e will conclusively demonstrate that Srila Prabhupada is the guru we are ordered by Lord Krsna to seek out.
The GBC clearly states that there is no guarantee that any of its gurus are self-realised:
"When the GBC allows a devotee to take up the service of initiating, it does not thereby endorse him as an uttama adhikari or "pure devotee" or certify his having achieved any specific state of realization. Rather, the GBC indicates that it has no objection to his initiating disciples within ISKCON."
(GBC Resolution 409, 2004)
However, we are told by Lord Krsna that we must only select a guru who has personally "seen the truth" due to being "self-realised":
"Just try to learn the truth by approaching a spiritual master. Inquire from him submissively and render service unto him. The self-realized soul can impart knowledge unto you because he has seen the truth."
(Bg., 4.34)
Lord Krsna does not say that we should seek out a spiritual master who may be a self-realised soul or who may have seen the truth. Therefore, the GBC's guru system, by the GBC's own declaration, is inherently a deviation from Lord Krsna's order that only a self-realised guru must be sought out, because the GBC admits this is not what it is providing, as it neither can nor will guarantee that any of its gurus meet the standard set by Lord Krsna. Rather, each ISKCON member who seeks out a GBC guru must gamble that the GBC guru is definitely a self-realised soul who has seen the truth.
Conversely, it is not disputed that Srila Prabhupada is a guru who does satisfy the order of Lord Krsna to seek out a self-realised guru who has seen the truth. Indeed, he was already functioning in this role, with everyone who had joined ISKCON before 1978 told to only seek Srila Prabhupada out as the guru Lord Krsna directs us to seek out, and thus he was the authorised guru.
1) Given these facts, the GBC has a massive burden to somehow disqualify Srila Prabhupada as the guru Lord Krsna has directed we seek out, since he already fulfils all the qualifications required.
2) Srila Prabhupada could thus only be disqualified if his physical departure disqualified him, as nothing else would have changed in regard to him fulfilling the role of the guru whom Lord Krsna has ordered us to seek out. But Lord Krsna does not state that we must seek out a "living" or "physically present" guru, nor does Srila Prabhupada state this in the purport to this verse or elsewhere.
3) Consequently, the only possible route left for disqualification would be to claim that such disqualification is indirectly implied due to Lord Krsna stating that one needs to be able to inquire from the guru, and that such inquiry can supposedly only be made if the guru is physically present.
However, Srila Prabhupada directly answered that inquiries from him will always be possible, even in his physical absence. In the following conversation, the question of how to inquire from Srila Prabhupada in accordance with Bhagavad-gita 4.34 is directly asked:
Prajapati: "In the Bhagavad-gita it is indicated by Sri Krsna that when we approach a bona fide spiritual master our relationship is twofold: we render service and then we also make inquiry."
Srila Prabhupada: "Yes."
Prajapati: "Now, you have answered all our inquiries so thoroughly in our books that to make inquiry at this point seems like..., you've already answered all the questions. So how may we... What is the proper relationship at that point to make inquiry?"
Devotee (4): "Read the books."
Srila Prabhupada: "Yes. Read the books, yes. Why I'm working so hard? Read the books."
(Morning Walk, 5/1/74)
Thus, Srila Prabhupada declares that he will always be able to fulfil the function of the spiritual master from whom one can inquire, via his books.
Indeed, the same point is already stated in the purport to Bg. 4.34, since Srila Prabhupada speaks about the disciple needing to make such inquiries:
"One should not only hear submissively from the spiritual master; but one must also get a clear understanding from him, in submission and service and inquiries. A bona fide spiritual master is by nature very kind toward the disciple. Therefore when the student is submissive and is always ready to render service, the reciprocation of knowledge and inquiries becomes perfect."
 |
However, Srila Prabhupada does not state that this requirement of the disciple to make inquiries is either limited to, or completed on, the physical disappearance of the spiritual master. Thus, if the need to make inquiries necessitated the physical presence of the spiritual master, then the guru-disciple relationship would automatically end as soon as the guru physically departed, as the disciple would no longer be able to make such inquiries.
Hence, attempting to disqualify Srila Prabhupada as the guru mentioned in Bg. 4.34 on the basis that he needs to be physically present for inquiries to be made, would mean he would need to be disqualified from being the guru for all his current disciples as well, rather than disqualified just for those seeking to become his disciples. And thus, it would be self-defeating for his disciples who are GBC gurus to even propose this. (Please see back page.)
1) We have proven that the guru we are directed to seek out by Lord Krsna continues to be Srila Prabhupada, as his physical disappearance does not disqualify him, nor did Srila Prabhupada disqualify himself by stating he would stop being ISKCON's diksa guru.
2) We have further shown that the GBC guru system does not fulfil this order of Lord Krsna.
Therefore, to reject Srila Prabhupada in favour of the GBC gurus - as many who have joined ISKCON since 1978 have done - is actually a great deviation from Lord Krsna's order. And yet, ISKCON leaders use this same order of Bg. 4.34 to claim the exact opposite - that this order is supposedly directing us to reject Srila Prabhupada and instead accept their "living" (physically present) gurus - which is thus also a great offense to Lord Krsna, as one is cheating innocent devotees in His name.
