Podcast transcription:
It’s Not Been “Prabhupada’s G.B.C.” for Over 48 Years
(An “ISKCON” Shibboleth Foists Ersatz Reality on Its Dupes)
First of a Two-Part Series
by Kailäsa Candra däsa
HARIÙ OÀ NAMAÙ
“ . . . cheating religion (is) kicked out from the Çrémad-Bhägavatam. So any religious system which . . . every year changes, by resolution of the priests, that ‘Now this is all right,’ against religious principles, that is a farce.” 1
The bureaucratic paradigm is now the institutional heart of the fabricated, so-called “ISKCON.” This is a horrible development. We shall be discussing this extensively in Part Two of this series. We all remember that His Divine Grace A. C. Bhaktivedänta Swämi warned about it in that famous letter to one of his leading secretaries:
“Once there is bureaucracy, the whole thing will be spoiled. There must be always individual striving and work and responsibility . . . I am little observing now, especially in your country, that our men are losing their enthusiasm for spreading on our programs of Krishna consciousness movement. Otherwise, why so many letters of problems are coming, dissatisfied? . . . So, I do not think the leaders are themselves following, nor they are seeing the others are following strictly. That must be rectified at once. Each center remain independent . . .” 2
Beginning in 1972, when tracing out the major problems in his movement, (in terms of their sources), they have always wound back to the G.B.C.:
Prabhupäda: Politics, diplomacy, fraud, cheating. These things are the general qualification of the western people. Do you admit or not?
Devotees: Yes.
Prabhupäda: If they are, these things come within our movement, then it will not be successful.
Leading Secretary: We should not create a haven for rascals.
Prabhupäda: Yes. So how it will be done unless you G.B.C. members become very strong and with good brain? 3
“There should be ideal life, at least the leaders, the president, the G.B.C.. They will show the example, and they will follow. Then it is beneficial. And all of them are fools? Then, it is fool’s paradise.” 4
From the late winter of 1972, the G.B.C. has shown itself to be constituted mostly of fools, if not entirely so. It did its assigned task in 1970. By 1971, things slowly began to move downhill on a slippery slope. The situation really went haywire in 1972, and it never fully recovered. It appeared to have recovered, but time has proven that it did not.
The G.B.C. was formulated gradually and then formed in July of 1970. Its charter of formation is known as “The Direction of Management,” sometimes referred to as “the D.O.M..” Particular Six from that document explains the primary objective of the G.B.C.:
“6. The primary objective of the G.B.C. is to organize the opening of new Temples and to maintain the established Temples.” 5
However, there was another objective—another primary objective—although it was not explicitly written into this charter. We shall establish that objective here beyond a shadow of a doubt. The following excerpts from letters to his early temple presidents—written soon after the formation of the D.O.M.—describe that objective:
“Now I have set up the Governing Body Commission to handle management, questions of philosophy, and personal problems. These things are too much botheration for me. I simply want time to write books to satisfy my guru maharäja.” 6
“I have appointed these G.B.C. men to oversee and manage all the affairs of the society, giving me relief to do my translation work fully.” 7
“My idea in forming the G.B.C. is that I may be spared from the management and use my time for translating books.” 8
“If the G.B.C. men can ever manage properly, then I shall get some time for writing my books.” 9
Again, although it was not listed as a Particular in the D.O.M., these quotes establish it as a primary objective, as the idea behind forming the G.B.C. The G.B.C., along with experienced devotees who could effectively act as temple presidents, made temple opening decisions and carried out such purchases and creations, just as the D.O.M. indicated.
The D.O.M. was followed in the beginning. No problem . . . at least, no early major problem. That was until things broke down badly a bit later on—and the D.O.M. was rendered, more or less, a mostly unknown relic from the past. The vast majority of the temple presidents were never even informed of the existence of this charter.
