28 IF – Fourth of a Four-Part Series

28 IF

by Kailasa Candra dasa

Fourth of a Four-Part Series

All emphases added for your edification and realization

In this, the fourth of our series, we must reiterate that twenty-eight examples of conditionality (“if”) are now brought fourth and completed with this final installment. 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.

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 are trending.

So, you will find two influences elucidated in Part Four: 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.

“In the spiritual world, this religious principle of Krishna consciousness is maintained in harmony, and therefore that world is called Vaikuntha. If the same principles can be adopted here, wholly or partially, then it is also Vaikuntha. So it is with any society, such as the International Society for Krishna Consciousness: If the members of the International Society for Krishna Consciousness, putting faith in Krishna as the center, live in harmony according to the order and principles of Bhagavad-gita, then they are living in Vaikuntha . . .”
Srimad-bhagavatam, 3.15.34 (generic example of the principle)

“The GBC should personally observe strictly all the rules and regulations, and they should become the practical example to others. Then everything will be all right. Then there will be no fear of being victimized by maya.”
Letter to Bali Mardan, 9-5-74. Neutral.

Sometimes, especially in the earlier years, the GBC men set this practical example. As time went on, however, there was slippage.

“GBC means that one must be ideal Vaisnava.”
Letter to Jagadisa, 9-6-74. Neutral.

It was a high standard, granted. Let us always remember, however, that each of these GBC men was given tremendous facilitation and perquisites of all varieties everywhere they went in the world, especially in their zones. As such, for the benefits granted them, they had plenty of incentive to meet the standard the His Divine Grace set for them.

“I made the GBC to give me relief, but if you do like this, then where is the relief. It is anxiety for me. This is the difficulty, that, as soon as one gets power, he becomes whimsical and spoils everything. What can I do?”
Letter to Hansaduta, 9-12-74. 19 of 28. Negative.

Just after the middle of the summer of 1974, things have not really improved as far as the GBC is concerned; actually, the situation was gradually deteriorating. Here Prabhupada directly states that the transcendental motive he had for creating the GBC was not only not being fulfilled, it was being reversed in the exact opposite direction. He gave them power to relieve him of anxiety. They were regularly misusing that power and giving him all kinds of headaches. Herein, there is also indication that at least some of these men were acting whimsically; this is never acceptable for any transcendentalist, what to speak of someone in such a position of responsibility. Helplessness on the part of His Divine Grace is also stated, and this will be repeated subsequently.

“Personally, I wish all the existing GBC may be trained up so perfectly that, in the future in my absence, they can manage the whole Society very nicely and strongly. That is my desire.”
Letter to Hansaduta, 9-29-74. Neutral.

That was his transcendental desire. Whether or not it was actually fulfilled is a different story.

“Neither Hamsaduta can change the President whimsically (n)or can anybody else change the President. According the Direction of Management (“the DOM”), the GBC cannot change the President but only by vote can it be done.”
Letter to Mukunda, 9-29-74. A bit ominous.

This is in reference to a saga involving a battle between Madhavananda and Prabha Vishnu over who would reign as President of the Bhaktivedanta Manor at that time. Hamsaduta had his favorite, but the final outcome was still in doubt as of late 1974. What is more significant here is that His Divine Grace was still emphasizing the DOM even at this late date.

He would reference it as the governing authority of the Commission in two more letters during this period of time. So, we see that the DOM was supposed to still be fully operative here. That it was supposedly overturned completely in the spring of 1975 (during the Mayapur meetings) is not historically accurate. That version is pushed by the vested interests who benefited (and still benefit) from such an erroneous and insidious interpretation. The actual fact, however, is that an official document (such as was and is the DOM) cannot be rendered null and void simply by interpretation and say so by those who have a clear motive to benefit in pushing that error. An official document would have been required for the overturn, but there was never any indication that Prabhupada wanted to create such a document, and, in point of fact, he never did.

“There is one vacancy in the GBC Board, so myself, in consultation with Brahmananda Maharaja and Jayatirtha Prabhu, we have decided you can fill up the post. This will be confirmed in the next GBC meeting. In the meantime, I wish you may accept this responsibility. My desire is that some of our experienced members, who have proved their sincerity of service, may form the GBC Board, so that the management of the whole institution may go on smoothly, and I may be relieved of affairs of management, which hampers my writing of books because my attention is diverted.

