Download Powerpoint slide show

The following is the presentation that Krishnakant has been giving at the I.R.G. worldwide conferences, now put in a slide format. A draft version of this slide presentation was given at the Los Angeles conference. This will now enable anyone to give this presentation in their community. What follows is the contents of each slide presented in bold, with the comments that must be made by the speaker to accompany each slide, given underneath the slide contents in normal text. These comments have been written so that they can be spoken directly without the need for any adjustment by the presenter. The actual slides are given as a powerpoint attachment at the end of this document. This attachment can then be used to produce the slides as acetates, to then be shown via an overhead projector. The presenter would then simply need to repeat the comments given at the end of each slide here. These notes are also incorporated in the actual powerpoint slides given at the end of this document as an attached file, and can be seen via the notes page view in powerpoint. There are 27 slides in total, and each slide with the notes should take less than a minute to present, and thus the whole presentation should take no more than 20 minutes. The presentation is geared so that at the end the audience will wish to take a copy of the ‘Final Order’, and this will serve as a replacement for a question and answer session that the presenter may not feel fully confident to participate in.

There has been much talk recently about ‘reforming’ our guru system as the solution to all the problems we face in ISKCON. This presentation will demonstrate that this is a false dilemma since there never was any authority to have replaced Srila Prabhupada in the first place, and therefore the only solution is to actually restore the REAL ORIGINAL Guru; NOT ‘reform’ ‘gurus’ that have no authority to exist in the first place.

ISKCON as an institution was set up with certain standards, systems and rules and regulations. One would agree that such characteristic properties of the institution are not subject to change unless changed by the supreme authority of ISKCON himself.

Similarly when ISKCON was set up, one of the many standards was that Srila Prabhupada was the only diksa guru for the institution. Not that he shared this role with some of his godbrothers say, nor that he set himself up as the diksa guru for only a limited pre-specified time period. No, he was the diska guru from the very second the institution began, continuously.

As can be seen, any fundamental change in the standards of ISKCON, must directly be authorised by Srila Prabhupada - only those with AUTHORITY, can authorise.

Also GBC do not have that authority to make these changes on their own initiative, since they can only execute that which has been already given in ISKCON by Srila Prabhupada.

Thus change must be authorised directly from Srila Prabhupada. We cannot just speculate ourselves. Neither can one copy anyone else. To change Srila Prabhupada’s institution requires an order from Srila Prabhupada himself. To speculate based on our sudden understanding of how and what Srila Prabhupada MUST have done so as to be ‘IN LINE’ with ‘vedic culture’ is laughable when we consider that initially we did not even know the most basic points about spiritual life, but now we have the ability to read Srila Prabhupada’s mind and determine how the vaisnava acaryas MUST act?!

Thus must be an explicit instruction for both:

That Srila Prabhupada must be replaced;

And exactly WHAT we must put in his place.

Once we have 1 & 2, then it is simple, and we have the authority to replace Srila Prabhupada with a new system. Without 1& 2 however, what Srila Prabhupada gave us, must remain.

Though there is no direct statement from Srila Prabhupada instructing a change in the initiation process and system in ISKCON, the above 4 types of statements from Srila Prabhupada’s teachings are often put forward as evidence for this change. We will now go through each one in turn, and demonstrate that there is no such change ordered.

a) ‘Become Guru’

but to replace Srila Prabhupada:

i) Specifically need to accept disciples
ii) Can ONLY happen after departure
iii) Guru must ONLY be Maha-bhagavata (Madhya 24:330)

Srila Prabhupada often stated instruction to his disciples to go and preach and become guru, as spoken by Caitanya Mahaprabhu, is used as evidence to prove that Srila Prabhupada must be replaced.

But the instructions to ‘become guru’ are totally different to those which would be needed in order to replace Srila Prabhupada’s function - in activity, timing and qualification. The new diska guru would obviously need to take disciples, only take over once Srila Prabhupada has physically left the planet, and be a qualified diksa guru to substitute for Srila Prabhupada.

