he GBC's guru system consists of 3 elements:
1) The GBC.
2) Successor diksa gurus.
3) The latter under the authority of the former.
If any one of these elements is not authorised, then the whole system collapses. The previous article proved that the 3rd element is not authorised to be present, thus giving yet another proof that the GBC's guru system is unauthorised. What makes this proof indisputable is that, as we shall show, the GBC is unable to offer any challenge to it.
GBC agrees with IRM's proof
In its paper Understanding ISKCON's Lines of Authority (henceforward UILA), the GBC specifically addresses the issue of how the GBC is able to be a superior authority to those who are supposed to be "as good as God" diksa gurus. UILA states:
"we will examine the position of spiritual masters within the managerial structure of ISKCON."
Before investigating this GBC examination of the above, we need to first note that in the previous article, we had quoted Srila Prabhupada's statement that, as the spiritual master, he is superior to the GBC. And, in the response to the above, UILA then quotes this same statement to make the same point!:
"When Srila Prabhupada was physically present, he was ISKCON's sole initiating spiritual master, its preeminent siksa guru, and the supreme managerial authority, superior to the GBC:
"[...] we are managing our Krishna Consciousness Movement by the Governing Body Commission, GBC. We have got about 20 GBC's looking after the whole world affair, and above the GBC I am there."
(Srila Prabhupada Letter, 30/6/76)"
Thus, UILA agrees with our proof that Srila Prabhupada established a management system for ISKCON wherein the GBC is subordinate to the diksa guru.
No change in management system
It is because of agreeing with us that Srila Prabhupada's managerial structure places the diksa guru above the GBC, that UILA is then forced to claim that Srila Prabhupada changed this managerial structure for application after his physical disappearance:
"In Srila Prabhupada's physical absence the structure is now somewhat different. His Divine Grace instructed that the GBC should be the ultimate managing authority for ISKCON."
This refers to Srila Prabhupada stating as the very first point in his Last Will and Testament that the GBC will be ISKCON's "ultimate managing authority". However, this does not represent any change to the system of management, and the proof is in the very next point in his Last Will and Testament, which states that:
"The system of management will continue as it is now and there is no need of any change."
Therefore, Srila Prabhupada's establishing the GBC as the ultimate managing authority cannot represent any change in the system of management, as Srila Prabhupada states at the same time that the existing system of management does not change.
GBC offers no evidence
And we can practically show how the GBC being designated the "ultimate managing authority" does indeed represent no change to the system of management:
1) GBC Resolution 1, 1975, stated that, even during Srila Prabhupada's physical presence, the GBC was the managing authority for ISKCON on Srila Prabhupada's behalf:
"The GBC (Governing Body Commissioned) has been established by His Divine Grace A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada to represent Him in carrying out the responsibility of managing the International Society for Krishna Consciousness".
2) The quote from the IRM's proof, which we showed UILA quoting in the last section, gave the system of management that Srila Prabhupada established when he was physically present. And this states that the "managing" of ISKCON was done by the GBC, and that they were responsible for "looking after the whole world affair", and thus were managing ISKCON on Srila Prabhupada's behalf.
Thus, UILA's argument revolves around:
1) First agreeing with the IRM that Srila Prabhupada established a managerial structure in which the GBC is subordinate to the diksa guru;
2) Then quoting that the GBC was to be the "ultimate managing authority for ISKCON" from Srila Prabhupada's Will, which is actually proof that the managerial structure was not to be changed.
Thus, the GBC is unable to offer any evidence for a "greater than God" GBC system.
No successor diksa gurus
1) That the GBC cannot have "greater than God" authority over diksa gurus is proven by:
a) Srila Prabhupada's teachings in the previous article;
b) The failure of UILA to even challenge these teachings as shown in this article.
2) This proof, however, has another very important consequence. We can note that, if the GBC does not have such authority over diksa gurus, then it cannot possibly have the authority to authorise such diksa gurus either.
Which would be consistent with the statement of the GBC's own "Sastric Advisory Council" ("SAC") that the system of the GBC authorising diksa gurus is not found by them to be:
"mentioned by guru, sadhu or sastra as the way that one is authorized to become a guru."
(Balancing the Roles of the GBC and the Disciple in Guru Selection, SAC)
3) At the outset of this article, we noted that the GBC guru system has 3 elements, and the fact that we proved in the previous article that the 3rd element of the GBC having the necessary authority over "good as God" diksa gurus is not authorised, provided yet another proof that the GBC guru system is unauthorised. And now we have noted that a corollary of this proof would mean that element 2 given at the outset, GBC-authorised "successor diksa gurus", would also not be authorised to exist – thereby giving yet another separate proof that the GBC guru system is unauthorised.
Conclusion
It is proven that Srila Prabhupada did not give a new management system for ISKCON – which proves that he also did not give a new "greater than God" GBC guru system for ISKCON.
Subscribe for FREE to Back To Prabhupada Magazine - Click Here
Return to GBC Index
Return to "Succession" Index
Return to IRM Homepage