“At present the following members are on the GBC Board: 1. Jayatirtha, 2. Hrdayananda, 3. Rupanuga, 4. Jagadisa, 5. Satsvarupa, 6. Brahmananda, 7. Madhudvisa, 8. Hamsaduta, 9. Bhagavan, 10. Bali Mardan, 11. Tamala Krishna.”
Letter to Kirtanananda, 10-5-74. Neutral.

This brought Kirtanananda Swami into the GBC fold. By this time, many of the other GBC were also sannyasis, at least officially. This move by Prabhupada was most astute. It (at least for some time) tempered Kirtanananda Swami’s notorious wild-card tendencies, and, at the same time, filled a vacancy on the Board. The number of GBCs remained fixed at twelve as late as the end of 1974.

Notice that other sanguine topics are subtly included in the letter. First of all, His Divine Grace is integrally involved in deciding who should be GBC, and that this was always to be his power is verified by the DOM. Secondly, he is, once again, indirectly indicating that he has not yet been relieved of the affairs of management, even though the GBC, by this time, has been in existence for over four years. He also indicates that his attention is still being diverted from his books by this lack of management.

“. . . if you . . . show yourself as an ideal Vaisnava, then you are my representative in fullness. We are not after titles and designations. Lord Caitanya made it a principle that we must teach by personal example. This is what I have tried to do. So, if all of you, my disciples, do this, then the future of our movement will be glorious.”
Letter to Hridayananda, 10-31-74. 20 of 28. Neutral.

It is not a fact, it is not a metaphysical lock of Providence, that Prabhupada’s ISKCON movement will be recorded in history as glorious, particularly after his disappearance from manifest existence. For such a glorious reputation, it required (and still requires) his GBC men, and his other leading representatives as well, to be ideal Vaishnavas, absolutely unconcerned about titles and designations. We have thus far mostly seen the opposite, so we must keep our attentive perspective, as per this important letter, on the conditionality that is implicit in it.

“Regarding the solution to your getting the necessary funds, as well as your request for men to lead the sankirtana, this must be decided by the GBC, and not myself. If they cannot solve this problem, then what is the meaning of GBC?”
Letter to Dayananda, 11-1-74. Technically neutral.

GBC men were not simply there in order to be bosses and enjoyers; they were given those posts as seva opportunities in order to solve the never-ending waves of problems that Maya would throw on the movement. Prabhupada did not want any of his devotees to be hitting him up for funds. He wanted his GBC men to solve these monetary desires and needs throughout the world. That required expert management. Were they doing this effectively at that time? This question may be justly raised, as per the tone of the letter to a leader who was not himself a GBC.

“I pray to Krishna that you all may use your intelligence for Krishna’s service and not for any personal ambition. We have worked very hard and established a great institution, but if we think for our personal benefit then it will become ruined. This is my only concern.”
Letter to Cyavana, 11-1-74. 21 of 28. Ominous.

Although this letter does not mention the GBC specifically, it is simply too important not to include in this series. It proves that Prabhupada’s ISKCON movement can be ruined. And what would be the cause if that were to transpire? “The poison is personal ambition.” And who were the ones who proved to be the most outrageously ambitious, both before and after his disappearance? This is a rhetorical question, of course. Prabhupada’s movement had full potential to become a great institution—indeed, it had, despite GBC incompetence, attained that status at the time of this letter–but only the blind and the fanatics think that it has become so now. Few original, initiated disciples believe it has a good chance to once again become a great institution in the future.

“I very much appreciate that GBC or XYZ you are always servant of Krishna. That is wanted.”
Letter to Kirtanananda, 11-12-74. Nice!

“GBC, ABC, XYZ—we are all devotees of Krishna.” And “ISKCON-FISKCON—just train the devotees!” Why has this vision been lost? In the overall scheme of things, there is nothing either essential or even very important concerning the GBC. There will be no GBC in the spiritual world, thank God! If they haven’t done the job, if they are not doing the job, why should we be either enamored or intimidated by their titles, designations, or intrigues? It’s all just another version of the Wizard of Oz, so maybe it’s time for the devotees to pull the curtain on the whole thing and reveal just what the emperor is wearing—if he is actually wearing anything of transcendental value at all.

“I want that all our centers be nicely managed, so I can be freed for translation work without any anxiety. Therefore, I have created the GBC to take this responsibility.”
Letter to Sri Govinda, 11-12-74. Neutral.