But ‘become guru’ states:

i.) "Best not to accept any disciples" (Madhya 7:130)
ii) Given in present tense - not linked to departure
iii) ‘There is no need of qualification’ (Lecture, 21/5/76)

However the statements made by Srila Prabhupada actually state the OPPOSITE:

Again examining activity, timing and qualification -> No disciples should be taken, the instruction is not given any time restriction as to when it can be applied, and indeed must be carried out immediately, and neither is there any special state of spiritual realisation needed to execute these instructions.

The so-called ‘appt tape’ is also put forward as evidence for this change. This is unusual since the opening lines of the tape merely re-confirm NO CHANGE - with only ceremonial priests appointed. These priests would ensure that everything would stay the same since their function is simply to assist in the conduct of initiation ceremonies without the need for Srila Prabhupada’s physical presence. Later on in the conversation this is confirmed when Srila Prabhupada is DIRECTLY asked if those initiated will be HIS disciples, and he answers YES, they are disciples - such a DIRECT question is not asked anywhere else on the tape.

The section in question, which comes at the end of the tape merely states the obvious - that IF Srila Prabhupada states ‘be guru’ then one become a guru. Srila Prabhupada however has just finished telling them that he has appointed them as OFFICIATORS and ritviks, not INITIATORS and gurus.

Thus it simply CONFIRMS the whole point of THIS VERY presentation - that change requires a specific order. Thus rather than being evidence for change, it is only evidence for ‘change requires an order’, our very point.

C) ‘Law of Disciplic Succession’

" ... In his absence or disappearance you CAN accept disciples without limitation."


Simply states PRINCIPLE WHEN change POSSIBLE

Statements such as the above are also produced, which speak of the fact that change CAN ONLY occur after a certain time. This is a statement of a pre-condition that needs to be fulfilled so change CAN happen, not that once that condition has been fuflilled, change will or MUST happen.

So all we have been told in the last two slides is WHAT is REQUIRED so that change can occur - an order to that effect, and execution of the order only after a certain time period.

This we have already also stated. But it is the actual order that must be produced, not simply a statement of the fact that such an order is needed for change, and that such a change could only take place after a certain time.

Instructions regarding parampara are also produced as evidence that change must occur. However instructions regarding paramapara tell us two things:

1) That spiritual knowledge must be received via someone in the disciplic succession

2) That historically there has been a succession of such teachers.

Neither of these points necessitate Srila Prabhupada’s removal within ISKCON’s lifetime. We know that Srila Prabhupada IS a current member of the disciplic succession unless it can be shown otherwise. Further the disciplic succession is only evidence that change HAS occurred historically, not evidence that such change must occur within a particular institution within the institution’s lifetime; which in this case will only be a few thousand years anyway.

So we have no evidence of Srila Prabhupada ordering that the system of initiation in ISKCON with him as the diksa guru be changed. And without this specific order ordering this change to take place on departure, the status quo remains. Remember that instructions simply speaking of the POSSIBILITY or PRINCIPLE of change are not enough. There has to be a specific order EXECUTING that change i.e. that Srila Prabhupada be replaced by his disciples as the diska guru for ISKCON.

Having seen that there is no order for change, we can also see that neither are there any orders detailing the actual changes that should be implemented. This is why the GBC have had to continually speculate as to how exactly they should replace Srila Prabhupada. By DDG we mean the current GBC proposals of ‘de-emphasised diksa gurus’ – whereby the role of diksa guru is not considered as important as the role of Srilas Prabhupada as the siksa guru. Also other ideas that come from non-GBC quarters also are speculations. Though Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarsavati spoke of a ‘self-effulgent acarya’ emerging from the ranks of one of his disciples in the Gaudiya Matha, Srila Prabhupada never spoke of such a concept as being applicable to ISKCON. Also proposals to reduce the status of the current initiators even further by calling them simply ‘pancaratrika gurus’ again are just a speculation for Srila Prabhupada never used this terminology either. Thus the fact that so many proposals abound in itself is evidence that Srila Prabhupada did not give any instructions as to how he would be replaced.

