28 IF – Third of a Four-Part Series

28 IF

by Kailasa Candra dasa

Third of a Four-Part Series

All emphases added for your edification and realization

In this, the third of our series, we must reiterate that twenty-eight examples of conditionality (“if”) are going to be brought out after the whole four-part 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 very many.
The one guarantee he made is well known: He repeated that 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. That’s certainly the way things have been trending.
So, you will find two influences elucidated in Part Three: 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 here by way of chronological order.

“This program to make each and every center spiritually strong should be the duty of the GBC.” Letter to Hansadutta, 4-24-72. Neutral.
Things appear to be gradually coming back to normal, but a letter to another GBC a mere eight days later would clearly show that such was not at all the case. This is (below) the famous letter to Rupanuga:

“In the latter days of my guru maharaja, he was very disgusted. Actually, he left this world earlier, otherwise he would have continued to live for more years. Still, he requested his disciples to form a strong governing body for preaching the cult of Caitanya Mahaprabhu. He never recommended anyone to be Acarya of the Gaudiya Math.
But Sridhara Maharaja is responsible for disobeying this order of guru maharaja, and he, and others who are already dead, unnecessarily thought that there must be one Acarya. If guru maharaja could have seen someone who was qualified at that time to be Acarya, he would have mentioned. Because, on the night before he passed away, he talked of so many things, but never mentioned an Acarya.
His idea was Acarya was not to be nominated amongst the governing body. He said openly you make a GBC and conduct the mission. So, his idea was, amongst the members of GBC who would come out successful, and self effulgent Acarya would be automatically selected.
So, Sridhara Maharaja and his two associate gentlemen unauthorizedly selected one Acarya, and later it proved a failure. The result is now everyone is claiming to be Acarya, even though they may be kanistha adhikari with no ability to preach. In some of the camps, the Acarya is being changed three times a year. Therefore, we may not commit the same mistake in our ISKCON camp. Actually, amongst my godbrothers, no one is qualified to become Acarya.” Letter to Rupanuga, 4-28-72. Technically, neutral—but, nevertheless, very ominous indeed.
This is one of the heaviest and well-known letters ever produced by His Divine Grace; we could literally devotee a whole article to it. Actually, we could devote a whole book to it. However, in Part Three, we shall simply summarize the key and relevant points as they relate to this series in particular. What we now know—but, in all likelihood, we could not have ascertained back at the time of this letter—is that it was a warning, a harbinger, of what was to come. What was to come did not have to be, of course, because destiny is a two-sided coin. However, the die was cast almost exactly six years after this letter was written, and material destiny or fate held sway at that time.
We are all suffering now because of it.
The GBC has just been thwarted in its unauthorized and illegal attempt to centralize the temples of each zone, and, just as importantly, all the finances of the movement. Prabhupada was able to check them at that time (early 1972), but he was unable to check them in 1978—in no small part because he was no longer physically manifest. However, back in 1972, he could see that the illegal attempt was ultimately based on the desire to become Acharya. First deserve; then desire. None of his GBC men were anywhere near deserving recognition as Acharya (mahabhagavat and successor in the guru-parampara). Still, they were subconsciously(?) trying to create a legal arrangement wherein they could soon achieve this.
Actually, in the attempted centralization of the zones (consolidated into one temple each with one supreme GBC leader), we see the dreaded seeds of the zonal acharya scheme. However, no one—except His Divine Grace—could recognize it back at that time. So, this letter was not at all out of place here. He is warning that he may leave early (which he did, in no small measure because he was poisoned by an inner coterie), and he was also warning that voting arrangements determine neither Acharya nor diksa-guru.

He was giving the history, which also contained another subtle warning: One of his elder godbrothers had his fingerprints all over the unauthorized arrangement to appoint Ananta Vasudeva as successor Acharya to Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Gosvami Prabhupada. If someone of such knowledge, demeanor, and shastric learning could fall sway to this kind of maya, then just consider how the same thing could happen in Prabhupada’s movement. In point of fact, it did.
However, in this letter, he warns how the whole thing will play out if the “same mistake” is repeated in his “ISKCON camp,” and we are now seeing that also. At this time (2010), we are in the stage of guru-inflation; soon, it will be guru hyper-inflation. And, not long after that, first one, then two, then three, then so many will claim to be Acharya. That is not work (seva) in Krishna consciousness, and that is not what Prabhupada wanted for his movement; he wanted it to remain linked to Providence instead.

