A: Direct this question to the GBC. Please. I have made many - numerous - attempts to try and hold a private discussion or open debate with the GBC for many years. Going on 3 years plus. I have begged and pleaded with the GBC as a whole to please discuss my points with me. I have begged them to please defeat me if I am wrong.
I even sent email to the current Chairman of the GBC begging, as humbly as i know how, with the proverbial straw in my teeth, pleading with him to please respond to my points, to correct me where I am wrong, as this is the duty of the GBC. NO REPLY !!!
I have sent at least 5 or more emails to the entire GBC over the past 3 years. I have gotten only cold defening silence in most all cases. Cold snubbing. When I have run into prominent GBC members lately, they refused to meet with me to discuss these issues. Yet, if and when i write about some other topic, i get a reply. It is not that they are not seeing my email, they simply have chosen NOT to discuss this topic any more.
This movement is a philosophically based movement. Our leaders must be able to defend philosophic challenges to their fundamental core beliefs or path on which they follow. They will jump up to defend attacks by impersonallists. But, they sheepishly turn a cold deaf shoulder to their godbrothers who disagree with their decisions on these important issues. They refuse to discuss.
I did get a few responses from a few GBC / Senior Sannyasi Gurus - simply to tell me they refuse to discuss the issue. Indradyumna Maharaj, whom i held respect for as a preachig sannyasi, was one who refused saying he accepts the GBC stand on this, and he will not discuss the issue. I then begged him, as a godbrother, as a member of iskcon approaching him as a GBC, I begged him that since he does not wish to discuss, could he please direct me to someone within the GBC who will discuss these things with me. I begged him to help me, if i am wrong, please direct me to a GBC who can help answer my questions and defuse my difference. He refused to do so. This is a deriliction of his duty as a GBC. It is the derilicition of duty of the each and every GBC member. This is a duty that Srila Prabhupad entrusted to his GBC men, to address philosophical issues and to give guidance to his members.
The GBC may have taken my emails as challenges, and yes, I am challenging their conclusions and their speculative decisions, Arjun also challenged Krishna on what Krishna was advising. He said, You tell me that inaction is better then action, but then You tell me to fight, so what are You telling me? Krishna then explained karma yoga, that to offer the result of our actions as sacrifice to Krishna, that is better then inaction. But, he challenged Krishna in a humble spirit with the motive to reach the correct understanding. Maybe the GBC misunderstood my motive for the past 8 years, because from the begining when i tried to contact them, from my side i had the spirit to simply discuss this so that if I am wrong, correct me. Of course, if I show they are wrong, please accept it. I feel it is that last part that they have the problem with. They refused to even discuss anything with me at all. They simply began turning a cold shoulder and snubbing me. This is not how a leader of a philosophically based society should act?
And, after making my complaints known to others who have come to the same understanding as myself, they told me, "welcome to reality", they said this has been the way the GBC have treated them all. The GBC has simply refused to discuss this any further, even if we clearly show their views are wrong. |
A: There are several responses to this.
1) From the time Srila Prabhupad left our presence I have tried to be supportive of the GBC, even though I disagreed with many of their decision (namely the Zonal-Acharya debacle). It was obvious that fundamental things were not right, it was obvious the path we were on was wrong, but at the time I really had no other option but to follow the leadership that Srila Prabhupad had put into place. The biggest reason was I did not have access to enough information to make my own assessment of the decisions they had made. For years, despite my 'gut feeling' that 'something' or things, were totaly wrong, I more or less supported their conclusions as i had no other choice.