However, in relation to the other major objective–of relieving Prabhupäda so that he could concentrate on writing–was it actually and effectively carried out? Did the G.B.C. make a good effort in order to meet his expectations in this regard? These are rhetorical questions, as you will see while we proceed in reproducing many excerpts from His Divine Grace expressing his exasperation with the Governing Body Commission in this connection. Let us begin in 1971:
“I set up the G.B.C. 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 . . .” 10
Question: Did the G.B.C. give Prabhupäda relief, as it was intended to do, in the second year of its existence, in 1971? Nope. And consider this excerpt from that same year:
“There are many things to be done in our missionary activities, but the G.B.C. is not yet very strong to take up all the things and do them nicely.” 11
We then proceed to 1972, a very eventful year:
“I am trying to retire from the administrative affairs, but if the presidents and G.B.C. men make such disturbances, then how I can be peaceful?” 12
This excerpt is from May of 1972. An added negative feature present in this complaint by His Divine Grace is that, not only was the G.B.C. not giving Prabhupäda relief from management, it was ADDING disturbances to the developing situation, forcing him to take even more time to solve problems. Here is another excerpt from 1972:
“I want to retire now and simply concentrate on translating work, but how can I do it if I cannot give over the management of my Society to you all, my advanced senior disciples? If one moment you are willing and the next moment there is some small disagreement and immediately you all go away, how can I be calm in my mind?” 13
Question: Did the G.B.C. give Prabhupäda relief, as it was intended to do, in the third year of its existence, in 1972? Nope. Was it allowing him peace of mind for him in order to settle down and concentrate on writing and commenting on his translations and purports to sacred texts? Nope.
In 1973, there was no specific complaint from Prabhupäda about the G.B.C. not allowing him facility to free himself from management headaches in order to concentrate on his translations and commentaries. And, as it turned out, he (arguably) accomplished more that year in terms of literary output, then in any other year.
From that perspective, it was a good year. The movement expanded throughout it, although the camel got its nose under the tent in the final month of the year, as the plainclothes pick was then introduced. However, things again became disturbed in 1974, which, as many of you remember, was the year that the plainclothes pick exploded throughout the Hare Kåñëa movement. Here are four excerpts from letters on this topic:
“I made the G.B.C. 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.” 14
Herein, Prabhupäda explicitly states that the G.B.C. is causing him anxiety, when it was supposed to be doing the exact opposite. It was supposed to be giving him relief from both management and its accompanying anxiety, but it was not accomplishing that objective. It was consolidating power, both collectively and individually. It was becoming whimsical. It was in the process of spoiling everything he had accomplished.
“If the G.B.C. men can ever manage properly, then I shall get some time for writing my books.” 15
I considered this excerpt worth repeating.
“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 G.B.C. to take this responsibility.” 16
Things not only reverted back to where they were in 1972, they got much worse. Prabhupäda was constantly being plagued about management problems. Question: Did the G.B.C. give Prabhupäda relief, as it was intended to do, in the fourth year of its existence, in 1974? Nope.
Here are three excerpts from 1975 on all of this:
“I want that the G.B.C. 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.” 17
He indicates here that the Commish could cause things to deteriorate.
“I appoint G.B.C. for peaceful management of affairs, and now you are creating disturbances amongst yourselves. So, how can I be peaceful to translate my work?” 18
“My only grievance is that I appointed G.B.C. 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?” 20
1975 was a terrible year, for many reasons. We shall be discussing at least one other of those reasons subsequently in Part One. Prabhupäda was constantly being disturbed by his G.B.C. men during it.
Prabhupäda herein indicated that things were starting to deteriorate in his movement, mostly due to G.B.C. mismanagement. He wanted them to take over the management, but they were not doing so according to the standard he desired and expected. There was political infighting adding to the mix of disturbances and deterioration.
He could not remain peaceful As such, he expresses his exasperation. Question: Did the G.B.C. give Prabhupäda relief, as it was intended to do, in the fifth year of its existence, in 1975? Nope.