The reason for the creation of the body is herein restated. This should not have been so difficult.

“But the difficulty is that our GBC men are falling victim to Maya. Today I trust this GBC, and tomorrow he will fall down. That is the difficulty. . . If the GBC men can ever manage properly, then I shall get some time for writing my books.”
Letter to Jayatirtha, 12-16-74. 22 of 28. Extremely negative and foreboding.

With the GBC men becoming Maya’s pawns, the chances for the devotees (under their authority structure) to make genuine spiritual advancement and develop in spiritual power was greatly hampered. Prabhupada was basically saying here that his GBC men were untrustworthy. Obviously, none of them had even reached the stage of anartha-nivritti, otherwise he would not have said this.

Absolutely, none of them had become brahma-realized (self-realization of brahman or impersonal stage). The brahma-realized devotee is always fully trustworthy; he does not fall down except in some rare and most unfortunate circumstances. Herein it is confirmed that the GBC is still not managing Prabhupada’s movement in a proper way that is pleasing to him.

He is also not getting the requisite time to write his books due to this lack of good management. Would we not have had the complete Srimad-bhagavatam, the Vedanta-sutra, the Mahabharata, and the Padma Purana from Prabhupada—with tremendously valuable commentaries—had these GBC men not forced him to shoulder so much burden?

“DRAFT OF ADDITIONS TO MEMORANDUM OF ASSOCIATION FOR CALCUTTA REGISTRATION

5B There shall be a Governing Body Commission whose purpose is to act as the instrument for the execution of the will of the Founder-Acharya, His Divine Grace A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada. The GBC members will be initially selected by His Divine Grace Srila Prabhupada. It will oversee all operations and management of ISKCON, as it receives direction from Srila Prabhupada, and Srila Prabhupada has the final approval in all matters.” 11-17-74. Most important but technically neutral.

At the close of 1974, the DOM was still viable. It was supposed to be amended by this draft, but that was never actually consumated. This draft was supposed to have been added to the Articles of Incorporation in all the centers, but that also was never done. Obviously, His Divine Grace had one thing in mind, and his GBC had something different in their vitiated minds. This was technically not a letter to any disciple, but it was much too important to overlook. Also, it was integral to the GBC, although they did everything they could to overcome it.

“The GBC can formulate proposals and submit them to me for approval.”
Letter to Puranjan, 2-2-75. Neutral.

The purport is self-evident.

“Wherever you live, if you follow strictly the instruction of guru, then you remain perfect. But if we create, concoct ideas against the instruction of guru, then we are doomed, hell!”
Morning Walk, Hawaii, 2-3-75. 23 of 28. Ominous.

GBC has issued so many concoctions since the spring of 1978, but that precursor tendency was already indicated by His Divine Grace here on Magic Island, Honolulu, on this date.

“Now I am desiring more and more to have time for translating my books, not that I have to become involved in every question. For this reason I have installed the GBC.”
Letter to Mahajan, 6-23-75. Neutral.

We can just imagine the frustration of His Divine Grace that he is still having to repeat this desire a full five years after he had formed the Commission. Of course, knowing how deluded these GBC men were and are, they might simply target the word “installed” in order to malinterpret that Prabhupada, in some obtuse and mystical way, actually considered them to be kings worthy of installation. They are more than capable of jumping to such assumptions, what to speak of the fanatics who follow them in a spirit of fervid and malignant triumphalism.

“This is the function of the GBC, to see that one may not be taken away by maya. The GBC should all be the instructor gurus. I am in the initiator guru, and you should be the instructor guru–by teaching what I am teaching and doing what I am doing. This is not a title, but you must actually come to this platform. This I want.”
Letter to Madhudvisa, 8-4-75. Neutral.

We have written extensively on and about this ultra-important letter in our article Siksa-guru is Liberated Devotee.

When you “should be” something, that does not necessarily mean—in fact, it generally does not mean—that you have already become that. When the spiritual master directly says that someone or some others are supposed to come to some platform, it means that they have not yet attained that platform. To sum up, none of the GBCs were qualified gurus—at least, not as of this late date. When you want something, that means that you do not have it at the time you are wanting it.

“. . . why it is mentioned my 79th birthday. It is my 80th birthday. That is correct. You do not know this? One of the GBC articles says 79th birthday. Big GBC man, so many editors, and it is not detected? You are all mudhas, what can I do?”
Letter to Radhavallabha, 8-21-75. Displeased.