From 77-80 I lived in LA and worked on the FATE museum project. Then
I lived in Detroit working on FATE from 1980 to 1984. During that time I developed a serious respertory health problem due to the fact that the Chrysler paint factory was only blocks away. My nose and lungs had become very irritated. I moved back to LA and the smog in Los Angeles only worsened the condition. For health reasons I have to live somewhere where the air was clean. First, I moved to Bhaktivedanta Village north of LA in the foothills of the mountains to avoid the smog, only to find my condition not improving. Later i found that the smog from LA bluw into the valley and came right throuh our area so much that the giant Sequoia trees were decaying from the effects. I temporarily moved back to LA when Bhaktivedanta Village closed down. In LA my condition worsened even more, my lungs and nose turned raw, bleeding every day, my chest was heavy, it was difficult and painful to breath. For my health and my very life i had to leave. I found the air in the mountains of Northern California was so healing for me. I moved there to recover my health, not to leave ISKCON (which one GBC, namely Mukunda Maharaj, who I actually respected, at the time told others that I had left ISKCON and so he organized others and worked hard to destroy the video preaching service I was doing at that time so he could take it over. This a number of devotees had knowledge of). I found out after moving there that the air there was the cleanest and purist in all of the US. I did recover my health.
At the time of the Rtvik Debates in San Diego, however, i had been living up in the mountains of No Calif far away from any ISKCON temple for nearly 4 years. I had not heard of any rtvik debate, etc. I was far removed from all these things. I came to LA periodically for festivals and heard something about Rupa Vilas and Karnamrta, but i only heard that they had fallen into some bogus philosophy. So, without knowing any better, i tried my best to avoid the whole thing. Had i known then what it was all about, i would have been involved. But, i had no idea what was going on, i had been living in the forests and mountains of No Calif far away from any devotee associaiton for years.
Oddly enough, though, I was in San Diego and attended the NA GBC meetings the same day the Rtvik Debates were going on. Amazingly i had no idea what was going on. I had come to the meeting to make a presentation and request to the GBC to revive the Doll / FATE project. I didn't attend the debates, even while i was there, i didn't even know what they were about. Some devotees saw me there and assumed i was there in support of the rtvik side, i wasn't even aware of what was going on, however.
So, how does this relate to the above quesiton? During the time that the GBC debated this i had no information of the issue. I wasn't even aware of the issue. Rather, I continued to support the GBC views for years afterwards. In the mid 90's i was in LA and I heard about "the Rtviks", but still i had no idea what it was all about. What i heard was that Hamsadutta, who had a very heavy fall down, getting involved in drugs, guns and other non-sense, had fallen into a very bogus idea regarding the guru issue. I was told that some of his followers were going around and passing our blasphemous and poisonous literature and that their goal was to destroy Srila Prabhupad's mission. Whoa, that was heavy. So when i was handed their literature my first reaction was to throw it in the trash. But, then i thought, this thing is becoming a big issue, I might as well read what they have to say so that i will know how to defeat these rascals.
In 1996 I then read, for the first time, the July 9th letter. 19 years after Srila Prabhupad departed, and this was the very first time I had ever read the actual letter. In 1977-78 and onward, i had always been told that Srila Prabhupad had written a letter naming 11 men as the new acharyas. Yet, not once had the GBC showed me the actual letter. It was a shock to find that he had not appointed those 11 men as Acharyas, but as RTVIK-Acharyas. Even though I am sure that literature mentioned the May 28th meeting, if it did I just didn't realize the real connection. But, just the letter was powerful enough for me and for a while I began to doubt the GBC side.
From the GBC point of view, i had been poisoned by this evil truth. For months I was convinced the GBC had made a grave mistake. But, when i tried to speak to a senior devotee about this he gave me literature that was published to defeat the rtivk idea. I then read it. This was the endorsed and official view of the GBC, and the paper reminded us how Srila Prabhupad entrusted the GBC to be the highest authority of ISKCON. The GBC claimed that letter only applied to Before Srila Prabhupad departed, not after. And, it went on to explain how bogus an on-going rtvik system was. Partly, I felt obliged to accept their view. So many quotes were given proving, without a doubt, that Srila Prabhupad only wanted and encouraged us to become guru after he departs. That it is only proper ettiquette that a disciple not take disciples for himself until his guru departs. I became re-convinced that this was the only proper way for the sampradaya to carry on. There is no precidence of past acharyas setting up an on-going rtvik system. It would mean an end to the sampradaya if we accept this bogus idea of the rtviks. These were the arguments given. And so began a long period of time in which i would flip and flop on this issue.
