Back To Prabhupada, Issue 64, Vol 4, 2019
n the article on page 3, we showed that the GBC does not know what it is doing in regards to the guru system to be applied in ISKCON, and is just making it up as it goes along — thus demonstrating that there is actually no guru succession order from Srila Prabhupada for the GBC to follow. Now, a confession from one of the persons who initiated the guru system in ISKCON gives evidence of this fact. All emphases added.
HH Hridayananda Dasa Goswami ("HD") was one of the first 11 gurus in ISKCON who took over straight after Srila Prabhupada physically departed (known as The Great Guru Hoax – Part 1). He candidly explains what was going on after they took over:
"We started making new gurus very soon after that. I mean it took a year or two; no one knew what the hell they were doing. And then, and so, you know for a year or two we just had to figure out how to do this, but after that, within a year or two we were already making new gurus."
(HD, "Darshan", 15/9/19 — all quotes in shaded boxes below are taken from same talk)
HD reveals the process for making gurus in ISKCON which led to the guru system we currently have, where the GBC authorises new gurus by means of a vote. He admits that they just concocted it as they went along since "no one knew what the hell they were doing", and hence they had to "figure out how to do this".
"I did not become a guru until the GBC voted that I should become a guru. And therefore this whole question, which to me is a little silly, and especially if you read what Prabhupada said about, what did Prabhupada say about gurus, it's not relevant. Because the GBC voted that I should be a guru, and Prabhupada gave them that responsibility."
HD admits that, in relation to the guru system in ISKCON, Srila Prabhupada's instructions are "not relevant". Rather, ISKCON diksa gurus are made by GBC votes only, and this is all that matters, and therefore, effectively, the GBC's power to make gurus actually supersedes Srila Prabhupada's instructions regarding gurus. Thus, it is accepted that ISKCON's gurus are created only through GBC votes, rather than Srila Prabhupada ordering these gurus. HD justifies the GBC creating its own gurus by claiming that Srila Prabhupada actually gave the GBC this power to make gurus by voting them in. However, as we shall see, there is no record of Srila Prabhupada giving the GBC such power.
"Prabhupada, the first line in his will, [...] is that the GBC is the ultimate managing authority for all of ISKCON [...] Because the GBC voted that I should be a guru, and Prabhupada gave them that responsibility."
1) HD's justification for claiming Srila Prabhupada gave the GBC the responsibility to make gurus, is that Srila Prabhupada named the GBC the "ultimate managing authority" for ISKCON. But, one can only "manage" something that exists, otherwise there would be nothing to manage. Hence, the power to make gurus in ISKCON cannot be derived from the power to "manage" ISKCON, if gurus did not already exist in ISKCON. And it is a historical fact that at the time of Srila Prabhupada's physical departure, no such GBC diksa gurus existed in ISKCON — in fact the only diksa guru who existed in ISKCON at that time was Srila Prabhupada.
2) Nor can the power for the GBC to "make" diksa gurus derive from claiming that Srila Prabhupada "ordered" diksa gurus to be made, and that the GBC is doing this for him. Because, as the previous article showed, it is only a "rtvik and child delusion" to say that Srila Prabhupada ordered diksa gurus in ISKCON, when in actuality he only ever ordered rtviks.
3) Therefore, Srila Prabhupada would have needed to grant the GBC specific power to first create diksa gurus, which it then could "manage". But he never granted the GBC such power. Thus, Srila Prabhupada only gave the GBC the power to "manage" the ISKCON that existed. In this ISKCON, only rtviks had been ordered, and Srila Prabhupada was the only diksa guru. And this ISKCON the GBC were to manage by regulating the operation of rtviks, who had been authorised to make disciples for the one existing diksa guru, Srila Prabhupada.
4) The following was part of the submission to the GBC's Sastric Advisory Committee by fellow ISKCON guru HH Jayadvaita Swami ("JAS"), which led to the current GBC resolution on ISKCON's guru system (Resolution 409, 2004, mentioned in the previous article). This states that the GBC was not empowered to create gurus:
"That Srila Prabhupada "personally detailed the procedure for increasing the number of initiating guru[s]" is something we can only wish. Or falsely tell the Society he did."
(JAS Email, 13/12/03)
Yet, as we shall see below, HD insists on following the GBC.
"I wanna go on record with this [...] a guru can only be bona fide, by following the GBC. [...] But then you get these clowns with their pseudo history, ‘yeah, the gurus thought they were above the GBC' and blah, blah, blah, it's nonsense. This is all part of the mythological history of ISKCON. This idea that eleven gurus thought they were, only they could be gurus."
However, the "clowns" who claim this are the GBC themselves:
"the GBC Body allowed for an unauthorized "zonal acharya" system to evolve in ISKCON, elevating eleven exclusive successor diksa gurus;
Whereas ISKCON leaders at the time then introduced the concept that ISKCON diksa gurus were mahabhagavatas and the only current links to Srila Prabhupada and the disciplic succession; [...]
Whereas the authority and resources of the GBC Body were minimized by the exaggerated prominence of ISKCON diksa gurus, resulting in a fragmented ISKCON composed of many guru-zones instead of a united ISKCON movement under the auspices of the GBC Body".
(GBC Resolution 403, 1999)
Yet HD states above that he and all other ISKCON gurus are only "bona fide" due to following the GBC, and thus they are following "clowns".
A guru hoax founder is admitting that ISKCON's guru system is based solely on having been concocted by the GBC "clowns".
Return to HD Goswami Index
Return to Cheating Index
Return to IRM Homepage