“That is our real work, to educate people in spiritual life by giving them the practical example. So, I wanted that the GBC would be a chosen body of men for that purpose: To see how the students are learning and reporting to me as my secretaries. I do not know how you could have missed these points, as they are clearly spelled out in my original constitution.” Letter to Satsvarupa, 5-2-72. Unfavorable.
Two points stand out here: Prabhupada’s exasperation in relation to his “chosen body of men,” and a clear reference to his “original constitution.” It could be postulated that the original constitution (herein referenced) is in relation to the Articles of Incorporation (1966). That idea is certainly logical, of course, although the By-Laws for ISKCON (very haphazardly slapped together) would not be the original constitution.
If the original constitution is what was contained in the Articles, then the Direction of Management, generally called and abbreviated as “The D.O.M,” would be a direct appendage or overlay to said constitution. This is because transcendental aims, and the means for achieving them, are discussed in both the Articles and the D.O.M. Also, the integral relationship of the GBC (as of July, 1970) to ISKCON (1966) cannot be ignored.
Any assertion that ISKCON, especially in relation to the commission that controls it (the GBC, of course), did not have a constitution is sheer nonsense. Of course it had one . . . and it still has one! Srila Prabhupada wanted his GBC men to manage centers by keeping temple presidents—the hands-on managers—always on a cybernetic course toward the goal of self-realization and God realization for each and every member of his confederation. He wanted the GBC men to inspire local leaders in this way and to educate the devotees as they visited temples in each and every zone. Then, His Divine Grace wanted those commissioners to report to him how things were progressing, both materially(so-called) and spiritually. This they did not really do, or, to put it more bluntly, they gradually decided to surreptitiously emphasize and utilize the post to enjoy and overlord rather than to educate, enlighten, and inspire the “inmates.”
However, in this letter, Prabhupada points out his exasperation in relation to how his hand-picked commissioners could be so dull as to miss what were their chief responsibilities. It is not readily evident whether he was herein referring to the Articles of Incorporation or to the D.O.M.; still, it is very possible that he was indeed referencing the D.O.M. So, let us now segue into a brief discussion of that Direction of Management document, in order to better understand what the GBC was supposed to have been–and, conversely, what it was not supposed to have become.
We shall simply represent what we consider the essence of it, although the document itself is not very long. We are also going to add some emphases in what we are essentially highlighting here. The D.O.M. can be accessed in many places, including the folio. So, for any of you who want to read the doc in its entirety, hyperlinked sources should uncover it rather easily. Also, we are adding, in parentheses, some pertinent information in relation to seven of the original members (appointed as GBCs) in July, 1970.

Direction of Management (“The D.O.M.”)

“These personalities are now considered as my direct representatives. While I am living, they will act as my zonal secretaries and, after my demise, they will be known as Executors.

1) Rupanuga das Adhikari
2) Bhagavan das Adhikari
3) Syamasundar das Adhikari
4) Satsvarupa das Adhikari
5) Karandhar das Adhikari (original BBT Trustee)
6) Hansadutta das Adhikari (currently a rittvik)
7) Tamal Krishna das Adhikari (deceased)
8) Sudama das Adhikari (deceased)
9) Bali Mardan das Brahmacari (original BBT Trustee)
10) Jagadisa das Adhikari
11) Hayagriva das Adhikari (deceased)
12) Krishna das Adhikari (first commissioner to resign)

“The purpose of the Governing Body Commission is to act as the instrument for the execution of the Will of His Divine Grace. And further . . .

“1. The GBC oversees all operations and management of ISKCON, as it receives direction from Srila Prabhupada and His Divine Grace has the final approval in all matters.
“2. His Divine Grace will select the initial 12 members of the GBC.* In the succeeding years, the GBC will be elected by a vote of all Temple presidents who will vote for 8 from a ballot of all Temple presidents, which may also include any secretary who is in charge of a Temple. Those 8 with the greatest number of votes will be members for the next term of GBC. Srila Prabhupada will choose to retain four commissioners. In the event of Srila Prabhupada’s absence, the retiring members will decide which four will remain.

* It was done in this document; those twelve are all listed (above).

“3. The commissioners will serve for a period of 3 years, and they may be re-elected at the end of this period.

“So far my books are concerned, I am setting up a different body of management known as the BHAKTIVEDANTA BOOK TRUST. The trustees of this body are also members of the GBC, but their function is not dependent on the GBC.