All these different speculations have simply kept adjusting Srila Prabhupada’s prominence upwards, in order to keep everyone ‘happy’. It follows that even the GBC agree that they are moving in the right direction, and therefore it will only be a matter of time before they come to the ‘No Change’ position. It is in this context that all the heavy pronouncements against the ‘no change’ positions must be seen. They accuse it being the ‘greatest deviation’ in vaisnava history. Why then have they historically themselves being deviating towards the position of greatest deviation!!

Every change proposed, no matter how minute, is a deviation from the original system in ISKCON. And all these deviations have in common the fact that they seek to replace Srila Prabhupada to different degrees, and accommodate ourselves with some sort of guru status. All the different schemes merely differ in the degree to which they wish to do this, but they are in the same category, since they all seek to CHANGE the system Srila Prabhupada left us with, and we are simply asked to choose between these different varieties of change.

Thus there can by definition be only two camps. Anyone who proposes any system or ‘reform’ that is not IDENTICAL to what we were left with 1977, are all categories of different change proposals. There can by DEFINITION only be one position of ‘No Change’. No ‘shades’ are possible. However the varieties possible in the ‘Change’ camp are endless, and indeed the GBC and other reformers have amply demonstrated this fact over the last 20 years.

Thus we seek to stick with tradition - the ISKCON tradition - the system that Srila Prabhupada set up, practised and left us. The change-vadis have deviated from this traditional ISKCON system, and further have not provided any evidence for this deviation from our ISKCON system - Srila Prabhupada as the one and only diska Guru. The ‘change-vadis’ have gone against ISKCON tradition. We had no history in our ISKCON of any system, except one based entirely around Srila Prabhupada.

We have seen that the very fact that there is continual ‘guru reform’ is itself evidence that ‘guru reform’ is bogus because it implies that Srila Prabhupada purposely left us in the dark as to what we should do. Yet this is ridiculous, for Srila Prabhupada has never told us to do something and then not told us how to do it. This is obvious, because without instructions for implementation, we could not implement. Srila Prabhupada told us to have arti, do deity worship etc., and then instructed us how to do it, otherwise the question of actually doing it would not even arise. Similarly you can not have ‘guru reform’ unless there is SOMETHING given to reform. And this ‘something’ should only be given by Srila Prabhupada, in which case it should not be reformed anyway. Thus the very platform of change or ‘reform’ is itself self-defeating, since it either implies that we must change Srila Prabhupada’s instructions, which we do not have the authority to do, or that Srila Prabhupada did not actually give us any instructions on how to set up gurus to replace him, which means that he did not want them in the first place.

The argument that they are simply FINALLY ‘reforming’ back to the REAL system given by Srila Prabhupada does not make any sense either, since this could be done in a second without any dispute or need for proposals, since the GBC would simply need to produce this blue-print for the guru system Srila Prabhupada gave us and then just implement it. It would also mean that every system and every adjustment they have practiced for the last 22 years was completely bogus and just speculation, and only now have they discovered this magic blueprint for the exact guru system that Srila Prabhupada really ordered. Fortunately the GBC are not foolish enough to even attempt to argue this.

Srila Prabhupada did teach by example as to how gurus should be set up and worshipped - by his own example. It was on this that the doomed zonal acharya system was based. But ironically this is the one guru system that everyone is agreed, that we should NOT go back to.

So we are expected to believe that Srila Prabhupada would implement a guru system in ISKCON without telling us exactly WHAT and HOW it was to be implemented. As well as the history of the different guru systems in ISKCON, the lack of any instructions on a guru system is evidenced by the fact that straight after Srila Prabhupada left, the GBC had to ask Sridhara Maharaja what to do.

