Regulating Regular Guru

-------------------------------------

Gaur Keshav Prabhuji

and all the assembled Vaishnav's

Pamho - agt Srila Prabhupad.

When I asked you and others to answer my questions you chose to first put forth your argument showing us the deficiencies in SP's addressing several aspects of how such a rtvik system can go forward.  Your logic was that if your points stand as valid, then what is the use in responding to my questions as the whole matter at that point would be finished. ...

SP did not give any specific instructions regarding how the GBC and his ISKCON ashrams and the future gurus were to function.  As you have pointed out some lack of guidance regarding the rtvik system. It is the purpose of this email to show that there is a  a much more intense and serious lack of guidance regarding the current system or any other system of trying to integrate regular gurus into ISKCON, including what you see as a traditional system.  The purpose of this email is to show that there is far less support of regular gurus in iskcon then there is for the rtvik system.

1. There is a total lack of instructions by SP about how any new or future guru is to interface within the managerial structure of iskcon as he had set it up.   There is not even one referrence where SP spoke of a future time where iskcon will have 11, 111 or 1111's of regular gurus.

2. There is total lack of instructions by SP how the GBC is supposed to regulate gurus within the iskcon ashram

It appears that we both agree that the current and past GBC 'guru systems' are not proper.  There is not one instruction by SP where he ever indicated that the GBC had any authority to Elect or Rubber-Stamp approve or disapprove of who is to be seen as a 'bonafide' guru.   [Yet, there are instructions by Srila Prabhupad debunking rubber-stamped gurus - via election process]. We seem to both agree that any such process has no past precedence to draw on and no instruction by SP that the GBC were to act in this way.   [Yet, there are instructions stating he did not want it].

PAST PRECEDENCE:
However, in the same light it has to be understood that there is no past precedence at all for how a guru's mission is to go on functioning under a GBC in the way SP set up the GBC because the GBC system he set up is unique.  You even mentioned that in your view SP's GBC system is unique even as seen from other attempts of his Godbrothers to implement a GBC system.  Because it is a unique system there is no past precedence to see how it should or even can function with regular gurus.   There are no past gurus who set up a GBC system like what SP set up, and thus there are no past such systems to see how they functioned with the addition of regular gurus.  And, it is a stark and conspicuous fact that SP gave not one single instruction how ISKCON and the GBC were to function with the addition of regular gurus.

A basis of many who oppose on-going rtvik argue that because there is no past example of such a rtvik system, it cannot be accepted as what SP wanted.  Where is the past example of a guru's ashram being left in the hands of a GBC body, and then 100's of subordinate and second-rate authorities who try to be known as Regular Gurus function within that ashram under the higher authority of the GBC?   The same lack of any example is there. It is the anti-rtivks who argue that we cannot accept a process that has no past precedence.  Then, using their own criteria for rejection, they must also reject the idea of trying to artificially make Regular Gurus integrate within the structure of ISKCON.

We do seem to both both agree that the current system of rubber stamped gurus is not traditional, and since it also lacks any direct instruction by SP, it is a concoction and must be corrected.

LACK OF INSTRUCTIONS:
However, there are major flaws in putting forth any system in which there are any other Real 'gurus' in the iskcon ashram.  Why?
Because of the above lack of direction and instructions by SP exactly how any new guru fits into the authoritative structure of iskcon. And how, if at all, the gurus are to be regulated by the GBC.

This has been a gnawing issue and thorn in the side of the GBC since 1978 when they made their first attempts to appoint the 11 rtviks as regular gurus.  And it remains a major thorny issue nearly 30 years later.   No matter what sort of 'regular' guru system is put forth there are going to be major issues simply because there is a total lack of specific direction by Srila Prabhupad.     (Nay, the lack of direction, i say is not due to a fault of SP's, but the lack of direction is the direct doings of none other then one particular blue colored rascal of a cowherd boy - and i will say more about that later on in this letter). 