“Signed in L.A. on 7-28-70 by:
“His Divine Grace Srila A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada
Rupanuga das Adhikari
Bhagavan das Adhikari
Karandhar das Adhikari”

This ends what we have selected from the DOM. The document is a bit ambiguous as whether it (the DOM itself) is the constitution of ISKCON, or whether it is to become a part of what could be called an expanded constitution. However, from the letter in May of 1972 (just referenced, above), Prabhupada refers to a constitution already in existence (“I do not know how you could have missed these points, as they are clearly spelled out in my original constitution.”
Except for the Articles of Incorporation, there was no other legal document resembling the DOM at that time (May, 1972), and there had not been any addendum yet created to either document. As such, those who consider the DOM to be the constitution of ISKCON are not without evidence here. Although it is a directive concerning the GBC, this GBC body clearly governed ISKCON (after all, it was called the governing body commission). As such, the DOM had (and still has) a clear and present relationship with ISKCON and its original Articles, and only a fanatic of the very worst variety would attempt to deny this fact.
In the essential parts of the DOM that we have just represented, the eventuality of Srila Prabhupada’s departure from manifest existence is mentioned twice. How important is this fact? Very! Because it proves that this document was not simply relevant to the period when he was present in physical form on earth, but that it also carries over to the time after he departs (has departed) external manifestation. Does that mean that the DOM is, de jure, in effect at this current time? It does!
The document also proves that Srila Prabhupada’s power and authority always trumps that of any individual commissioner, as well as the power and/or authority of the whole commission itself. This is often forgotten nowadays, but not all devotees of Prabhupada can be accused of such forgetfulness. The DOM is a reminder to all of us that the commission cannot legitimately act outside the jurisdiction of its limited power.

The document also shows why the first echelon leaders of ISKCON were well on their way to going off the rails as of the timeframe we are herein featuring (now in Part Three) in this series. Why? Because the commission was absolutely making no arrangement whatsoever to carry out one of the key injunctions mandated in the DOM. As you can all see, every three years there was supposed to have been elections of eight GBC men, with Prabhupada retaining four others (of his choice).

This was never done!

Furthermore, these original twelve men (although we can hardly, in good conscience, fault Krishna das here, since he had the good sense to drop out of the commission early on) did not inform the other temple presidents of their duty—and power–in relation to the continuous functioning and ever-evolving formation of the governing body commission. Some of the (original twelve) commissioners were also temple presidents, at least for part of the time after the GBC was formed. Except for them, no other temple presidents were informed that they had both the power and the duty to elect future commissioners just a few years up the road.
As of July, 1973, there were supposed to have been GBC elections. At that time, eight of these fellows (seven, if you consider that Krishna das had already departed) were supposed to have left the commission—unless any one or more of them were voted back in by the conglomerate body of ISKCON temple presidents and secretaries throughout the world.
Those remaining eleven all wanted to keep their posts, obviously (and, somewhat ironically, although nine of them are still living, none of them remains on the GBC). As such, this constitutionally required election was never even prepared for, none of the other temple presidents were informed of the injunctions (in the DOM) requiring it, and, most importantly, the election was never held. As of the summer of 1973, the GBC body was illegitimate, because it did not abide by integral injunctions within the constitution governing it. His Divine Grace never invalidated the DOM at any time; indeed, post 1973, he validated it a number of times. You may argue that this is all technical. However, it is not. It is a key point, and the reason why it was and remains so requires higher intelligence.

“I think it is best thing if the GBC members always travel on sankirtana party in their zone and go from one village to another and visit the temples to see how the students are learning–and do my work. In this way, they will avoid the propensity to sit down and plot and scheme how to eat and sleep.” Letter to Karandhar, 5-4-72. Slightly unfavorable.
Herein we see that Prabhupada, at least indirectly, was indicating that his GBC men were engaged in plotting and scheming. They were not plotting and scheming how to educate and train up the devotees under them, however. They were plotting and scheming about other things, and we have all seen plenty of evidence of that over the years.

“This is most irregular. I am trying to retire from the administrative affairs, but if the presidents and GBC men make such disturbances, then how I can be peaceful?” 17 of 28. Letter to Rupanuga, 5-9-72. Unfavorable.
Here we find Prabhupada referring to them as troublemakers (creating disturbances), and engaged in irregular affairs. Even more ominously, the temple presidents have also been lumped in with them by His Divine Grace here in this letter. Obviously, the temple presidents, just thirteen months later, would not fulfill an important fiduciary responsibility described above (voting for GBC members according to the DOM). Perhaps some of them actually knew of this but were in cahoots with a specific GBC man in order to featherbed their own nests more effectively. Hard to know exactly . . . that is, until someone spills his guts. All of this kept Prabhupada in a state of concern, when he should have instead been peacefully translating.