In 1976, Prabhupäda made two more explicit complaints in letters about his not being relieved of management problems:
“I have chosen my best men to be G.B.C. . . . but if the basic principle is weak, how will things go on? So, please assist me in the management, so that I can be free to finish the Çrémad-Bhägavatam, which will be our lasting contribution to the world.” 21
“It will be very nice if you G.B.C. men can relieve me from the heavy burden of management.” 22
His illness in 1977 eventually became known, but how terrible it really was did not become known until the very last days. At any rate, as bad as 1975 was in terms of relieving Prabhupäda, 1976 was just as bad, if not worse. This may have negatively impacted Prabhupäda’s health. How can anyone deny that it did just that? He called the chief problem, in 1976, a “heavy burden” of mismanagement.
This placed a blemish on the G.B.C., and there is no need to try to buffer it by saying it only indirectly condemns that weak governing body. The basic principle was weak. The basic principle was following the Founder-Acarya, which the G.B.C. was, for all practical purposes, not doing anymore . . . and, arguably, not doing for years running.
As far as 1977 was concerned, Prabhupäda’s output of letters dwindled. He only dictated some letters (less than usual) from January through May. After that, he only dictated three. He was checking out and leaving the scene. He had lost control of his movement.
I am criticized for making this statement, but those who criticize me will themselves be subject to severe criticism in due course. They are buying into the wrong narrative about the guru and a movement he forms. He DID lose control of ISKCON in 1977, and it is not at all an offense on my part to state this obvious fact.
There were no complaints about relief from the G.B.C. by Prabhupäda in 1977 for reasons not difficult to comprehend, as the end game was playing out. The Commish did not give him the relief that he sought previously, and, due to his health concerns, he was only making minimal commentary in purports. As such, why complain about management anymore?
Instead, he decided to abandon them to their plots and desires, and he gave them enough rope by which they could hang themselves in the process. It should be as clear as the reflection of the Sun on a still pond at noon during a cloudless day that the objective that Prabhupäda not only wanted but demanded—that he be relieved from management turmoil by the G.B.C. so that he could concentrate on his translations and purports of sacred texts—was never really met.
Not only that, but the Commish added injury to insult by themselves creating even more turmoil for him via politics. Here is a summary excerpt on this topic:
“If I have to be involved in every dispute, then what is the need for the G.B.C.?” 23
What indeed! It would have been better had The Commish never had been created. That governing body from the Seventies deserves to be criticized, and your host speaker is herein doing so on behalf of the guru-paramparä, including His Divine Grace A. C. Bhaktivedänta Swämi Prabhupäda as its most recent representative Acarya in the true sense of the term.
We backtrack a bit at this time in order to fill details required in order to gain the necessary perspective. We have previously covered the upcoming topic (about to be delineated) in past books, texts, audios, and videos, and we are herein repeating it. It deserves to be repeated.
Your host speaker is now going to read a truncated, conjoined, and compressed review of excerpts to letters which Prabhupäda dictated during a developing situation in 1972. Prabhupäda was able to reverse the scheme, otherwise his movement would have been killed:
“The meeting of the G.B.C. appeared to be very unconstitutional, because all the men were not informed or invited. . . If every time someone feels something (and) call for changing everything, then all that I have done will very quickly be lost. So for the time being, there shall be no such changes as you have arranged, until I study the matter thoroughly. . . I had no intimation that you all G.B.C. members have met and decided such big, big issues without consulting me. . . 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 G.B.C. members, then what can I do?
I am so much perplexed why you all had done this. . . simply by agreement you have changed everything, so what is this? I don’t know. . . I never appointed Atreya Rsi member of the G.B.C., and I do not know how he can be appointed Secretary to G.B.C. without my sanction. . . but without my say he has been given so much power, and this has upset my brain. . . Under these circumstances, I AUTHORIZE YOU TO DISREGARD FOR THE TIME BEING ANY DECISION FROM THE G.B.C. MEN UNTIL MY FURTHER INSTRUCTION.” 24
TATTVAMASI
This was a centralization scheme from early 1972, which utilized a quorum of eight commissioners, which did not inform Prabhupäda of the meeting it called nor the other four commissioners. Prabhupäda considered it to be a furtive effort to change everything, which it obviously was. It was meant to consolidate funds for being invested by Atreya, who was not a member of the Commission.