DRAWING THE LINE OF AUTHORITY BETWEEN GBC/TP and GURU:
The issues have been, Where to draw the line (of authority).  Everyone agrees that a Guru has 'authority' over his disciple.  In a normal or traditional setting where the guru has his own ashram, the guru is the Top Authority of his disciple, no question and no conflict with any other authority.  But, since ISKCON has a GBC/TP structure of authority, and SP clearly stated that in his absence the GBC would be the top authority (under him), then we have the dilemma of where does the authority of the Regular guru fit in?  The only way to make the guru fit is to reduce and limit the authority a regular guru traditionally has if he were guru of his own ashram.   Then on what basis are we to limit and reduce the authority of a regular guru?  SP gave no guidelines.  

And, the only way to give the Guru any authority is by taking away some of authority SP had given to the GBC, thus changing and altering the system SP set up.  This, there is no way around it.  The only way to give the guru a place in the structure SP had set up is to change the system he set up. The system SP had set up was a very complete system of authority for ISKCON.   Temple authorities, TP, temple boards, Executive Directors, GBC, sannyasis, senior devotees, all have a certain amount of authority.  Their authority can be, and is, regulated.  Regulated directly by what SP set up and his direct instructions and guidelines in defining them and their place in the authoritative structure he had set up.  In defining and setting up all these authorities for his ISKCON ashram SP never gave one single instruction how Regular gurus,  especially how 11, or 111, or 1111 regular gurus were to fit into that system.   He gave absolute no guidelines at all.   Period.  Nothing.   Absolute Void. 

So many ideas (concoctions) have been put forward.  Some have argued that the GBC are 'governors', therefore they are ksatriyas, or like mundane corporate managers, leaving the gurus to act as the brahmanas.  But SP never taught like that. Rather he has said that the GBC is similar to that of sannyasi.  Their place is more like that of brahminical advisors, sannyasi guidance consolers, and leaders of a spiritual/religious mission, not just mundane managers. 

Any attempt to try to get the Gurus to fit in automatically requires major and fundamental changes to the system of authority for ISKCON that SP had set up and clearly defined. 

DUTIES of the GBC:
Besides, when we look back at what the duties of the GBC were, as SP set them up,  they were giving managerial and philosophical guidance, as well as dealing with the personal issues of the devotees.   In fact, SP wrote in a letter to Madhudvisa outlining those 3 duties.  And, he wrote letters and gave instruction to his own disciples asking us to no longer approach him directly for our personal issues, but that we should all approach the GBC/TP system he had set up.  

Most of SP's disciples never had any personal dealings at all with SP.  We never approached him for our personal needs or issues, or personal guidance, as he handed over all these duties to the GBC system he set up.   But, today, most new members do not approach the GBC for such things.  Rather, they approach their diksha gurus.    This is not the ISKCON GBC system that SP set up and that was being followed in the 1970's.   It has been change to try and accommodate the gurus.  But, these changes have no basis in any of SP's instructions.

Years ago I wrote to the GBC pointing this out and requesting that the duties of the GBC be restored.  That all devotees again approach the GBC for these services.  My reasoning was that by restoring the rightful duties of the GBC it would restore the respect and position of the GBC within our society.  There had been, and still is, a lack of respect for the GBC, and also the GBC has no real position other then to attend meetings.  That is, local temples are managed by the local authorities and for all personal guidance issues all newer devotees turn to their gurus (if anyone), and Prabhupad disciples no longer turn to the GBC because they have basically stopped performing those duties.  My conclusion has been that the only way to restore the proper post, position and respect of the GBC is to restore the original duties that SP had given them.  Which included addressing the personal issues of ALL the members of the iskcon society. 
 
This, however, has been rejected by the GBC because if this is implemented, if all the duties of the GBC are restored to what they were when SP was within our material vision, then what would be the duty and function of the 'gurus'?   They would perform the fire yajnas, but the GBC would give all other on-going personal guidance and advice.  

Yet, those were the duties and functions of the GBC under SP's ISKCON system of management. 

There is not one single instruction by SP where he has said that those duties were to be given over to any new future gurus who would be occupying his iskcon ashrams.   

