on behalf of the said
diksa gurus. Please see item 5 for more detail)
5) Each attempt
by the GBC to explain what the words on the tape meant has
led to many varying and contradictory interpretations. Thus
even in the matter of deciding what the tape means the GBC
are divided. (We have already seen they cannot even decide
on what the tape says). The exchanges above are given many
different interpretations by the GBC. These differences are
not just minor but fundamental; differing in not just what
is being spoken about, but also the time period being referred
to, and precisely how Srila Prabhupada is instructing things
to be carried out - all pretty damning when the subject under
consideration is what, how and when things should be done.
We give these different explanations below:
Time-frame
It is claimed
that exchanges in the tape relate to both what should be done
whilst Srila Prabhupada is present, and also what should be
done after he departs.
(Under My order, 1985, Ravindra Svarupa prabhu) (GII, 1995,
Ravindra Svarupa prabhu, Jayapataka Maharaja and others)
Another view is that he is speaking throughout the whole tape
only about what to do once he departs. (Disciple of My Disciple,
1997, Badrinarayan prabhu, Giridhari Swami & Umapati Swami)
What is being
spoken about?
One view is
that the word 'ritvik' used by Srila Prabhupada refers to
proxies. (GII & Under My Order)
Another completely
opposite view is that 'ritvik' means Diksa guru (DOMD, Drutakarama
prabhu)
Thus from the
outset, the GBC have completely opposing views, being unable
to decide amongst themselves conclusive positions on even
the most basic fundamental points.
Exchange (4)
Here again
there are at least two different opinions:
i) One view
states that the expression 'so on my behalf' means that one
should act as a proxy or ritvik for Srila Prabhupada while
he is physically present. (GII, 'Under My Order')
ii) The other
view states that the phrase 'on my behalf' means acting as
diksa guru after Srila Prabhupada departs, not as a proxy
before he departs. ('Disciple Of My Disciple')
Thus again
we have not just different, but completely contradictory explanations.
Exchange (6)
Exchange (6)
give us the key evidence for the GBC which revolves around
3 phrases spoken at the end of the tape: 'He's/(His) Grand-disciple',
'disciple of my disciple' and 'regular guru'.
But these phrases
are qualified by the phrase 'When I Order', and the GBC have
come up with at least 4 different interpretations to try and
explain away this phrase in a way that they hope will not
compromise their position. Unfortunately they really have
no position since they simultaneously claim:
a) That the
order was subsequently given in July. ('Continuing the Parampara',
Siva-Rama Swami, 1994; GII, 1995)
b) That the order was given on the tape itself. (Disciple
of My Disciple, 1997)
c) That the order was given personally by Srila Prabhupada
specifically to various individuals. (Drutakarma Dasa, 1998)
d) That the order was given generally and continually to everyone
many times by Srila Prabhupada previously. (Hari Sauri Dasa,
1998)
Summary
In conclusion
we have a short conversation where:
a) It is not
clear to the GBC what is being said (different transcripts)
b) It is not clear to the GBC what is being spoken of (proxy
or diksa guru)
c) It is not clear to the GBC when the answers are applicable
(before or after departure)
d) It is not clear to the GBC how the gurus are activated.
(when the order is given)
e) At least half the tape directly reinforces the N.C.I.P.,
with the rest interpretable within the paradigm, depending
on the transcript chosen.
The above is
enough to discredit any argument that the transcribed conversation
constitutes sufficient evidence to overturn both an institutional
directive, and violate the N.C.I.P. which Srila Prabhupada
had consistently stressed and practised. It is clear the above
evidence hardly constitutes an overwhelming case for abandoning
the ‘no change in ISKCON paradigm’. Indeed we
can see that the above evidence unequivocally only satisfies
1 of the 3 criteria required (2 depending which one of the
above interpretations is accepted), in that the conversation
was held with a group of GBC members.
B) Evidence
from the Order to 'Become Guru'
It is claimed
that Srila Prabhupada has many times instructed his disciples
to 'become guru'. In fact this evidence itself falls into
two categories:
a) References
to 'becoming guru' in connection with the 'amara ajnaya' verse.
b) References to 'becoming guru' in connection with the 'law
of disciplic succession'.
Evaluating
the above evidence in line with 3 criteria established earlier,
we note immediately that actually none of the above evidence
is given in any institutional form, and thus it immediately
does not satisfy criteria 2 given earlier. Rather evidence
here is either given in private letters to individuals, or
in lectures to a small fraction of the movement. Indeed it
is highly significant that the key evidence that is put forward
in this category is:
A private letter
to a deviant disciple (Tusta Krishna, 1975) who was a supporter
of someone desirous of initiating even whilst Srila Prabhupada
was physically present, and which basically tells him that
such activity must wait until Srila Prabhupada has at departed
- a letter that was only even made public 10 years AFTER the
time for which the exemption is claimed. And even then the
letter may never have ever come to light had it not been discovered
due to the unauthorised activities of someone who, ironically,
was waging a battle against the activities of the unauthorised
gurus.