In 1996 i wrote articles in defeat of the rtviks. I came up with the idea that if we accept this rtvik idea, then why just Srila Prabhupad, why can't new devotees take rtvik initiation from SBSS, or Bhaktivinode, or Rupa Gosvami, LC, Nityananda, or Vyas, Narad Muni, Brahma, or Balaram Himself? I sent this article to Tamal who wrote back very much appreciating it and forwarded it to Giridhari ? swami for inclusion in the GBC's next book in defeat of the rtviks.
Actually, some Rtviks had tried to convert me over from time to time, but none of them could sufficiently defeat me on this point. Yet, eventually i wound up defeating my own argument.
My coming to accept that the rtvik side was right was a long journey with lots of flips and flops. I had read the book "Final Order", but, that alone did not convince me. [as far as the above argument regarding jumping over and taking rtvik initiation from any past acharya, no, that is not authorized. Then how is it authorized in regards to Srila Prabhupad? Simple. Srila Prabhupad is the only acharya who set up a full and complete rtvik process which no longer required his physical presence to continue onward. He deputized GBC to train, to guide and Rtvik-Acharyas to perform all the physical aspects of accepting a new initiate, chanting on the beads, giving name, performing the sacrifice. No past acharya ever set up such a fully automated system that no longer required their physical presence. Thus, we cannot force such a system on any other past acharya. Only Srila Prabhuapd set this up for himself. Thus, it can only be applied to him.]
Again, what does this have to do with the above Q?
By the time I came around to questioning the GBC position and began to come up with questions and starting to accept the Rtvik position as being bona-fide the GBC had long ago closed the door on the issue. The GBC may have discussed the issue in 1978 in private, and in 1990 at one meeting, and then again behind closed doors in the early 90's, and so by 1998 when I finally got around to really researching this and started to come up with all sorts of questions and angles on this, doubts about the GBC side, when I tried to discuss it all i got was harsh cold silence. Total refusal to discuss. All I heard was that they had discussed this to no end and closed the door on it a long time ago.
But, at the time they were discussing it I wasn't even much aware of it. The GBC policy of refusing to enter any additional discussion is just flat out wrong.
I didn't get information to make my own research or assessment until the late 1990's. It wasn't until then that I began to have my doubts. But, the GBC policy of refusing to discuss is just wrong. What if they were right - they wouldn't even take the time to help someone who was, in their view, falling down into a bogus philosophy. IF they are right, they wouldn't even try to help save me. That policy is totally wrong. After all, there have been GBC / gurus, like Navayogendra Swami, who at one point announced he accepted the Rtvik view and proclaimed all his disciples as being Srila Prabhupad's. When he did this the GBC concidered this a grave fall down and so they met with him and discussed the issues and converted him back to their side. But, for common devotees like me, the GBC refused to discuss with me. They refused to try and dispell my doubts or answer my questions.
This has not just occured with me, but with many many others.
I also felt I had new questions and new points of view that I had not seen addressed by the GBC yet. Still, they refused to discuss or answer anything.
If the GBC are so confident of their position, then please enter into open and public discussion, and best yet, a moderated public debate on this issue.
On this, many devotees I have spoke with agree with this point. That the GBC should hold another open and public moderated debate on this topic. The moderator, however, must not be a GBC member, as in the 1990 debate, but an unbiased 3rd party, and the rules cannot be only dicated by the GBC, but negotiated between the 2 parties and arbitrated by a 3rd unbiased party. Both sides should be allowed to present the basis of their views, then each side can question the other. Each point presented must be addressed by the opposing party.
Such a debate will satisfy many devotees. It must be a prolonged debate, taking as long as needed to address all issues and concerns, points and questions, and cannot be left to just the GBC when to decide the debate is over. In the 1990 Rtvik-Debate the GBC was in full charge. They set the rules, they set the agenda, they determined when it was over, and as a result the issue was never fully dealt with to the satisfaction of all parties. In fact, my understanding is that at that debate it was concluded that there would be more discussion, and other debate. But, then the GBC meet privately and they chose to close the door and no additional debates were ever held. 17 years later there are a lot more questions and doubts about the GBC position(s). |