28 IF – Second of a Four-Part Series

28 IF

by Kailasa Candra dasa

Second of a Four-Part Series

All emphases added for your edification and realization

In the second of our four-part series, we must reiterate that twenty-eight examples of conditionality (“if”) are going to be brought out as the series unfolds. Srila Prabhupada made few (if any) guarantees, because nothing could be guaranteed. Free will is what it is. If free will was misused by the leadership echelons of his organization, particularly after he left manifest existence, then all such guarantees (never made) would have been rendered phony. As such, he did not make any, because he could not make any.

The one guarantee he made is well known: Lord Caitanya’s movement, in a bona fide way, will spread to every town and village of the world. He specifically stated that this may or may not be carried out by his ISKCON movement. If it deviated, then somebody else would take the credit.

So, there are two trends elucidated here: Emphasis of the conditionality implicit in Srila Prabhupada’s statements (concerning his movement in general and the GBC in particular), along with the nature of his statements to and about the GBC. As you probably already know, everything is presented in chronological order in this series.

“Please continue to work with determination and great faith in Krishna and guru and full cooperation of your godbrothers and fellow members of the Governing Body. If you all keep to the standard practices of pure spiritual life as I have humbly instructed you, there is no doubt that this sankirtana movement of Lord Caitanya will overtake all the earth, and all opposing parties will be cracked down to nothing.” 12 of 28 (the twelfth “if” of a total of twenty-eight) Letter to Karandhar, 1-1-71.

Nothing like this has transpired as of 2010, because the conditions have not at all been met. Nor is there any indication that they will be.

“The future hope of solid standing of our mission is on the proper management of our governing body.” Letter to Bhagavan, 2-16-71.

Why did Prabhupada use the word “hope” here? Within his letters, especially where he made various comments about the GBC, Prabhupada used the word “hope” seven times, and the word “hopeful” once; that’s a lot! As such, the GBC was nothing more than a hopeful venture from the outset; there was never any kind of guarantee invested in it, what to speak of an automatic self-corrective mechanism intrinsic to the body.

Both of these abovementioned quotes are Hopeful.

“For better management of the whole institution, the governing body commission is responsible. So, I shall be simply pleased to see that things are going on very nicely.” Letter to Satsvarupa, 2-26-71

This means that he both expected and wanted to be pleased, not that he knew in advance that he would certainly be pleased. This excerpt demonstrates a subtle form of transcendental pressure. The GBC, as confirmed herein, was primarily a responsibility, not some kind of benediction.

This quote is neutral.

“So follow this principle, so that we shall not give chance for damaging our credit with them. I hope that the GBC members will see to this.”

Letter to Bhagavan, 3-24-71.

This one is in the context of being straightforward in dealings, particularly when they concern monetary debts. The quote is hopeful.

“GBC members are simply to see that things are going on. Other centers have got president, secretary, etc. and they are managing separately. That is the formula. So how is it that the GBC are the final authority? They are simply to examine that things are going on nicely, that is all.”

Letter to Umapati, 7-9-71.

We shall see this theme repeated much more strongly just one month later; the GBC was never given absolute or final authority. They were put in charge of oversight and were also to provide encouragement. Nevertheless, they would turn into something much different in due course of time.

The quote is slightly unfavorable.

GBC does not mean to control a center. GBC means to see that the activities of a center go on nicely. I do not know why Tamal is exercising his “absolute authority.” That is not the business of GBC. The president, treasurer, and secretary are responsible for managing the center. GBC is to see that things are going nicely but not to exert absolute authority. That is not in the power of GBC. Tamal should not do like that. The GBC men cannot impose anything on the men of a center without consulting all of the GBC members first. A GBC member cannot go beyond the jurisdiction of his power. We are in the experimental stage, but, in the next meeting of the GBC members, they should form a constitution how the GBC members manage the whole affair. But it is a fact that the local president is not under the control of the GBC.” Letter to Giriraj, 8-12-71.

This is one of the more important quotes, foreshadowing very ominous proceedings that would transpire just a few months down the road. It was not and is not the business of the GBC to exert absolute authority, neither it was invested with such power. These men were herein warned to stay within the jurisdiction of their assigned quota or power.