Thus, taking away those duties from the GBC and giving them to the gurus is nothing less then a mental concoction,   and a serious deviation from the instructions and system SP gave us.   He instructed all members of ISKCON to approach the GBC system he had put in place.  This is how ISKCON functioned for nearly 7 years while he was present.  Thus, not to restore these duties to the GBC is a grave and serious deviation from what SP instructed and what he set up.

But, if it is done, then where do the gurus fit in?  What duties are they to perform?  They perform the fire yajna, and they collect the dakshin (unless that goes to the GBC, see below), but then what?   When a disciple has an issue to be solved, they are to go to the GBC system...   not the guru.   Where do we ADD the guru?    Based on what instruction by SP?   How,  which duties are taken away from the GBC?   Which remain?     Based on what?

Did SP ever instruct us to go to other sampradayas and see how they do it?   NO.  Not that i know of.   Did he tell us to go to his godbrothers?   No.  Not for such guidance.  He told us he had given us everything.  But, within that everything he did not give us any instructions  AT ALL about how new gurus were to function within his ISKCON ashram.

REGULATING THE GURU:
Then, there is the issue of Regulating the Guru(s).  The GBC have been wrestling with how to regulate Gurus for 30 years.  The problem is that the very word Guru means MASTER.   How can one regulate the level of authority between a Guru and his disciple?   But, if that Guru is also a GBC or a sannyasi or TP, then his authority in those capacities is and can be regulated by the GBC.  But, what about his authority as guru?  The GBC have stepped in and passed all sorts of regulations concerning the Gurus....

Right there we have a problem.   The problem is that NONE of the resolutions the GBC have passed to regulate Gurus has any basis in SP's instructions,    because he gave none.   He gave absolutely no guidelines how the GBC is to regulate regular gurus. 

Thus, can we conclude that the GBC has no authority regulating regular gurus?  

REGULATING GURU DAKSHIN:
What about Guru Dakshin?  Here is an interesting place to regulate a guru...    I just spoke with HH Kavichandra Maharaj as we were both visiting Atlanta temple and he told me that the GBC has no income.  Either collectively or individually.  He said that the only money he gets is the Dakshin from his disciples.   Is this how SP intended the GBC system to function?  That the GBC all become gurus and they use the daksin given by disciples to perform their GBC duties?  This would mean that to become a GBC one must become a guru in order to function as a GBC.   On what instruction is this idea based?

When devotees join they often give their possessions. But, to who?  The temple or their aspiring guru? Some have given cars, some houses even.  When SP was with us those used to go to ISKCON, the local temple. 

REGULATING DONATIONS:
I have heard of one disciple giving her guru a house and 6 acres because his health was not good and he said he needed privacy.   But, the problem is that the disciple stays at an iskcon temple and was doing service, but when her guru asked for a place she gave up her temple services and went and got a job, yet she still lives in the temple ashram, where the ISKCON (SP's) temple foots her room and board bills.  She continues to take advantage of the ashram conveniences.  But, rather then her labor going toward the temple community, it is all going to one 'guru'.   And, that 'guru' gained his name to fame by being an 'authorized' iskcon guru.   But, iskcon, SP's ashram, is simply footing his bills, footing the bills of his disciple, and yet ISKCON is not getting the income from this devotee's labors.    What if i approach a brahmacarini or brahmacari living in ISKCON ashrams and ask him to go get a job to buy me a house, while the ashram continues to maintain him/her, yet I take the fruit of their labors for my own personal use?    It is only allowable if one has been rubber-stamped an official guru by the GBC.   So, this would be allowable if i were a rubber-stamped iskcon guru??? 

'USING' SP's ISKCON ASHRAM INAPPROPRIATELY:
The GBC has seen a need to REGULATE dakshin, but what about donations like this?   I see scenarios like this as an improper 'USE' of SP's ISKCON ashrams and SP's fame.  These gurus are 'using' SP and his ashram, 'using' their rubber stamp that proclaims that they are 'authorized', 'authentic' gurus,  yet, SP's iskcon ashrams are footing their bills, and doing so much footwork and legwork for these 'gurus'.   Rather then asking this ISKCON devotee to work to buy a property to open a new temple for SP, he has asked her to work to buy a property for him to live.  All while "using" SP's ashram facilities, name and fame, etc.

