Proposed Agenda for Mayapura '89 GBC men must put an end to the process of manufacturing g

---
Master Index Current Directory Index Go to SkepticTank Go to Human Rights activist Keith Henson Go to Scientology cult

Skeptic Tank!

Proposed Agenda for Mayapura '89 GBC men must put an end to the process of manufacturing gurus during the annual Mayapura meetings and reconsider this concocted practice which has no scriptural sanction. The history of this malpractice has its beginning after the passing of Shrila Prabhupada. Prabhupada never recommended anyone to be acharya of the International Society for Krishna Consciousness movement, but his idea was to form a Governing Body Commission to manage the worldwide affairs of the society. Unfortunately, the Governing Body Commission immediately recommended that eleven disciples act as spiritual masters and thus created the first rank of elected gurus. In the eleven years that have gone by since Prabhupada's passing, a most dangerous philosophy has emerged which--if adopted as fact--will mark the end of the ISKCON organization. In a letter dated 29 January 1988, Tamal Krishna Goswami writes this reply to the editor: "I am afraid I cannot agree with you when you say that a bona fide guru cannot be under the jurisdiction of the GBC. Shrila Prabhupada himself was under the jurisdiction of the GBC, as he demonstrated when one day in a GBC meeting His Divine Grace called for votes and himself raised his hand and cast a vote, saying that he is also under the GBC. The GBC is an authorized Vaishnava sanga, composed of many qualified devotees, some of whom may be gurus themselves. Hopefully their deliberations will always agree with that of an individual bona fide guru. But if for some reason there is a difference of opinion, the conclusion reached by the GBC should be adhered to by everyone, including gurus. If there is some mistake in their conclusion, gradually Krishna will give them the intelligence to rectify it. Without this system, there will be no possibility of unity for ISKCON, which is essential for fulfilling Shrila Prabhupada's vision of a Krishna conscious world." There seems to be no end to the various unsubstantiated theories concerning implementation of Krishna philosophy. This particular philosophy mentioned here by Tamal Krishna Goswami, former chairman of the GBC, is especially surprising. It is not a fact that Prabhupada was ever under the jurisdiction of the GBC. Not only was Prabhupada a prolific religious and cultural writer who established a hundred Krishna centers worldwide, he was a life-long devotee of Krishna who had attained to an expert level of devotion at a mature age of over 70 years old. Why would he place himself underneath the jurisdiction of young American neophyte devotees, most of whom were formerly addicted to psychedelic drugs? There is no good reason for it except to set an example for those young members who denied to cooperate peacefully. Otherwise, that philosophy amounts to nothing short of minimizing the authority of the guru which is one of the ten offenses to be strictly avoided in the matter of progressing in spiritual life. The GBC has never had any authority above the authority of Shrila Prabhupada who was specially empowered to spread the Krishna consciousness movement throughout the world. In every respect, each individual member of the GBC is simply aspiring to come to the level of a bona fide disciple of Prabhupada. How can it be that such aspiring disciples--either individually or even collectively--can have authority over Prabhupada? It is absolutely not possible. Any GBC member who thinks it is possible to supersede Prabhupada's authority and instructions through a legislative process must be advised to reconsider such idea very carefully. The following quotes given by Prabhupada clearly deny any hint of purported submission to the GBC: "Now has the GBC become more than Guru Maharaja? As if simply GBC is meant for looking after pounds, shilling, pence. The GBC does not look after spiritual life. That is the defect. All of our students will have to become guru but they are not qualified (Alanath 11-10-75)." "My only grievance is that I appointed GBC to give me relief from the management but, on the contrary, complaints and counter complaints are coming to me (Jayatirtha 10-16-75)." "You must be very careful to make sure that my name is registered there as the founder acharya and that I am to be the ultimate authority. In other words, in any case of necessity of vetoing or cancelling any decision made by the other trustees, I should be able to do like that. My decision should overrule all the other trustees combined (Kurusrestha 12-20-74)." "What will happen when I am not here, shall everything be spoiled by GBC? (Hansadutta 4-11-72)" "I made the GBC to give me relief, but if you do like this, then where is the relief. It is anxiety for me. This is the difficulty, that as soon as one gets power, he becomes whimsical and spoils everything. What can I do? (Hansadutta 9-12-74)" "Under these circumstances, I authorize you to disregard for the time being any decision from the GBC men until my further instruction. Finally, I beg to repeat that all GBC orders are suspended herewith by me until further notice (to all temple presidents 4-8-72)" How, then, is it possible to conclude that Prabhupada was under the jurisdiction of the GBC? Therefore, the acceptance of all GBC regulations should first come under the scrutinizing power of Prabhupada's instructions. Kirtanananda Swami has also somehow concluded that women should be offered the sannyasa order of life by twisting the messages of the Bhagavad-gita and thereby denying to accept the authority of Prabhupada. It remains with the GBC to catch various deviations like this, but first beginning from the first major GBC deviation: The creation of elected gurus. They must seriously review such decisions and decide whether they'll continue to accept themselves as bona fide authority with power to make new and newer policies and establish them as divine will that even Prabhupada must accept. However, the Vedic Advocate cannot accept such creations when it is contrary to the authoritative policies Prabhupada has clearly written down. Prabhupada was never under the jurisdiction of the GBC. If the bona fide guru and his messages are neglected, minimized, superseded, needlessly interpreted and considered less important, there is no possibility of successfully propagating the sankirtana movement. --Vaishnava dasa

---

E-Mail Fredric L. Rice / The Skeptic Tank