The GBC was only a little over a year old at this time, and already it was acting like this, particularly through one of its most notorious members, Tamal (TKG, now deceased). The GBC was still an experiment back then, but it eventually turned into a Frankenstein. Prabhupada herein enjoins it to form a specific constitution that spelt out its powers and limitations, although the members of this body never actually obeyed him by complying with that order at that time. The president is never under the control of any GBC man nor under the control of the collective body. His Divine Grace is obviously Displeased.

“We require to hold this important meeting of the GBC to formulate the rules and regulations (of) how things will be worked on. Sometime there are complaints against the GBC which is not very favorable. I set up the GBC with hope that I shall get relief from administration of the mission, but, on the contrary, I have become the center of receiving so many complaints. So it is not a relief for me; rather it is becoming a little troublesome.”

Letter to TKG, 8-14-71.

This was a letter created only two days later, and His Divine Grace is still displeased with what is going on with the commission. He admits that he was hopeful that the governing body could relieve him of all managerial concerns, but now those problems are increasing instead of decreasing. He pins the blame for this on the GBC, indicating strongly that they have become troublesome for him. He wants relief from the complaints. This is primarily due to GBC mismanagement, as the context of the letter clearly indicates. Prabhupada is Displeased.

“You happen to be a member of the GBC. So, whatever you want to do or whatever ideas you want to introduce in the management of our society, please write in a letter and distribute the copies to all the GBC members, along with one copy to me also. Then collect the opinions of each and every GBC member and, if the majority supports the idea, then it should be taken as a fact for being carried out in our society. The majority vote and my opinion should be taken. When the majority opinion is present, my opinion will be “yes” or “no.” In most cases it will be “yes,” unless it is grievously against our principles.” The emphases have been added.

Letter to Bhagavan, Satsvarupa, Karandhar, Jagadisa, et. al., 8-20-71.

This excerpt is a mixed bag, but only a dull-witted person would call it hopeful. There are some subtle, stinging elements in it. He is not as displeased with them as he was the week previously, but he is still well aware of their individual and collective foibles. He herein orders that he should always be informed of every proposal, and this order would be grievously disobeyed just a few months later. He also says the majority vote of the body carries, as long as his vote matches that vote of the majority. In the most ominous sentence from this excerpt, he indicates that the majority vote still has the potential of being “grievously against our principles.” Indeed, that would be proven in the first months of the following year. The excerpt is Slightly unfavorable but most ominous.

“By this system of taking a majority vote on any given proposal and then submitting the final decision to me for approval, there is no necessity for holding a GBC meeting.” Letter to Karandhar 8-26-71.

Here he indicates that he does not want them spending all kinds of money in order to arrange meetings. He tells them that they should instead carry out the votes on various proposals without holding any time-consuming and costly meetings. The quote is Neutral.

“There are many things to be done in our missionary activities, but the GBC is not yet very strong to take up all the things and do them nicely.”

Letter to TKG, 8-26-71.

Clearly, the body was still in the experimental stage, and it was not proceeding as well as Prabhupada had envisioned. After having functioned for a little over one year, the GBC men should have been strong in their service by this time—but they were not. The proof of this will be demonstrated shortly as this article proceeds. Slightly unfavorable.

“I am glad that you have admitted about the GBC members not very appropriately discharging their duty. . .We are now growing in volume all over the world dealing with public money. People have respect for our movement. Now it is time for GBC members to be very, very careful, so that people may not point out any black spot in the behavior of our Society.” Well, the people would have plenty of fodder to point out many black spots in due course of time. Herein, Prabhupada says that the GBC men are not discharging their duty. That is very serious. You make advancement in spiritual life by discharge of duty; you go down when you do not discharge your duty according to your adhikara (eligibility). This means that the GBC men were going down, and that devolutionary glide-path continueth. Letter to TKG, 9-1-71. Displeased.

“As soon as I see that you GBC members are managing everything very nicely, I shall completely retire for writing my books . . .”

After a year in office, you would think that they would have been functioning quite nicely. On the contrary, the only time they did so was, most ironically, during the first year of their existence.

Letter to Karandhar, 10-16-71. Slightly unfavorable.

“I have appointed this GBC body to relieve me from the burden of administration, so I may concentrate on my writing and translation of books.” Letter to Badari Narayan, 11-18-71. Neutral.

“If you have further questions, do not hesitate to ask your older godbrothers and sisters or GBC man, but if they cannot answer, then I shall be glad to answer.” 13 of 28. Letter to Mohanananda 12-6-71.

Again, Prabhupada indicates that the GBC men are not as yet competent to answer the questions he wanted them to answer in relation to relieving him of management concerns. Neutral.