I am SP's disciple and seeing these things does not sit well with me at all.  Personally, I don't think most of the 'gurus' are overtly trying to "USE" SP's mission in this way, I think most are somewhat innocent, but this does not make a wrong - right.  Today there are around 100 gurus, but how can ISKCON support 1000's of gurus who wind up USEing iskcon in this way?   How many devotees can ashrams and temples support when 10% - 20% to 50% and more take advantage of ISKCON's facilities but, rather than doing service for ISKCON ashrams are serving the personal needs and desires of their individual Gurus?      Even if 50% of the new granddisciples utilize 30% of their time, effort and finances to server the personal desries of their gurus,  this results in major set back to the SP's ISKCON who is footing the bills for those devotees.   When SP was present all those living in and making use of ISKCON's services were engaged cent-percent in serving ISKCON - and the ONE guru.  Personally serving SP was serving ISKCON because SP was and IS ISKCON in that sense.  Because ISKCON is SP's ashram.  To serve him or his ashram is one and the same.   But, we cannot say this for all or any of the current gurus because ISKCON is not their personal ashram, it is still SP's. 

Just see how things have changed.  When SP was with us many brahmacaris became personal servants of many of the sannyasis. But, at that time if a sannyasi had asked his servant, living at an iskcon ashram, to go get a job and buy him 6 acres and a house because his health is not so good and he wants privacy...    ah....  I just can't imagine SP being pleased with this.

Need for regulation?-  Dakshin needs to be regulated, and what about personal donations such as above? But, where does such regulation of a Master begin, and where should it end - based on what instructions by SP?  The problem is there is a total VOID of any instruction by SP about how GBC is to regulate devotees who function as real gurus within his ISKCON ashrams.  There is no guidance at all how the GBC can or should REGULATE 'regular' gurus.  

Thus, ANY sort of regulation is speculative at best.  And some are bogus.  How can the GBC regulate a spiritual MASTER?   We can't look outside to other sampradayas because the way SP set up the GBC is unique. There isn't anything to really compare it with.

ADVANTAGES OF BEING AN 'ISKCON GURU':
There are obviously advantages to being a Rubber Stamped, GBC-Approved, Iskcon-Guru. 
Some of the advantages (over someone starting out on their own, starting their own separate ashram) I can think of off-hand are:
-Riding on SP's name and fame.   SP made ISKCON and Hare Krsna famous world-wide.  To be a GBC rubber-stamped guru means you are an ISKCON-guru,  and this means you get to ride on the popularity of SP. Those coming to SP's temple see you as an "Authorized" Hare Krsna Guru .
-Same for ISKCON, you get to ride on the popularity of ISKCON
-You get free room and board in most any iskcon center, especially those of your  home-base (at least for most gurus)
-You get so many potential new disciples because so many people come to the Iskcon centers -  you don't have to personally arrange for, pay for, or man all the preaching efforts that attract the new followers.  You don't have to fund the college programs, or even do the college preaching,  you don't pay for the prasadam distribution, you don't pay for the Ratha Yatras, etc., or do the book distribution.  You also don't have to manage the ashrams where you and your disciples stay,   you don't have to run or have anything to do with the new-bhakta training programs that train your new potential disciples.  You don't have to pay for the food, or arrange for the cooking for all your new bhaktas or brahmacari / brahmacarini disciples, or pay for their ashram expenses.  All of this, and much more, is all provided by SP's ISKCON.   You don't have to do any of this.  But, when new members come (generally by the hard work and preaching of so many other devotees) you are presented to them as a GBC - authenticated - ISKCON  guru...  

Should ISKCON temples then charge the gurus a USER fee?    Maybe a 50% Dakshin and donation TAX? Guru-Taxes.  Or actually more like 80-95% would be more appropriate, considering the benefit derived from the name/fame of iskcon and all the services and facilities iskcon provides.  Maybe the gurus should be charged room, board and meals for use of the facilities.     
To me, this is ridiculous,  but, what is more scary is that i know there will be those who will think that would be a good idea. 

