The GBC takes two diametrically opposite positions depending on which guru they are dealing with (we present more evidence of this technique of simultaneously holding two contradictory positions on page 13). When fending off rival guru challengers from outside ISKCON, in particular HH Narayana Maharaja (“NM”) from the Gaudiya Matha, the GBC urge us to take shelter of Srila Prabhupada, with his physical absence not being a handicap. However, when it comes to the necessity of accepting one of ISKCON’s “living gurus”, then the GBC claims that it is not sufficient to take shelter of Srila Prabhupada as he is physically absent!
The GBC’s recent paper responding to NM’s claims that Srila Prabhupada had instructed him in an October 1977 conversation to guide ISKCON (claims incidentally which the IRM debunked nearly 10 years ago (http://bit.ly/96s0iU), and which the GBC have only now woken up to address), offers more evidence of the GBC’s hypocrisy. All quotes in the paneled boxes will be taken from this paper, which was issued by the GBC Executive Committee in March 2010.
The GBC's absent evidence
“It needs to be carefully noted, however, that above and beyond all this, we must also give due consideration to what Srila Prabhupada did not say. At no time did he convey to his directly trained leaders the directions Narayana Maharaja claims that Prabhupada gave him.”
Similarly at no time did Srila Prabhupada state that:
a) The ritvik system of initiation set up by him for ISKCON on July 9th, 1977, was to be disbanded 4 months later on his departure.
b) Those appointed as ritviks were to magically metamorphise into diksha gurus.
c) The GBC has the authority to create diksha gurus by voting them in.
d) The GBC was to change how ISKCON was being run and managed during Srila Prabhupada’s presence, or that only the system of initiations was to change.
e) That ISKCON could be based on secularisation, commercialisation and Hinduisation.
Thus, ISKCON’s whole existence today is based on what Srila Prabhupada did not say.
Incompatible philosophy
“Indeed, the directions Narayana Maharaja claims to have received are more than merely absent from the record: they are incompatible with directions and guidelines Prabhupada himself had instilled in his leaders.”
Similarly:
a) The concoction that on May 28th, 1977, Srila Prabhupada was authorising 11 ritviks to become “regular” diksha gurus is incompatible with the warning he gave just the day before against his disciples attempting to become diksha gurus:
Bhavananda: “There will be men, I know. There will be men who want to try and pose themselves as guru.”
Tamala Krsna: “That was going on many years ago. Your Godbrothers were thinking like that. Madhava Maharaja...”
Bhavananda: “Oh, yes. Oh, ready to jump.”
Srila Prabhupada: “Very strong management required and vigilant observation.”
(Conversation, May 27th, 1977)
b) The concoction that Srila Prabhupada was authorising all his disciples to become diksha guru successors is incompatible with the ritvik system of initiation he actually did authorise for ISKCON.
c) That parampara diksha gurus are subject to discipline by a management body, and that they can also fall down into gross sense gratification and preaching philosophy against the teachings of Srila Prabhupada, is incompatible with Srila Prabhupada’s teachings on guru-tattva.
And so on – please see all previous BTP issues and the IRM’s position papers! (www.iskconirm.com)
Final instructions
“Prabhupada offered us some parting directions early in his final year:
‘Stick to our principle, and see our GBC is very alert. Then everything will go on, even I am not present. Do that. That is my request. Whatever little I have taught you, follow that, and nobody will be aggrieved. No maya will touch you. Now Krsna has given us, and there will be no scarcity of money. You print book and sell. So everything is there. We have got good shelter all over the world. We have got income. You stick to our principles, follow the. . . Even if I die suddenly, you’ll be able to manage. That’s all’.
(Room conversation, Bombay, April 22,1977).”
The GBC admits that the above constitutes “parting” directions, and that everything could easily be managed from that point on, even if Srila Prabhupada departed, simply by continuing in the same way, without any change. This is the same “no change” philosophy given by the IRM (http://bit.ly/bv6F7f).
Unreliable witness
The GBC rejects NM’s recollections
because they have:
“compared it carefully with the record of the events.”
1) The GBC are more than happy to challenge NM’s recollections when it threatens their position, but they were more than happy to blindly accept his recollections in the ISKCON Journal 1990 interview where he gave an
account, without any evidence, regarding what Srila Prabhupada has supposedly told him about ritviks. So if NM says something which supports the GBC’s agenda, he can be trusted blindly, otherwise the GBC suddenly discover the need for “evidence”!
2) And we have also compared what the GBC claim in regards to their unauthorised guru system, and other teachings, with the “record of events”, and again there is no match!
Conclusion
“Clearly, the IRM would be disloyal to Srila Prabhupada himself were we to accept the GBC’s assertions about their position in relation to Prabhupada’s disciples and ISKCON. We must reject those assertions."
The above is the conclusion from the GBC paper, with “GBC” and “NM” simply interchanged with “IRM” and “GBC”! There is no better way to highlight the GBC’s supreme hypocrisy and how such hypocrisy can be used to easily defeat their own unauthorised philosophies.