Its resolutions were enacted quickly. When he was finally informed of it, Prabhupäda sent an emergency telegram to some of the commissioners involved, which reads as follows:
YOUR MATERIAL LEGAL FORMULA WILL NOT HELP US ONLY OUR SPIRITUAL LIFE CAN HELP US I HAVE NO APPROVAL FOR ANY THESE PLANS STOP YOU REMAIN GERMANY DON’T LEAVE AGAIN STOP ATREYA RISHI HAS NO AUTHORITY FROM ME TO MANAGE ANYTHING REMOVE HIM ACKNOWLEDGE CABLE URGENT . . . Bhaktivedänta Swämi 25
He did nip it in the bud, although the G.B.C. for the Midwest zone acted upon the G.B.C. resolution to centralize his centers before Prabhupäda’s admonition and order, so there was some damage done. It could have been far worse. In an excerpt from a letter to him, here is what Prabhupäda had to say eight months later to one of its ringleaders:
“Do not centralize anything. Each temple must remain independent and self-sufficient. That was my plan from the very beginning, why you are thinking otherwise? Once before you wanted to do something centralizing with your G.B.C. meeting, and if I did not interfere, the whole thing would have been killed.” 26
Obviously, the centralization plan was ominous, as indicated in Prabhupäda’s letters responding to it and that telegram to the G.B.C. members who initiated it. What is noteworthy here is that he considered that, if it had been thoroughly (rather than very partially) enacted, his whole movement would have been killed in early 1972.
Let us now apply that provisional statement to the zonals once that debacle was enacted in the Spring of 1978, a mere six years later. It was fully enacted, unlike the aborted attempt to centralize temples and funds in 1972. The eleven pretenders divided the world into eleven zones of their sole control, changing everything radically.
Consider the scale of the change. No one accepted worship in the aborted 1972 attempt, but those eleven men in the late Seventies accepted uttama-adhikäré worship from their godbrothers, godsisters, and newcomers while enjoying all of that pomp and glory from elevated thrones in front of open Deities. This (and much more) was approved by the G.B.C. at the end of its 1978 annual conclave in Mayapur.
It created an Äcärya Board, consisting of gurus only, within the G.B.C., which made the eleven untouchable, G.B.C. authorities unto themselves. It kept G.B.C. zones, but made the non-guru section of the Body more or less powerless in comparison to the zonal äcäryas and their zones.
How can you not believe that this massive, unauthorized change (made primarily by men who had only been appointed as rittviks) did not destroy the essence of Prabhupäda’s movement? Of course it did! It was not incremental destruction, either. It was grievously against the principles he had established, wherein he was the only mahäbhägavat, as he was the only one to be deserved to be worshiped lavishly.
In the genuine movement, those eleven rittviks only performed the initiation ceremony on his behalf, and he was still the initiating guru while physically present. In late May of 1977, he only recognized the provisional principle of regular guru (a guru under vidhi regulation, not an uttama), and, over and above that, he never named any regular gurus.
Instead and to the contrary, the zonal scheme was a massive change of dramatic proportion, far worse than the aborted 1972 centralization scheme. No new zones were created in 1972. No one was to be worshiped by all the members of the movement at that time in 1972, but Prabhupäda was no longer present in order to stop what went down in 1978.
“ . . . take the opinions of each and every G.B.C. 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.” 27
The 1972 centralization scheme was against his plan, and he had to abort it. However, the zonal äcärya scheme was massively against the principles he had established. In terms of spiritual authority, the vitiated G.B.C. had no right to create it and thus allow it to wreck havoc. To some extent, the G.B.C. was hijacked by the eleven, but you cannot dismiss culpability of the whole of the governing body on account of that.