“As GBC, you should see the standard is perfectly maintained . . . My only request is that all the GBC members should be strictly to the standard of life, and see that others are also following them. Then our centers will be well-managed. Letter to Hayagriva, 2-13-72. Neutral.

“GBC men should not dictate very much: Simply supervise and see that the standards are maintained.” Letter to Hansadutta, 2-14-72.

Indirectly, His Divine Grace was indicating that the GBC men were dictating (that’s what’s done by dictators, by the way) and not simply supervising. However, we shall consider it a Neutral quote.

“. . . now I am old man, and I have inclination for philosophy and translating . . . So, if the GBC, which I have appointed for this task, will kindly now assist me in this way, by handling very expertly and with all good consideration all matters of managing, I shall devote my full time to giving you further nice books.” 14 of 28. Letter to Krittika, 2-16-72.

This letter, which includes the next excerpt as well, actually marked the midpoint of Prabhupada’s movement in many ways, and not only in relation to his scheduled manifest presence. It also marked a change wherein he was going to detach himself from physical association with most of his initiated disciples, at least to a much more pronounced extent.

Your author joined the Hare Krishna movement at exactly this point in time—the midpoint, the high-water mark, so to speak–so this is what we were all instructed by our temple presidents. And rightfully so, because it is what the guru wanted. We never knew the system’s previous closer physical reciprocation for its members with the Founder-Acharya. Everything, as far as overall management was concerned, was now turned over to the GBC. This was a risky move, but leading a Krishna consciousness movement always entails just such risks.

“I think from now on the GBC men may be consulted in all such matters of temple management and affairs. I have given them everything, so they shall be able to answer all questions, and if they cannot answer from their experience, then I have given answer in my books—and still if they cannot answer, they may ask me.” 15 of 28 Letter to Krittika, 2-16-72

This letter contains two Neutral excerpts, ones with heavy implications.

“So far the GBC is concerned, they are my chosen experts and they are supposed to know everything, so there is rule of separate living, that should be followed.” Letter to Mangalamaya and Madhupuri, 2-20-72.

Favorable, but things would shortly change, dramatically.

“I have just now received one letter which has described your GBC meeting of nine men in New York, and I have cabled Rupanuga the following message: ‘GBC Meeting irregular. My strong disapproval. Make no changes. Inform others. Letter follows.’’ So you can understand that I am very much perplexed why you have done these things without consulting me in the matter. If every time someone feels something they call for changing everything, then all that I have done will very quickly be lost.” 16 of 28

Letter to Hansadutta, 4-2-72. Definite Displeasure expressed.

This was the beginning of the end. The GBC went a bridge too far, although, after Prabhupada’s disappearance, they would go much further in the wrong direction. When a spiritual master says, “my strong disapproval,” the disciple should shake to the very core of his being. Even though Prabhupada had clearly said that he should be consulted about all proposals, this stricture was ignored in the winter months of 1972.

Also, the change that was made here (attempted and only partially implemented) was a major one, viz., the centralization of finances and manpower. Especially the GBC for the upper mid-West was very enthusiastic for its immediate implementation, and your author—completely without his knowledge—was heavily affected by that. Centers in his zone which were thriving and had tremendous prospects were arbitrarily shuttered. We joined in one of those small, excellent campus centers. It should never have been shut down at that time.

“P.S. Prabhupada just received Rupanuga’s letter about changes made in GBC zonal management. His comments: ‘I do not favor these changes. Tell them to stop everything. Why they have done this without consulting?’ Letter to Bali Mardan, 4-3-72. Displeased. One day later, Prabhupada reiterates his same message. He would become much more clear about his judgment of the unauthorized GBC meeting very shortly.

“I had no intimation that you all GBC members have met and decided such big, big issues without consulting me. So, I have issued one letter in this regard to all of you, and you may take note that I consider that both the meeting and the resolution is irregular and immediately there should be no change. Again, I am so much burdened by this administrative work that I feel great difficulty. I was very anxious to return to my Los Angeles home to sit down for translating work. But if you all, my right-hand men, are doing things without consulting me and making such big, big changes within our society, without getting my opinion and the opinion of all the GBC members, then what can I do? I am so much perplexed why you all had done this. I have appointed originally 12 GBC members, and I have given them 12 zones for their administration and management. But simply by agreement you have changed everything. So what is this? I don’t know. You mentioned that you are taking great help from Atreya Rsi, but Atreya Rsi is not a member of GBC nor has he any position in my scheme to manage the whole society. . . Meanwhile, you many inform the other GBC members that for the time being there shall be no change within the society, and that they shall manage as before.” Letter to Rupanuga, 4-4-72. Highly Displeased.