LARGE PERSONAL DONATIONS - TO WHOM DO THEY BELONG?:
What happens when a guru gets a disciple who inherits millions and decides he will give the whole thing to his guru?   Ambarish once told SP that he would give all his money to SP, his guru.   SP did not take it, directly.  After some time, however, SP wrote and reminded Ambarish of his offer and then asked if he could give some of his money toward the doll museum project.  But, today Ambarish gives so much of his money to SP's ISKCON.  Still, he originally offered it to SP directly.  The point is that most devotees desire a close relation with their guru and if they have substantial wealth they will naturally want to give a large donation to their guru. Someday it will happen, if not already, that a person will come and will give $100 million to his guru....      

To whom does that donation belong?  

When Ambarish offered his wealth to SP it was no different to offer it to SP or to ISKCON, because ISKCON is SP's ashram, it would all be used for ISKCON.  But, what about the current gurus?   Should the GBC regulate that gurus cannot have personal donations?  Or must only use personal donations for ISKCON? 

If it is a personal donation to the guru, that should be all right?   I mean, if any of us were offered a personal donation most of us would decide how we would use it - hopefully in Krsna's service.  But, most of us would take it as ours, not as the temple's.  But, what about a director of the congregational members? 

This was an issue with some of the Indians who dealt with the Indian congregation.  Sometimes they were given personal donations and they kept them.   But, this was looked down on by the temples who engaged the devotees because they felt that any donations given to the directors of the 'life members' or indian congregation, were to be donations to ISKCON or that temple.    Worse, is that sometimes these directors would 'ask' congregational members to give them a personal donation, (like this guru asked his disciple for land and  a house) rather then to the temple, and even worse is that some of the donations the members made intended for ISKCON were pocketed inappropriately by some of the directors.  

The point is that those directors were in the official post of collecting donations from the indian congregation for ISKCON, or the local temple,  and thus ANY pocketing of ANY donations -  was considered inappropriate.  After all,  who was paying for them to go out and collect?  And, to the life members, those devotees were seen as officially representing iskcon and the temple.  So, for them to go and 'use' ISKCON's name, to 'use' their position to collect for themselves personally was considered inappropriate.  

ISKCON GURUS OFFICIALLY "RESPRESENT" ISKCON:
There is similar problem with the 'iskcon gurus'.  Because the GBC rubber-stamps them as Offficial - GBC-Authorized - ISKCON Gurus they are seen as Official Representatives of ISKCON.   They are the Gurus of the ISKCON Ashram,   not their own ashram.  Thus to many when they donate to their ISKCON guru they feel they are donating to ISKCON, just as we did when we donated to SP.  
But, is that really the fact today?   If that guru can use that money separate from the temple,   then where is the ISKCON  ashram benefiting?   ISKCON is supplying all the Name and Fame,   giving all facilities,  support,   etc, footing all the bills, which all gives these guru's the aura as Official Representatives of the ISKCON Ashram,  and so for many if they give to the Guru, they feel they are giving to ISKCON - but iskcon may not really be seeing any of this. 

The only way to assure that the official iskcon gurus do not misuse donations given to them for sense-enjoyment or for other then purposes that benefit ISKCON,  is for the GBC to Regulate and then Police personal donations made to the Gurus.   

But, aren't Gurus supposed to traditionally be able to accept personal donations and use the donations as they see fit?   Yes, for gurus who function independently and have their own ashrams.  But, not for ISKCON gurus who are labeled as Official ISKCON Gurus, and function as gurus within an ashram for which they are not the top authority, as this makes therm Representatives of ISKCON.  It is just like the life member director, he is in the official position of collecting donations from the life members For ISKCON, not for himself personally.  

Look at it another way.    Unless there is some other written contract, the law states that if one is hired to paint artwork, or is maintained and materials provided by another person, company or organization,   (for example, say the BBT),   then the artwork that artist creates does not belong to the artist, but all rights, reproduction rights, etc, belong to the one who provided the facilities and maintained the artist.  