In 1978, twelve other G.B.C. members did not claim to be gurus of the highest purity and realization, although all of Ocean’s Eleven were light years below such a status. Any contingent of even three of the non-guru G.B.C. could have represented Prabhupäda in the right way and stopped the scheme in its tracks, if they had been determined to do so. Without such a protest, however, the vitiated G.B.C. had the power to institute that colossal hoax, a major deviation, and it misused its power, without genuine authority, in order to do just that.
Prabhupäda authorized something viable in mid-1977: He decided to rejuvenate the rittvik system of initiation. That provisionally was to be adjusted to facilitate regular gurus (if there were any, which history has proved there were not) once he left physical manifestation.
However, it was not supposed to change radically (and against authorized religious principles) in March of the next year. As long as there were madhyams qualified to receive Prabhupada’s order to be guru, it was supposed to segue to regular guru, that’s all. However, the provision was not met and something else was manufactured instead.
And then, less than a decade later, that zonal guru deviation got overturned by another unauthorized transformation, one which was full of compromises. All of these changes were manufactured innovations. All of them were exactly what Prabhupäda warned against:
“Do not try to innovate or create anything or manufacture anything, that will ruin everything.” 28
“Gradually the Krishna consciousness idea will evaporate: Another change, another change, every day another change. Stop all this! Simply have kértan, nothing else. Don’t manufacture ideas.” 29
Let us face the facts and therefore speak sharp truth. The actual truth of the matter is brutal, and sharp words are required in order to make it clear. Prabhupäda wanted his leading secretaries to be madhyam-adhikärés. To be fixed up. To be men of knowledge with firm faith in him, in Lord Kåñëa, in the process given (buddhi-yoga or bhakti-yoga) and in the All-Good Summum Bonum of The Absolute Truth.
None of them reached this standard. If you want to take an optimistic viewpoint that one or two or a few of them did reach the madhyam level of devotional service, those men all fell down badly as soon as they cooperated with the massive G.B.C. deviation of 1978.
“G.B.C. means that one must be ideal Vaisnava.”30
“ . . . especially the G.B.C. members must become very much responsible and do the work that I am doing to the same standard. So, I want you leaders especially to become very much absorbed in the philosophy of Bhagavad-gétä, Çrémad-Bhägavatam, and become yourselves completely convinced and free from all doubt. 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.” 31
Are you aware, during the latter stages of the 1975 Annual Mayapur conclave of the G.B.C., that Prabhupäda took drastic action against what the Commish tried to pass? Your host speaker received this information from a commissioner who was present to witness it. The Governing Body Commission came to him with its resolutions. He went one-by-one over each of them and proceeded to reject every one of them.
It got better. He then told them that he was going to leave the movement, that it was now theirs to do with as they wished, that they could have all of the trappings and the manpower (the devotees who decided to stay with them, which would not have been everyone), and that he would take with him only his beads and his bead bag.
Obviously, this forced them to capitulate and go back to the drawing board. In essence—and this has already been indicated by another excerpt previously in our presentation—their resolutions had no meaning when they were against what he wanted, what he had established, and, in some cases, even against the principles of sanätana-dharma.
What was the value of a G.B.C. that could pass such resolutions in the first place? This question may be justly raised:
“But the difficulty is that our G.B.C. men are falling victim to mäyä. Today I trust this G.B.C., and tomorrow he will fall down. That is the difficulty. If the G.B.C. men are so flickering, then what to speak of the others. Unless this problem is solved, whatever we may resolve, it will not be very useful.” 32
If you know the basics of spiritual science, then you know that a madhyam-adhikäré in Prabhupäda’s branch of the disciplic succession is automatically both a vartma-pradarçaka guru and a çikñä-guru. As far as dékñä-guru is concerned, we shall take on that topic in Part Two, despite the fact that your host speaker has discussed it in-depth, especially in his most recent book which can be consulted to advantage.
Prabhupäda wanted his leading men, which included many sannyäsés (who are supposed to be madhyams even before they are awarded the three-pronged power stick), to be gurus. Were they?
