he following challenge which mentions the IRM ("rtvik") position was forwarded to us by readers. It is from an interview given by GBC voted-in guru HH Trivikrama Swami ("TVS") on 5/3/24, with TVS's statements presented in the shaded boxes.
"when Prabhupada left the planet [...] many of the leading disciples imitated instead of following in the footsteps of Srila Prabhupada, and therefore they fell down."
TVS refers here to the persons who were appointed by Srila Prabhupada to be rtviks via the July 9th, 1977 directive, but who, on Srila Prabhupada's physical departure, assumed the role of successor diksa gurus, and subsequently had gross sensual fall downs.
1) TVS claims that these fall downs were due to the persons "imitating" rather than following in the footsteps of Srila Prabhupada. However, Srila Prabhupada was the diksa guru for ISKCON, and then these "leading disciples" took his position and became the diksa gurus for ISKCON. Thus, in that sense, they did follow in his footsteps, if they were meant to be successor diksa gurus. As successor diksa gurus, there is no difference between "imitating" and "following in the footsteps", in that they attempted to follow how Srila Prabhupada acted as a diksa guru.
2) However, the argument is given that what they did wrong was take too much lavish worship, sit on big vyasasanas, etc. But a diksa guru is supposed to be worshipped and treated by the disciple "as good as God", and thus, the question of excessive worship does not even arise, if he is an authorised, bona fide diksa guru to begin with.
3) But, even if we accept the argument that their "mistake" was to sit on big vyasasanas and accept "too much worship", and thus "imitate", that argument is defeated by one single fact. After these original 11 gurus began falling down, a "reform" was undertaken whereby personal vyasasanas were removed and the worship was "toned down", and so on. Then many more new gurus were voted in by the GBC. But dozens of them still fell down as well, and still continue to fall!
Thus, obviously, the fall down of all of the gurus, both from the original 11 and all those who came later, must have a common cause, rather than the first 11 gurus having "too much worship", etc., since the gurus who came after them supposedly did not share this "excessive" worship. And Srila Prabhupada gives a clear explanation that accounts for the fall of all of them. Srila Prabhupada states:
"The spiritual master must never be carried away by an accumulation of wealth or a large number of followers. A bona fide spiritual master will never become like that. But sometimes, if a spiritual master is not properly authorized, and only on his own initiative becomes a spiritual master, he may be carried away by an accumulation of wealth and large numbers of disciples."
(The Nectar of Devotion, Chapter 14)
Srila Prabhupada states that:
a) A bona fide spiritual master will not fall.
b) If a spiritual master does fall, it means he was not authorised.
Thus, this explains why all of the ISKCON gurus who have fallen down sensually and got "carried away", have done so – they were not authorised. And it also clarifies how none of the GBC gurus are authorised, even if they have not been observed to have been "carried away" – because all the GBC gurus were authorised in the same way – via the GBC.
"So, when the whole rung of leadership falls down, then naturally it filters down to everybody. Everybody loses faith. Everybody thinks ‘Well, maybe Krsna is not God, or maybe Prabhupada did something wrong'."
There is no reason for anyone to think that Krsna is not God, or that Srila Prabhupada did something wrong, when a GBC guru falls – unless the devotees had first falsely been taught that the GBC gurus were bona fide, having been authorised by Srila Prabhupada. Which is exactly what happened. Thus, the guru hoax causes loss of faith not just in the false GBC gurus, but also in Srila Prabhupada and Lord Krsna – and that is why the guru hoax is so devastating spiritually. It has damaging spiritual effects way beyond the immediate guru-disciple relationship.
"Just like these rtviks, they've come up and they say Prabhupada didn't want any other guru. He's going to be guru forever and ever. But that's a reaction to the fact that some of the gurus fell down."
We do not say that Srila Prabhupada will be the Acarya and therefore diksa guru for ISKCON. He said so, by stating that he is to be the Acarya of ISKCON for its lifetime – see page 3, for why this means he is also the diksa guru of ISKCON for its lifetime. Hence, to state that fact is not a reaction to some gurus falling. Rather, as we have proven above, the gurus falling is itself the reaction to the fact that Srila Prabhupada is to be the only diksa guru for ISKCON (and thus these fallen gurus were not authorised to succeed him).
"So, Prabhupada didn't make anybody a guru. He gave them a chance but many of them didn't follow."
If a guru is not authorised by his guru, then that means he is "self-made":
"Self made guru cannot be guru. He must be authorised by the bona fide guru. Then he's guru. This is the fact [...] Similarly, bona fide guru means he must be authorised by the superior guru."
(Srila Prabhupada, Lecture, 30/10/72)
Conversely, as Srila Prabhupada explains above, if one is authorised by one's guru, then one's guruship is brought into existence, which is the definition of "made". Thus, if Srila Prabhupada did not "make" successor diksa gurus as TVS accepts, then it means they were not authorised by Srila Prabhupada. Thus, he supports the proof for lack of authorisation for the GBC gurus which we just gave by using the quote from The Nectar of Devotion.
Subscribe for FREE to Back To Prabhupada Magazine - Click Here
Return to Trivikrama Index
Return to "Fall Downs" Index
Return to IRM Homepage