Apply this to the ISKCON-guru.   He is provided the ASHRAM, facilities,   all programs to attract new members is done by SP's ashram,  all training of the new members is provided by SP's ISKCON Ashram,   all maintenance of the new members is provided by SP's ISKCON Ashram,   etc.,   even that guru's room, board and meals are often paid for by SP's ashram.  And that guru is presented to all members as an Official - GBC-Approved - genuine ISKCON-guru. This guru is REPRESENTING Iskcon.   Thus, donations made to that 'guru', even if personal,  are not really his.  They are the property of ISKCON, at least this is the fact when we apply the laws of copyright.   Iskcon has supplied all the basic facilities, and the GBC have stamped this guru as an official ISKCON Guru,   thus,  the GBC should then regulate, control, account for, all donations given to the ISKCON gurus - whether it is officially dakshin from performance of Fire Yajna, or even including personal donations.
Otherwise, if this is not done,    then you can have gurus who go around asking for private donations from their disciples and wind up using those funds for their personal use and not utilzing those funds for ISKCON,   and when  ISKCON asks the same devotees for donations,   'oh, i already gave to my ISKCON guru'.   

So, there is need for the GBC to regulate, yes?   But, on what basis?   SP gave not one instruction in this regard.  Nothing.  Then we are to see how other sampradayas do this?   To ask gurus of other ashrams?   Where is SP's instruction where he has told us if there is something lacking in his instructions that we must look to other sampradayas, other missions?  Be4sides their managerial and authorative structure is not the same as the GBC system SP set up for his ISKCON.  There is no value in seeking their opinions.  

WHO IS THE PRESIDING PRIEST:
And, then we have another problem if the GBC does regulate dakshin and donations.  What is that?  The priest who takes or controls the dakshin in a ceremony is to be the presiding or over-seeing priest. (sorry, i cannot supply any reference to tis.  I read it long ago, that the main dakshin of a yajna is given to the presiding priest, but i cannot cite the reference at this time).  Thus, if and when the GBC take the position of dictating how the dakshin is to be spent, this places them as the presiding priests of the initiation ceremonies conducted by the Gurus.   For the GBC to regulate or control the dakshin of the initiation ceremony has the direct effect of making the GBC the actual Diksha Guru which makes the 'gurus' who perform the yajna no more or less then Rtviks of the GBC !!!!

Is this bonafide?  Can a GBC body, as a whole, be the actual  Diksha Guru????    Then, it is bonafide for the GBC to control the Guru Dakshin given in an initiation ceremony???   

If not, then how can  it be that  ISKCON ashrams foot the bills to attract new members, foot the preaching efforts, train the new members and provide maintenance, room, board and meals to the new members, but all the donations go to the guru?

Why should my spiritual master's mission be giving so much facility to just a handful of men and yet they collect the dakshin and take personal donations of new members, yet my guru's ashram does not benefit after providing all these facilities for free?  Simply because the GBC have rubber-stamped their approval and named them ISKCON-gurus?  Then, this makes them REPRESENTATIVEs of  ISKCON,   and thus as representatives all donations given while they represent iskcon and the GBC must be given over to the ISKCON Ashrams.   SP turned over all his personal donations to the BBT.   But, that was SP.   BBT was his personal account.   Even if the current gurus did this, it would be more in line with what SP did.  

Still, SP had control over his own dakshin, why not the current gurus?  Again, because SP and ISKCON were one and the same.   Because ISKCON was and is HIS Personal Ashram.    Iskcon is not the personal ashram of any of the  iskcon  gurus.   They are Representatives Gurus of the ISKCON Ashram.  They are not regular gurus of their own ashrams.   Because they Officially Represent ISKCON they cannot be taking personal donations any more then a Director of Life Members who is Officially collecting on behalf of ISKCON.    

And, if GBC control the Dakshin of a yajna, then the GBC are to be seen as the presiding priest of that yajna.  They become the Diksha guru.     
One way to get around this is for ISKCON to charge the gurus a Diksha guru tax based on per head count of disciples, or per the size of the disciple's bank accounts? or per the amount of dakshin?   (Ridiculous).       It all comes down to speculative concoctions.