A general comment
made to a one-time visitor to the temple in 1971 (Room Conversation
with Mohsin Hassan), in which Srila Prabhupada made statements
that he himself clarified more precisely and rather differently
to his disciples and in his books later on (see letter to
Alanatha 1975, and many comments about the Gaudiya Matha),
and which was only discovered a year ago.
In sum, the
GBC are supposed to manage on the basis of the instructions
they have received. They can only implement the July 9th directive
in accordance with whatever other instructions they may have
received in this regard. We have seen that there are no instructions
in the books or in other institutional directives that impact
on the implementation of the July 9th directive. The GBC have
no mandate to manage based on trying to avoid the implementation
of institutional directives that they have specifically been
told to institute by searching 20 years later for other instructions
that Srila Prabhupada may have spoken privately on a one-off
basis.
Thus having
already failed in one criteria, for completeness let us see
how the evidence scores on the other two criteria. In terms
of criteria 1, the need for the evidence to be clear-cut and
overwhelming, we find:
For category
a) evidence, the 'amara ajnaya' references, in the explanatory
purports to the 'amara ajanya' verse it states that: 'it is
best not accept any disciples' (C:C,Madhya, 7:130).
Also the instructions
for 'becoming guru' here state that virtually no qualification
is required except being able to repeat what one has learned.
Thus whatever is being spoken of here, it is not a Diksa Guru,
the issue at hand.
The instructions
given in category b) regarding following the 'law of disciplic
succession' simply set out the etiquette that diksa guru activity
must not take place whilst the guru is physically present.
The existence of such a 'law' is not in dispute. But the 'law'
does not automatically go on to authorise everyone and everyone
to initiate after that time period has passed. It simply states
that such an activity is possible after this time-period,
not that everyone is now free to indulge in it without authorisation
from the Guru do to so. Otherwise if the 'law' itself was
the authorisation, it would mean that the only pre-requisite
required to act as a diksa guru would be to wait for the guru
to depart, i.e. it would be automatic.
Thus there
is nothing here that even remotely comes close to providing
clear-cut and overwhelming evidence for exempting initiation
from the N.C.I.P.
Thus criteria
1) is also not satisfied.
Finally we
come to criteria 3, the need for the evidence to specify the
time-limited restriction for the exemption:
In category
a), the 'amara-ajnaya' evidence, the instructions to 'become
guru' are not restricted in their application to only after
the Guru departs, but rather order everyone to act immediately.
Thus these instructions cannot be specifying activity that
is different in nature to when Srila Prabhupada was physically
present. Thus the application of these instructions post-samadhi
simply support the N.C.I.P.
In category
b), the 'law of disciplic succession', evidence, there IS
reference made to initiation activity being limited to after
the Guru departs.
Thus in conclusion
we see that at best, some of the evidence, satisfies 1 of
the 3 categories only. Thus again we do not see the class
of evidence that would justify this great deviation from the
N.C.I.P.
Going even
further we may note the following additional points:
This evidence
to 'become guru' is also put forward as a 'standing order',
which has always been there, and thus there is no need of
any institutional directive for this. But to become Diksa
guru does requires specific authorisation from the predecessor
acarya (S:B, 4.8.54). This of course would be unnecessary,
if indeed the order had always been there eternally.
The evidences
from the 'amara ajanya' and the 'law' categories both directly
contradict each other. The 'amara ajnaya' instructions make
no restriction on qualification, time-period for applicability,
and DO make a restriction on the taking of disciples, in complete
contradiction to what is stated by the 'law', which specifically
makes reference to taking disciples without limit, being strictly
qualified, and only acting after the guru has departed. Thus
at the very least, the evidence for the 'amara ajnaya' category
is completely invalidated by the evidence put forward in the
other category, and thus in reality there is only one category
of evidence that can even be put forward - that to do with
the 'law'. (For completeness we have also examined every single
quote in this category ever produced in any GBC paper as evidence
for Srila Prabhupada's disciple's becoming diksa guru, in
a separate appendix)
In conclusion
there is no instruction issued to the institution authorising
an individual to take up the role of diksa guru in ISKCON
once Srila Prabhupada departs. This would be the very minimum
required if we were to overturn the July 9th directive and
radically change the N.C.I.P. that Srila Prabhupada had set
up for ISKCON. Neither can such an instruction be assumed
as a standing order for the institution.
|