This letter was not addressed to a GBC man, but the GBC is specifically mentioned in it. The GBC man supposedly supervising Back to Godhead was enjoined to know this basic detail of Prabhupada’s actual age. He dropped the ball here, and Prabhupada expressed transcendental ire as a result. Helplessness in the matter of his Commissioners’ spiritual and intellectual advancement in spiritual life is also clearly expressed; such advancement can never be forced.

“I want that the GBC relieve me of all management, which means they have to manage the way I manage. I do not want to see things deteriorate by their management.”
Letter to Jayatirtha, 9-7-75. Technically neutral.

Indirectly, this letter indicates that the GBC may wind up facilitating the deterioration of Prabhupada’s movement, especially after he left manifest existence on the physical platform. The mood here was apprehensive.

“What can I do? I have appointed the GBC not to fight amongst yourselves but to manage. If there is fighting, then how will you manage?”
Letter to Hansaduta, 9-29-75. 24 of 28. Displeased.

There has been no dearth of discord, both before and after this letter. Where there is fighting and lack of harmony amongst the leaders of his movement, there is no good management in that movement.

“Why Bhagavan should interfere with Stockholm? I appoint GBC for peaceful management of affairs, and now you are creating disturbances amongst yourselves. So how can I be peaceful to translate my work?”
Letter to Hansaduta, 10-16-75. Displeased.

The fighting spirit picked up significantly after the 1975 Mayapur GBC meeting that spring (this was referred to previously in this article). Perhaps that spirit was a repercussion for the GBC attempt (somewhat successfully, from the limited material perspective) to overlay and undermine the DOM with a completely new and different concoction. The turtle tank thus became all the more activated in 1975 as a result of this offense against the desire of His Divine Grace.

“My only grievance is that I appointed GBC to give me relief from the management but, on the contrary, complaints and counter-complaints are coming to me. Then how my brain can be peaceful?”
Letter to Jayatirtha, 10-16-75. Displeased.

He says that this is his only grievance, but what a very big grievance it is!

“If I have to be involved in every dispute, then what is the need for the GBC?”
Letter to Ajita, 10-16-75. 25 of 28. Displeased.

He is expressing his dissatisfaction to this devotee, who was not a member of the GBC. It appears that he was a bit displeased with this man, but, if we pick up the underlying mood of the letter, he was actually displeased with the GBC. He was openly questioning whether there was even a need for this Body. Let us remember that he suspended its operations completely in April, 1972, proving that it was and is not needed. The conditionality of its need to even exist is implicit in the excerpt itself.

“Now has the GBC become more than Guru Maharaja? As if simply GBC is meant for looking after pounds, shilling, pence. The GBC does not look after spiritual life. That is a defect. All of our students will have to become guru, but they are not qualified. This is the difficulty.”
Letter to Alanatha 11-10-75. 26 of 28. Most ominous!

This is a well-known letter, and the Vaishnava Foundation has made considerable effort over the years to make it even better known. The GBC was supposed to completely facilitate each and every initiated disciple in the movement, so that each and every one of them could become a powerful, knowledgeable, realized devotee, capable of extraordinary action in Krishna consciousness. These GBC men did not at all do this.

They themselves remained unqualified, although they certainly did not neglect their share of power and material enjoyment. They did not look after spiritual life, but, instead, looked after egotistical, ephemeral interests. The letter is clear in this connection, and we are talking about the final months of 1975 here. His Divine Grace would disappear a mere two years later. The GBC were absorbed in material wealth, following the footsteps of powerful vikarmis; this was most inauspicious. It was a major defect. It created a great difficulty for the auspicious development of the Society in its international mission. That difficulty persists at this time.

“But, if you disturb me, then my mind will be disturbed. I want that what I have established may go on nicely, but I see that some of the devotees are reviving their old ‘good’ qualities. That is the difficulty. If the old habits come back, then everything is finished. If my mind becomes disturbed in this way, then how can I concentrate on book writing? It is not possible.”
Letter to Hridayananda, 11-13-75. 27 of 28. Extreme displeasure.

The old habits were coming back (c.f., Romaharsana Suta on the vyasasan when Lord Balaram arrived at that gathering). Those habits would come back even stronger, especially after His Divine Grace left us in November, 1977. Herein, Srila Prabhupada warns that, if the trend continued, the whole thing would be finished. That it goes on in terms of the superficial plane does not mean that it is not essentially finished (spiritually) at this time. A very long article could be written on this one excerpt alone, and perhaps we shall do so some time in the future. In the meantime, you can read it once again in order to absorb its true import.