Any regulation by the GBC over what a truly 'regular' guru is bogus because SP gave no guidance on how the GBC is to regulate MASTERs.  But, as we see, there are so many areas that if the GBC does not regulate the gurus, then everything can get out of hand.  Iskcon facilities can be purposefully misused and taken advantage of.  Imagine a 1000 gurus all asking their disciples for personal donations,   buy me 6 acres and a house because i am your official iskcon guru and i want privacy...   Or buy me a new car,  or give me money for Spa and Gym so i can stay fit,  or for chocolate because i am too thin and sleepy and need to gain weight and stay awake,  or what ever....  

REPRESENTATIVE GURU:
As soon as the GBC regulate, however, then the Master, the guru, is no longer a Regular Guru, but he becomes subordinate to the True Master of the ISKCON Ashram, the GBC, and the guru becomes a REPRESENTATIVE Guru,   which is EXACTLY an OFFICIATING GURU, or Rtvik-Acharya,    But, with One Big Difference.    Rather then being a Rtvik or Officiating Guru on behalf of SP,   the current gurus are really Rtviks of the GBC...  And that is something that has no basis in SP's instructions no matter which way you cut it. 

Guru, the word means Master.  Most often SP referred to 'guru' as Spiritual Master in English, or teacher, which is also one's master.  Master means your lord, your teacher, your 'Authority'.  But, how do we define this 'authority' in ISKCON?  

Is the iskcon guru the top authority for his disciples?  NO,  not if the disciple is a member of ISKCON,   all members of ISKCON must accept SP's directive that the GBC shall be the top authority below him.   Then, the iskcon guru is an autority that lies somewhere BELOW that of GBC?   Hmmm,.   what sort of "regular" guru is this?   A guru who does not have his own ashram, and yet the ashram in which he functions as guru he is not the Master- he is subordinate to the authority of the ashram in which he functions as so-called 'master'.  He is the Secondary Master, the secondary authority.   His "authority" to be known as a guru is awarded to him by the vote of the GBC,  in all ways the current gurus are REPRESENTATIVES of the GBC.  Empowered by the GBC,   must ansewr to the GBC,   regulated by the GBC.    This is NOT regular Guru.

GBC TO TAKE HANDS OFF APPROACH TO REGULAR GURU?:
One proposed solution is for the GBC to take a total hands off.  Whoever wants to be guru, be guru.   But, in WHOSE ASHRAM?    If they become guru in ISKCON's ashram,    then,    GBC MUST regulate them or the whole thing will run amok.    Gurus "USING" SP's iskcon ashram for their personal gain.  Taking advantage of the facilities, and siphoning off the donations.   Using ISKCON to make them new disciples, ISKCON houses them, trains them,  then the guru comes and says, please give me dakshin and personal donations...    Such idea CAN NOT Work,   and again, has NO basis in ANY instruction by SP at all.  Period.   He said absolute ZERO words about such gurus running around in His ISKCON after he departs.  It is a total speculation and any analysis of it ends in chaos.  

DEFINING THE AUTHORITY OF ISKCON GURUS:
Whether the GBC takes a hands off approach toward 'regular gurus' or tries to regulate and define them more and more, it does not really matter, for as soon as you say that they are Regular Gurus, and yet also say that those Regular Gurus are to function within SP's ISKCON ashrams it becomes impractical and impossible.   Why impossible?   Because guru means authority, and GBC has been designated by SP to be the ultimate authority in his absence, thus at some point one must Define the Line of authority.  One must Define - GBC has XYZ authority, and Guru has ABC authority (within ISKCON),   and as soon as you do this you are regulating the Guru, and you must then take duties away from the GBC because the duty and authority of the GBC and that of a regular guru OVER-LAP.
 
When SP was present HE was (and Remains) the True Topmost Authority over and above the GBC.  Thus, there was no conflict between he and the GBC body.  SP was the MASTER of ISKCON, and the MASTER of and Over and Above the GBC.   Thus, his position as Guru of Iskcon was perfectly defined as that of a 'regular' (but, parama) guru.  

But, with the current 'gurus', their 'authority' within ISKCON is not defined by SP anywhere at all. Their authority in relation to the GBC is not defined or ever mentioned by SP.      