You can not build a case for a replacement guru system on the fact that Srila Prabhupada may have used the word ‘grand-disciple’ once on a tape. There needs to also be clear evidence detailing exactly what and how needs to be done. As H.H. Tamala Krishna Maharaja stated at the Topanga Canyon confession, Srila Prabhupada would have spoken for ‘days and weeks’ ‘about how to set up this thing with the gurus’. That point still remains as valid, regardless of what guru system is proposed. There is no need for Srila Prabhupada to speak for ‘days and weeks’ about doing NOTHING, and CHANGING nothing, since it already understood that the guru is the authority not the disciple. If the arrangements that Srila Prabhupada left us are to remain as they are, then there is nothing to set up.

Thus now the GBC are flapping around asking anyone and everyone, right down to the bhaktas, what should be done.

Level 2 Proof

No evidence for WHAT change

SO NO CHANGE

So no order for WHAT change as well no order for Change itself.

This gives an extra level of proof. If Srila Prabhupada was to replace himself with a guru system based around his disciples, he would need to have told us both the fact that he is to be replaced, and exactly what he is to be replaced with. Especially the practice of a guru system within a world-wide institution for which there is no historical precedent or scriptural instructions.

Srila Prabhupada never left the application and implementation of anything, such as how to worship the deities or even something as minor as how prasadam should be served to guests for us to ‘figure out’ based on our own incomplete understanding of ‘tradition’, or by consulting sources outside of his books, unless he had specifically authorised it. It is no different in regards to the implementation and application of guru tattva - Srila Prabhupada did not actually give us any instructions on how to set up gurus to replace him, which means that he did want them in the first place.

Thus now the case is extremely watertight, in that how could one change what our beloved Guru has left us, if he has not told us to change, nor given us any instructions on what changes should be instituted. It is not possible. We have no authority for making any changes, and thus the issue of making changes does not even arise, since all actions must be rooted in the instructions of Srila Prabhupada.

However just in case we are very dumb, or very ambitious and deviant, just to make everything TRIPLY clear, Srila Prabhupada has also given instructions to NOT CHANGE.

The July 9th letter of course sets things up to keep things the same – Srila Prabhupada remains the diksa guru for ISKCON.

The will explicitly mentions ‘no change’, and makes it clear that all future devotees in ISKCON MUST be initiated by Srila Prabhupada. We also have the other letters that use words such as ‘continue’, ‘future’, and the opening exchange of the ‘appt tape’ speaking of what will happen after Srila Prabhupada leaves. All these evidences further keep things the same. And the books of course only speak of the the pre-1977 initiation system - the ‘ontological argument’ (hand out or mention that the paper is on our website). Thus many instructions emphasising ‘NO CHANGE’ and positively instructing things to stay the same.

This final level of proof completely seals the case and makes the ‘No change’ case irrefutable, since there are actual instructions from Srila Prabhupada, that if we follow, we ensure everything stays the same.

Thus the case for ‘No Change’ is substantiated on every level possible, and gives us a case that is clear and impossible to defeat, for how can defeat the direct orders of Srila Prabhupada?

Thus all the tangential issues which have surfaced in the ‘Guru debate’ now become completely irrelevant, since as soon as we have ‘No Change’, all these issues fall in the realm of ‘Change-Vada’, that is they only have relevance if Change was instructed to take place. Thus all these discussions on ‘Guru-Tattva’ are only relevant if we have FIRST entered into the realm of ‘Change-Vada’ which of course we have no authority to do, and thus are only topics of discussion for those practitioners of ‘Change-Vada’. We simply have to stay with ‘No Change’ and thus no questions or discussions arise since everything continues exactly as it was, unchanged.

Thus any discussion on ‘Replacement Gurus’ cannot be had until the authority for their existence within ISKCON can first be demonstrated.

Thus we can see that ISKCON as it was set up must be maintained, since Srila Prabhupada has not given us any instructions for us to change the systems and processes that he has set up. The key characteristic for ISKCON that he gave us was that he was the sole giver of transcendental knowledge and diksa.