“So, I request you to relieve me of management responsibilities more and more so that I can complete the Srimad-bhagavatam translation. If I am always having to manage, then I cannot do my work on the books . . . this task will not be finished without the cooperation of my appointed assistants: The GBC, temple presidents, and sannyasis.”
Letter to all Governing Body Commissioners, 5-19-76. 28 of 28.

Phalena pariciyate. It was not finished. His Divine Grace only completed the translations and purports up to the very beginning portions of the Tenth Canto. So, applying basic transitive logic, did he actually receive—when he requested it here—the cooperation of his GBC, et. al.? Was he actually relieved of the management burden?

“Please accept my blessings. In connection with our ISKCON project in Fiji, I beg to inform you that we are managing our Krishna Consciousness Movement by the Governing Body Commission, GBC. We have got about twenty GBC’s looking after the whole world affair, and, above the GBC, I am there.”
Letter to Vasudeva, 6-30-76. Neutral.

Srila Prabhupada’s reiteration of his supreme authority is herein made crystal clear. This letter, to some degree, establishes the authority of the GBC. Notice, however, who he says is above it. We want authority, real authority. That authority is His Divine Grace. Each and every disciple is duty-bound to rightly determine whether or not the GBC properly represents that authority. At the Vaishnava Foundation, we have made this determination, and our article here indicates a solid conclusion. Incidentally, although it was not this letter, Prabhupada’s very last letter (in Sept., 1977) was to this disciple, viz., Vasudeva prabhu. This devotee does not accept the current claim of authority by the so-called GBC.

“It will be very nice if you GBC men can relieve me from the heavy burden of management.”
Letter to Ramesvara, 9-8-76. Dissatisfied.

A little over one year before his disappearance, the chief reason why he created the GBC in the first place (sometimes called the Governing Body Commission and sometimes called the Governing Board Commission) was still not realized. It never would be.

It would be nice if it had been, but we need to see reality and not be blinded by wishful thinking. Prabhupada carried an inconceivably heavy burden. The GBC did not lift this burden from him. On the contrary, it increased the weight of the burden. As such, he left us prematurely, and there are nefarious circumstances surrounding that. Some of the GBC were implicated in that, but this is another story.

Thus ends our four-part series detailing the sordid history of the so-called GBC. The Vaishnava Foundation releases this last installment of the series just four days before the thirty-eighth anniversary of Prabhupada’s suspension of the GBC body. His transcendental action at that time, which we always commemorate each year, fixes us in the reality that this GBC has never been absolute for very long, currently is not absolute, and has only an infinitesimally small chance of ever becoming absolute in the future.

OM TAT SAT

ADDENDUM

“Dear Sir,

This is to inform you that I, the undersigned, am the Founder-AcHarya of the International Society for Krishna Consciousness, and the world leader for all of its branches. I have appointed eighteen direct representatives to manage different sectors of the world, and they are known as Governing Body Commissioners.

I have appointed Bali Mardan dasa Adhikari (William Berke) as the Governing Body Commissioner for Australia. Mr. Berke is my direct agent in Australia and my official representative, and he has executive authority there in all matters.”

Letter to Australian Attorney General, 1-16-77.

“Recently, when all of the GBC members were with His Divine Grace in Vrindavana, Srila Prabhupada indicated that soon he would appoint some of his senior disciples to act as ‘rittvik’–representative of the acharya, for the purpose of performing initiations, both first initiation and second initiation. His Divine Grace has so far given a list of eleven disciples who will act in that capacity:

His Holiness Kirtanananda Swami
His Holiness Satsvarupa dasa Gosvami
His Holiness Jayapataka Swami
His Holiness Tamala Krsna Gosvami
His Holiness Hrdayananda Gosvami
His Holiness Bhavananda Gosvami
His Holiness Hamsaduta Swami
His Holiness Ramesvara Swami
His Holiness Harikesa Swami
His Grace Bhagavan dasa Adhikari
His Grace Jayatirtha dasa Adhikari

The newly initiated devotees are disciples of His Divine Grace A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupad, the above eleven senior devotees acting as His representative.”
Signed by Prabhupada; written by TKG. July 9, 1977.