“I am feeling the tendency more and more to retire behind the scenes for translating work, and I want to turn over the management of everything to the GBC and other senior leaders amongst my disciples . . .” Letter to Bhargava, 6-13-72. Neutral.
The question here is: Why did he have to repeat this again, especially since it was put in terms of not yet having been attained (“I want to . . .”); why is not, by this time, Prabhupada completely retired?

“I am feeling the inclination for retiring into the background and simply translating my Srimad-Bhagavatam, therefore I have delegated this GBC to manage everything and give me relief.” Letter to Sankarsana, 6-13-72. Neutral.
As we shall see, they did not give him much relief.

“So you GBC men are my selected few for insuring that what I am doing will be carried on very nicely for the pleasure of Lord Caitanya Mahaprabhu.” Letter to Madhudvisa, 6-16-72. Favorable.
Interesting how this one specifically played out a mere four years later.

“It is better to maintain a devotee than to try to convince others to become devotees. It is the duty of the GBC to maintain the devotees, keep them in the highest standard of Krishna Consciousness, and give them all good instruction, and let them go out and preach for making more devotees.” Letter to Satsvarupa, 6-16-72. Neutral.
Prabhupada is trying to return the situation to normal by radiating an ambience that it is actually now just that (normal). This is a subtle form of damage control, especially since elections are, at this time, only thirteen months away—elections that would never be held, however.

“. . . now you all leaders, especially the GBC members, must become very much responsible and do the work that I am doing to the same standard. . . On this platform, you shall be able to carry on the work satisfactorily, but if there is lack of knowledge, or if there is forgetfulness, everything will be spoiled in time.” Letter to Hansadutta, 6-22-72. 18 of 28. Ominous.
Indeed, everything was spoiled in time, especially when the die was cast in the spring of 1978. Notice the conditionality of the GBC here; this letter constitutes a subtle form of warning to each and every one of them. And Srila Prabhupada adds that the GBC “must become” very much responsible. That indicates that none of them individually, what to speak of the body as a whole, had yet actually become responsible.

“But I have been very much disturbed recently by the meeting which you all have had in New York, wherein you have passed so many resolutions and elected Atreya Rsi to GBC Secretary, and made so many other changes. I am very much puzzled by the whole business. Therefore, I have not approved of it, and you may by now have received my letter why I have temporarily suspended the GBC.” Letter to Satsvarupa, 8-10-72. Displeased.
Herein we see that Prabhupada had not let the issue go. He says that he has been very much disturbed by it, indirectly inferring that he is still disturbed by it. Otherwise, why did he, four months later, bring it up again? In other words, he must have seen that the seeds which sprouted to create that disturbance had not yet been burnt out of these leaders.

“The standards I have already given you, now try to maintain them at all times under standard procedure. Do not try to innovate or create anything or manufacture anything; that will ruin everything.” Letter to Bali Mardan and Pusta Krishna, 9-18-72. Neutral, but also a warning.
These two leaders were not getting along very well, so Prabhupada tried to mitigate, at least to some extent, their fighting spirit. Only one of them was a GBC, however.

“Of course, my authorities and so-called officers, they sometimes also order in such a way that everything becomes topsy-turvy. So you may write to me your grievance—what can I do?” Letter to Jayadharma, 12-13-72. Subtly displeased, expressing helplessness.
Why did Prabhupada use “so-called” in this letter? Also, a disciple’s free will is such that, especially when it is misused halfway around the world, that it is impossible for a spiritual master to completely control it at any and all times. A spiritual master can never be expected to control his disciple if and/or when he elects to misuse free will.

“Wherever there are individuals there is bound to be difference of opinion. Therefore, for this purpose, I have formulated the GBC. Therefore, any new programs or proposals or discrepancies should be submitted before the Governing Board Commission, and then their conclusion should be submitted to me for the final approval.” Letter to Rupanuga, 2-14-73. Neutral.

There are two points here; one is quite obvious (even a bit repetitive). The other is quite subtle. He is again repeating—and this was substantiated in the D.O.M. very clearly—that any and all proposals that have been voted in by the GBC must be submitted to His Divine Grace for final approval.
The subtle point centers around his use of the word “formulated” in this excerpt. Prabhupada formed a GBC, but he does not speak of its formation. Instead, he speaks of its formulation. In other words, he has formulated a way to overcome individual differences, but his formation (of the body itself and those in it) may not be carrying out that formulation.

“So I am turning over all the management to the GBC and the presidents.”

Letter to Cyavana, 3-6-73. Neutral.
That he turned it over to them does not mean that they would automatically not be able to ruin a new managerial arrangement of their own making.

