Back To Prabhupada, Issue 80, 2024, Interactive
"You should try to settle the dispute. It is harming all. Please don't fight!"
- Anil Prayag, Rockville, USA
1) We have no desire to fight, and would much prefer for the dispute to be settled. Hence, we have made various efforts to settle the dispute. Here is the history:
a) The Final Order book (TFO), which is the IRM's founding document, states on the cover that it was submitted to the GBC 28 years ago in an attempt to settle the dispute. This is how long we have been trying! However, on receiving TFO, the GBC found itself unable to refute TFO proving that Srila Prabhupada ordered rtviks to continue initiations for ISKCON. Therefore, the GBC tried to hide its defeat by simply making the ridiculous argument that:
i) Yes, Srila Prabhupada did order rtviks for after Srila Prabhupada's physical departure.
ii) But rtvik is used to mean diksa guru!
This ridiculous argument was made in the GBC paper, "Disciple of My Disciple" ("DOMD"), written as a specific response to our submission of TFO to the GBC. One can verify this by reading our reply to DOMD here.
b) I later put together a slideshow entitled The ‘No Change' in ISKCON Paradigm". Then, to further help settle the dispute, ISKCON temple presidents presented this slideshow to the GBC at its annual GBC meetings in Mayapur in 1999. However, the GBC simply claimed that the presentation was "erroneous" without making any attempt to show why this was so, and instead simply took steps that could lead to expelling the very temple presidents that they had invited to make the presentation! This course of action is documented in GBC resolutions 301-302, 1999.
c) Then, in 2004, the GBC actually withdrew the GBC paper, "On My Order Understood", which TFO had been written to refute. The GBC agreed with TFO that its paper "contains assumptions and assertions that, in numerous places, do not match the available evidence from the statements of Srila Prabhupada". However, the GBC did not then present an alternative paper that did answer TFO, but instead simply presented a "concise statement" of belief, which made no attempt to address any of the points made by TFO. One can see these facts documented in GBC resolution 409, 2004.
Hence, this sequence of events documents that:
i) The IRM made attempts to settle the dispute based on Srila Prabhupada's orders.
ii) The GBC was unable to challenge our presentations, and made no serious attempt to do so, and instead just carried on with its unauthorised programs regardless!
2) You have stated that the "fight" is "harming all". However, not fighting will cause greater harm:
a) Imagine that the GBC declared that Krsna is not God, and instead we should worship an imposter as God. I think you would agree that such a move would cause the greatest harm, and should be vigorously fought. Well, declaring that Srila Prabhupada – the link to Krsna – is not the guru of his own Society, and that we should instead worship unauthorised imposters as his successors, is a deviation of a similar magnitude. And the facts presented in the previous section, documenting the GBC's inability to refute TFO, establish that this is indeed what the GBC is doing.
b) Further, this deviation of usurping Srila Prabhupada's position has led to a movement that is full of deviation from top to bottom:
i) It is a completely different, and deviant, movement to that which Srila Prabhupada established. This is documented
here and here.
ii) It is a "sahajiya" movement in consciousness and practice. This is established here.
iii) Srila Prabhupada and his teachings have been minimised and attacked. This is established here.
iv) Srila Prabhupada is not accepted as the supreme authority in ISKCON, with "jumping over" Srila Prabhupada and going outside his teachings being a frequent occurrence. This is established here.
And we present more examples of all the above in every BTP issue, including this issue!
 |
Hence, it is clear that the greatest harm will occur if we allow this ruination of Srila Prabhupada's movement and teachings – being carried out in his name – to continue, rather than if we fight and expose such ruination.
3) However, given the GBC's intransigence towards accepting Srila Prabhupada's orders, we have made yet another attempt to settle the issue in the best way possible. We have prepared a whole document that the GBC must agree with. Because this document simply presents ISKCON leaders agreeing with the points made by the IRM! This document is called the BTP ISKCON Leaders Special Issue, and quotes many ISKCON leaders agreeing that Srila Prabhupada is effectively ISKCON's diksa guru. We cannot make it any easier than that. Because though they have shown they will steadfastly not agree with us, the GBC should at least agree with themselves! Alas, the GBC even refuses to do this, and instead just carries on deviating regardless.
Thus, in conclusion, we only have two options:
i) Surrender to the GBC's deviation due to not wanting to "fight" and thus supposedly avoid harm.
ii) Try to prevent the greatest harm possible by opposing the ruination of Srila Prabhupada's teachings and movement.
We have no choice but to accept the latter.
Subscribe for FREE to Back To Prabhupada Magazine - Click Here
Return to "Deviation" Index
Return to "Mission" Index
Return to IRM Homepage