“This is the function of the G.B.C.: To see that one may not be taken away by mäyä. The G.B.C. 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.” 33
When you want something, it means that you do not have it. He wanted them to be çikñä-gurus, but their titles of Swämi and Goswämi did not automatically make them gurus. Instead, they were unqualified–absorbed in profit, adoration, distinction, and power:
“Now has the G.B.C. become more than guru maharaja? As if simply G.B.C. is meant for looking after pounds, shilling, pence. The G.B.C. 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.” 34
“I have chosen my best men to be G.B.C. . . . but if the basic principle is weak, how will things go on?” 35
His best men turned out not to meet his expectation. We should recognize this and not make excuses for them. They do not merit a passing grade. The basic principle is following the orders and carrying out the desires of the Founder-Äcärya. We must recognize that they did not do this. Things did not go on well under their malefic control.
“The future hope of solid standing of our mission is on the proper management of our governing body.” 36
Hope is not prophecy. Prabhupäda was not making a prophecy; he was expressing a hope. The solid standing of his mission could never be guaranteed with a vitiated G.B.C. directing it. Proper management? How can anyone claim that the Commission properly managed Prabhupäda’s movement? Such a claim is now a joke!
“ . . . this must be decided by the G.B.C. and not myself. If they cannot solve this problem, then what is the meaning of G.B.C.?” 37
There was less and less meaning to the G.B.C. as each year wore on after the aborted 1972 centralization scheme. The whole thing went completely off the rails in the Spring of 1978. The “meaning” of the G.B.C. can be determined: It’s meaning is that it was deviated from the mission it was assigned in its charter. Its meaning remains that it was and is a broken arrow doing its own thing. It has no spiritual authority at all!
“It was only detected when it came to me. What will happen when I am not here: Shall everything be spoiled by G.B.C.?” 38
This excerpt from Prabhupäda’s dictations in his letters about the G.B.C.—and many of them were negative, as has been shown—was in relation to the aborted centralization scheme of 1972. Not one of the eight men comprising that ad hoc assembly in New York City detected that the whole procedure was flawed from the jump.
How could they have been so stupid? You cannot call a meeting to make major changes to the movement simply on the basis that you (barely) reach a quorum. You cannot make any such major resolutions without informing the other four members of what the agenda would be in such a proposed meeting, what to speak of the fact that none of the other four commissioners were even notified of it.
Worse than these obvious facts is that Prabhupäda himself was not informed of either the proposed agenda or the time and place of this ad hoc conspiracy. In the Direction of Management, Particular One establishes him as the supreme authority above any power delegated to that newly-formed governing body. This was proven when he aborted the scheme before it gained any major traction.
Yet, the conspiracy would have gained traction if he was not eventually informed about it. If that had been the case, it would have caused either grievous harm to his fledgling movement or would have killed it. Please note the wording of this particular excerpt about lack of detection. The use of the word “shall” is significant. It not only has a kind of legal glimmer to it, but it is also more powerful than if “will” had been used, which otherwise would have been the English application.
EVERYTHING SHALL BE SPOILED. Indirectly, Prabhupäda was, via an interrogatory, making a prediction . . . and that foresight, that prediction, came to pass a mere six years after he made it.
Indeed, most of the excerpts we have reproduced in this, the first part of our presentation, buttress that very prediction: The vitiated G.B.C. has spoiled the Hare Kåñëa movement of Kåñëa consciousness. Prabhupäda was quite exasperated with both his presidents and his commissioners near the end of his physically manifest time with us. Consider the following excerpt as evidence:
“It is my 80th birthday. That is correct. You do not know this? One of the G.B.C. articles says 79th birthday. Big G.B.C. man, so many editors, and it is not detected? You are all müòhas. What can I do?” 39
The colossal hoax, known as the fabricated, so-called “ISKCON” confederation, is a pseudo-spiritual scam. The attempt to have it guided by the creation of the Governing Body Commission in mid-1970 was a failure. Its flawed commissioners were the gods who failed. Instead of protecting the devotees in their charge from mäyä, they socially engineered a psy-op in order to put the rank-and-file into greater mäyä and exploited them. They trained no one to be guru in their cult.