“So, I am more and more depending upon you GBC. Of course, you GBC are in training, but you are all the hope for the future of our movement.” Letter to Karandhar, 3-15-73. Hopeful.
They were still in training. As far as cruise liners were concerned, the Titanic was also the hope of American pleasure vessels when it set sail.

“I have appointed these GBC men to oversee and manage all the affairs of the Society, giving me relief to do my translation work fully.” Letter to Nityananda, 8-17-73. Neutral.
The deadline for the first vote had now passed. The vote was never held. Does this mean that Prabhupada has invalidated those strictures from the D.O.M.? No, it does not. His Divine Grace has planted a transcendental time bomb into his GBC body, to serve to check and balance it. If they made good progress, oversaw his sprawling, worldwide movement effectively, and managed the affairs of the confederation properly, then he would allow them to continue in their ad hoc fashion. If not, then the specter of their disobedience, concerning key injunctions in the GBCconstitution, could be brought to the fore at any time—including after his disappearance.

“If you have any misunderstanding with the GBC member, you should have let me know.” Letter to Tusta Krishna and Behari Lal, 10-15-73. Neutral.
If the GBC men were either perfect or near perfect in their behavior and understanding of the philosophy and process, why would Prabhupada say that any individual disciple can still consult him? It is in the context of a misunderstanding with a GBC man, so it reflects on the qualifications (or lack of qualifications) of these men. This same theme is repeated with much more specificity in the very next quote a mere three weeks later:

“If you cannot agree with the GBC, I can take up your matter personally and do the needful. . . if you cannot cope with the GBC men–which I suppose there must have been some disagreement–I shall deal with you directly. But do not leave the Krishna consciousness movement, at any cost.” Letter to Tusta Krishna, 11-7-73. Neutral.

“My idea in forming the GBC is that I may be spared from the management and use my time for translating books.” Letter to Jagadisa, 1-8-74. Neutral.
His Divine Grace is still attempting to get things back on course—actually, they have not been regular since 1971—and his effort continues in this re-statement of chief GBC purpose.

“Of course, this kind of management of affairs is better handled by the GBC, which I have created for this purpose. I cannot be expected to handle problems of this sort while at the same time writing my books.” Letter to Sukadeva, 4-5-74. Neutral.
The excerpt is the verse, but here is its meaning: “I cannot translate my books and write my purports if you leaders and GBC do not give me relief from all these management affairs.”

“The GBC must be vigilant by following the regulative principles and teach, by ideal character, the presidents of the centers. And the presidents, by their ideal character, must teach the others. Then, automatically, all members of the whole institution will be ideal to the human society.” Letter to Rupanuga 4-28-74. Neutral.
This was the formula. How nice it would have been if the GBC men had used their free will properly to implement it.

“I cannot close my eyes when there are big management difficulties. So, when I see things going wrong, money misspent, things not used properly, then I have to take part. But if you can relieve me of worry of management in Mayapur, it will be a great relief for me.” Letter to Jayapataka and Bhavananda, 5-9-74. Somewhat displeased.
Prabhupada infers that he had been letting some of their ineptitude slide, but now he can no longer close his eyes to “big management difficulties” that are only beginning to engulf his movement. These difficulties had crept in due to negligence, mismanagement, and lack of responsibility by his leaders, particularly by the GBCs. He wanted relief from all of this; he wanted relief from this since 1970. However, he was not getting that relief.

“Yamaraja is one of the GBC of Krishna. Yes. As we have got twelve GBCs, similarly Krishna has got GBCs. . . (t)herefore, we have created these GBC, so they should be very responsible men. Otherwise, they will be punished. They will be punished to become a sudra. Although Yamaraja is a GBC, but he made a little mistake: He was punished to become a sudra. So, those who are GBCs, they should be very, very careful to administer the business of ISKCON. Otherwise, they will be punished. As the post is very great, similarly, the punishment is also very great. That is the difficulty.”

Lecture on 1.13.15 in Geneva, 6-4-74.
This is not from one of Prabhupada’s letters, but it is a statement he made directly about the GBC while sitting on his Vyasasan in the Geneva temple. That, in one sense, gives it even greater weight than any specific letter to any specific leader or GBC. We have seen some individual examples of this predicted and predestined punishment already, but we shall not deliberate upon any of that in this article. Suffice it to say that Prabhupada was giving them all an ominous warning here. He had been neutral for many months—he even let the 1973 deadline for elections pass (and there was a method to him doing so, which you are invited to figure out). Now, however, he is warning about “big management difficulties” in the summer of 1974.

It was going to get a helluva a lot worse.

To be continued