The emphases have been added.

This letter showed the root cause of the GBC deviations during later years: The puffed-up and irresponsible attitude of changing anything and everything at whim. The change they attempted at this time (1972) was very big, no doubt. However, the change they made in the spring of 1978 was much darker. Prabhupada was not around to stop them on that one.

“I beg to inform you that recently some of the Governing Body Commission members held a meeting at New York on 25th through 28th March, 1972, and they have sent me a big, big minutes, duplicated, for my consideration and approval. But in the meantime, they have decided some appointments without consulting me. One of the items which struck me very much is as follows:

‘Atreya Rsi das was selected to be the Secretary for GBC and receive all correspondence including monthly reports.’’ I never appointed Atreya Rsi member of the GBC, and I do not know how he can be appointed Secretary to GBC without my sanction. ‘He was also appointed to be on the Management Committee with Karandhara for the purpose of supervising ISKCON business and implementing the decisions reached by GBC.’ This has very much disturbed me. Sriman Atreya Rsi das may be very expert, but without my say he has been given so much power and this has upset my brain.” To All Temple Presidents, 4-8-72. Emphases added.

The meeting was unconstitutional, as the four commissioners who did not attend were not informed about it, and His Divine Grace was also not informed about it. Although, technically it was legal—because a quorum was present to vote—de facto it was illegal, because the other commissioners were not invited and the proposal was not presented to Prabhupada for his vote before the commission took a final decision (which, of course, was quickly reversed by His Divine Grace).

This meeting was a harbinger of how the GBC would continue to malfunction after this on numerous occasions, viz., technically meeting certain limited de jure benchmarks but completely neglecting the constitutionality and spirit of the principles involved. Prabhupada denigrated the “big, big minutes,” but, my oh my, how big the GBC minutes are these days! Prabhupada says that this meeting, despite its quorum, was assembled without his sanction. He was never consulted. He says that it has greatly disturbed and upset him.

He was Exceptionally Displeased.

“The meeting of the GBC appeared to be very unconstitutional, because all the men were not informed or invited. Syamasundara was not invited, Sudama was not invited, Krishna das was not invited, Tamala Krishna was not invited, neither I was informed. Why? You cannot hold meeting of 8 persons without inviting the others. Seven may be a quorum–that’s all right–but you cannot convene without a general announcement to all the members and myself, giving a proposed agenda, like that, the topics to be discussed, why the meeting is being called, etc.

Then there is correspondence for deciding these things, and if there is great necessity, then meeting may be called. But not whimsically; only after much thought is given, and there is clear intimation of all the members plus myself. . . the whole thing appeared to be giving all power to Atreya Rsi.

I cannot understand why, instead of one GBC man, a person outside the Commission was given so much power. And there was to be immediate action without divulging the matter to the devotees. And I am surprised that none of the GBC members detected the defects in the procedure. It was detected only when it came to me. What will happen when I am not here, shall everything be spoiled by GBC? So for the time being, let the GBC activities be suspended until I thoroughly revise the whole procedure.”

Letter to Hansadutta, 4-11-72. Emphases added. Exceptionally Displeased.

Consider the meeting unconstitutional. Consider that four other GBC men were not even informed of it nor invited to attend. Consider that there was no proposed agenda offered to all members and Prabhupada beforehand. Consider that tremendous power (“all power”) was given to a man not even on the body, one who was skilled and well connected to the vikarmi financial circles of plutocrats. Consider that this decision was not to be divulged to the devotees at large, the rank and file members who earned all that money that was now going to be centrally invested, at great risk. Consider that none of the eight men present there detected the blatant defect of the procedure. Consider Prabhupada’s warning about what might very well happen in the future if this kind of attitude and behavior were to continue (which it did, big time). Consider that Prabhupada suspended the GBC immediately as a result of this unconstitutional meeting.

Now ask yourselves these questions: Has what has come down the pike for the last thirty years merely been a chance happening, or is it a result of an irresponsible conspiracy? What would Prabhupada do with today’s GBC if he were to return in physical form? Would he merely suspend it? Or would he condemn and dismantle it?

To be continued