He further ordered that these systems and processes be maintained, with specific emphasis on the procedure for initiation, specially setting up a system using priests to assist him to give initiation without the need for his physical presence. This initiation system he gave us from the beginning of ISKCON, as early as 1969, and expanded and maintained it as ISKCON developed. He then put it in writing and had it sent to all the managing officers of ISKCON, thus establishing it as the official system to be followed in ISKCON. This insures that nothing changes, and everything can continue in identical fashion to how things were set up personally by Srila Prabhupada.

All our conclusions as we have seen have been strongly substantiated on 3 re-enforcing levels, each level offering a deeper level of proof than the previous proof.

Just to demonstrate how powerful and overwhelming the case for ‘No Change’ is, we have simply taken just ONE piece of evidence, from just ONE level of proof, and with this alone defeated the whole GBC case. This of course is the ‘Final Order’ paper where we have taken just the July 9th directive, just one evidence for category 3 proof, and asked two questions, and demonstrated how from any angle the GBC have no way out.

This is just how strong the ‘No Change’ case is.

Thus we must immediately revert back to Srila Prabhupada’s system, and restore him to his rightful role in ISKCON, exactly as he set up. There are no ‘details’ of change to discuss, since no changes or replacement diksa gurus were ordered by Srila Prabhupada.

Srila Prabhupada ki Jai!

Now here presentation finishes. However decided to add one more slide to summarise the whole issue, and make it really simple. The whole issue in a nutshell is about whether the Guru needs to be physically present.

GBC YES NO

Now every group has their own theory. The GBC insist on the Guru needing to be there before you get initiated, but once you get the beads, you can say ‘adios’ to the Guru, you never need to see him again. In fact then they become just like the ritviks. They can do everything themselves. All of a sudden, that need to ‘inquire’, and be ‘personally engaged’ etc.– all the arguments they had been giving as to why the ritvik idea was wrong – suddenly goes out of the window. They threw the banana, got the beads, and now they don’t need the Guru. Of course they have to say this since Srila Prabhupada himself has not been physically present for 22 years. Thus you have the paradoxical situation, that the very people who tell us that you must have a ‘living guru’, and that they are that ‘living guru’ – do not themselves have a ‘living guru’?

Now people are not buying this halfway house philosophy – not least because if physical interaction is important, it would seem to be more needed after initiation than before, since the post-initiation period much longer – we are looking at 6 months v the rest of one’s life. And also it is after initiation that the need for guidance is most acute, since one’s spiritual life, and the process of devotional service begins and one starts to become engaged and make advancement. Thus the idea that you MUST have physical interaction with a guru for a short period before one’s spiritual life begins, but that you do not need it for the rest one’s life when one’s spiritual life actually develops, has rightly been seen as absurd by many people and has led them to turn to the Gaudiya Matha who at least are consistent on this issue. They say that the physical interaction of a pure devotee Guru is ALWAYS necessary. Thus we can see how the GBC’s inconsistent and illogical preaching in the matter of the necessity for a ‘physical present guru’ has directly lead to people to seek shelter from the Gaudiya Matha. Having been convinced by the GBC that you must have a physically present guru, the devotees have decided to seek the benefit of such a physically present guru for all their life. They have not bought the idea that there is an ‘exemption’ clause, that allows you to quit the program as soon as one throws the banana.

However the IRG also propose a consistent philosophy, which is that you need a Guru always, but that he does not HAVE to be physically present – either before or after the initiation.

Now to see which is correct one simply needs to see what Srila Prabhupada did. We know that before initiation, he did not have any physical contact with the majority of his disciples. Nor for that matter did he have any contact with the majority of his disciples after they were initiated either.

So this is a simple and common sense solution. Srila Prabhupada’s personal example settles the issue. Thus system practised by Srila Prabhupada for the majority must be the correct system. He taught and practised that his books and his society was enough to accept and follow him as the diksa guru. Thus there is no reason why that cannot continue. Indeed he ordered that it does continue.

Thank you very much. Thus please take this ‘Final Order’ just mentioned, where any questions you may have will be further answered, or read it on the web at our website: http://www.irg.zetnet.co.uk.