It was necessary to set the stage for what will follow next month, which will deal primarily with the current bogus manifestation of this changed but still dangerous governing body manipulating “ISKCON.” Always remember that “ISKCON” is the glove and the vitiated G.B.C. is the hand within that glove.
One hint about next month’s presentation: It is going to devote significant time and font space to a three-letter acronym, which is the centerpiece causing quite a stir in today’s “ISKCON” institution. The first letter of that acronym is the sixth letter of our Western alphabet: F. Since the time of the aborted coup of 1972 and its subsequent transformations, that is also the grade deservedly given to the G.B.C.
You are right if you conclude that the reality of that sordid situation is that the G.B.C. has not been “Prabhupäda’s G.B.C.” for decades running. G.B.C., ABC, XYZ: We are all eternal servants of the Supreme Paramesvara. Serve Him and His real devotees.
SAD EVA SAUMYA
–
ENDNOTES
1. Dialectical Spiritualism, Critique of Blaise Pascal;
2. From a letter to a leading secretary, dated: 12-22-72;
3. Morning walk in Los Angeles, dated: 7-13-74;
4. Morning walk in Hawaii, dated: 2-3-74;
5. Direction of Management, Particular Six;
6. From a letter to a temple president, dated: 8-6-70;
7. From a letter to a temple president, dated: 8-17-73;
8. From a letter to a leading secretary, dated: 1-8-74;
9. From a letter to a leading secretary, dated: 12-16-74;
10. From a letter to a leading secretary, dated: 8-14-71;
11. From a letter to a leading secretary, dated: 9-26-71;
12. From a letter to a leading secretary, dated: 5-9-72;
13. From a letter to a leading secretary, dated: 8-26-72;
14. From a letter to a leading secretary, dated: 8-12-74;
15. From a letter to a leading secretary, dated: 12-16-74;
16. From a letter to a temple president, dated: 11-12-74;
17. From a letter to a leading secretary, dated: 9-7-75;
18. From a letter to a leading secretary, dated: 10-16-75;
19. From a letter to a leading secretary, dated: 10-16-75;
20. From a Letter to all Governing Body Commissioners: 5-19-76;
21. From a letter to a leading secretary, dated: 9-8-76;
22. From a letter to a devotee in the Stockholm center, dated: 10-16-75;
23. This is a conglomeration of quotes from letters and a memo shot off to commissioners and temple presidents in the first half of April, 1972. Since it was all on the same topic, I decided to combine them for convenience of both assimilation and realization in what they were meant to convey;
24. EMERGENCY TELEGRAM sent to two leading secretaries and all ISKCON temple presidents, sent in two consecutive days: April 6-7, 1972;
25. From a letter to a leading secretary, dated: 12-22-72;
26. An identical excerpt from a letter sent to six GBCs, all dated: 8-20-71;
27. From one letter sent conjointly to two leading secretaries: 9-18-72;
28. Expressing his disapproval of it, an excerpt from a letter to Sudama, the innovator of The ISKCON Road Show, dated: 11-5-72;
29. From a letter to a leading secretary, dated: 9-6-74;
30. From a letter to a leading secretary, dated: 6-22-72;
31. From a letter to a leading secretary, dated: 12-16-74;
32. From a letter to a leading secretary, dated: 8-4-75;
33. From a letter to an initiated disciple, dated: 11-10-75;
34. From a letter to all Governing Body Commissioners, dated: 5-19-76;
35. From a letter to a leading secretary, dated: 2-16-71;
36. From a letter to a temple president, dated:11-1-74;
37. From a letter to a leading secretary, dated: 8-11-72;
38. From a letter to a B.B.T. officer, dated: 8-21-75.