We cannot look or apply the precedence of SP as it does not apply at all.  The current gurus cannot each claim to be Masters Above the GBC.   No, not within ISKCON.   And, that could not work with even 11 gurus, what to speak of 111, or 1,111+++    each one dictating to the GBC as the Masters of ISKCON.   Impossible. 

Then, where do such MASTER's fit in?   Are they to be Authorities EQUAL with the GBC?  
Then where is SP's instruction or guidance how this shall work?   What is the basis for such idea?   And, how will such idea work?  That would totally undermine and change the structure of authority SP set up.  It would not be workable, to make GBC and Guru equal,    there has to be one who has clearly defined authority over the other.  And, SP only said that the GBC shall have such authority, he never mentioned anything about there being gurus.... 

Then,  the proposal is that Regular Gurus shall be an authority just below that of GBC ????     Just above that of sannyasi or TP.     On what basis?   SP never said that in the future Regular Gurus will be secondary and subordinate 'masters' under the GBC and just above that of TP.  In ISKCON the Ashram Master is the GBC (under SP), and somewhere under the GBC is one's 'master'. What is SP instructions that give basis to this?

Who says the ISKCON Representative rubber-stamped Guru is to sit above the authority of the Temple President?     SP never said this.   What is this idea based on?   What if a devotee is living in a temple's ashram and the TP says I want you to cook for Krsna today, but his guru calls him on his cell phone and says,  hey siksha, I need you to ccok my lunch today.    So, if he is to follow the authority of the TP above that of his guru,     hmmm,   that places the Guru below the authority of even TP !!!     Even if we say the Guru must go to the TP first and can't dictate to his disciple before first consulting with the TP,    still,   that places the level of authority of this so-called 'regular guru' BELOW that of the TP.    What about the Ashram commander (or temple commander)?   If Gurus can order their disciples around freely, then how can the temple coordinate the services that need be done?  So, really, the so-called guru in ISKCON has less real authority over his disciple then the brahmacari ashram leader...    
What sort of Regular Guru is that?

But, if we say he is Regular Guru, and has Full Authority,  believe me,   gurus will take advantage and pull rank and be telling their disciples to do this for then, and that,   and the temple ashrams would not be able to function properly.  So, for all practical reasons - the so-called gurus in ISKCON ashrams have less authority over their disciples who live in the ISKCON ashrams then even the ashram leaders.     What sort of spiritual MASTER is this? 

Yet, this is not really acceptable and so this is a never ending gnawing question because there is a total black void of any guidance given by SP to base any decision on.   When he set up the authority structure there was only One Guru,   him,  and as the Master of his ISKCON ashram he was, is, the top authority above all, including the GBC.   He never gave one single instruction on how iskcon must change it's authority structure to allow for Regular Gurus to fit into that structure.

For those who claim that SP could have only ever wanted that we become regular gurus in his ashram,   this is a very big problem....    It is a problem that still haunts the GBC to this day,    how to define the authority of the Guru, and where he fits in...  They still are not any closer to figuring this out then they were 30 years ago.  It is impractical to define his authority above that of GBC, or even above that of an ashram leader,   yet, it is unacceptable to define a Guru to have such low lelve of authority -    where to draw the line?

Here is an interesting example that took place about 8 years ago.  I was in Alachua and one mataji was there, I will change some things about her so as to not identify her, to protect her innocence, but, she once had devotee husband, but they divorced. She had daughter of 17, however.  The mother had heard that i wrote a book on marriage, so she approached me for a copy.  I had assumed she wanted it as guidance on marrying her older daughter, but instead she told me that she wanted it because she was looking for another husband.  At any rate the next time i spoke with her was several weeks later and she told me that she was leaving Alachua and moving to another temple where her Guru had just found her a new husband.   I wrote her guru and advised him that rather then helping this mataji re-marry, if he were to arrange any marriage he should be arranging the marriage of the unwed daughter.   He wrote me back, and was very unappreciative of my advice, and totally rejected the quotes I gave by SP that supported my advice,   and then told me that HE was these devotee's Guru, and as their Guru his duty was to do what he saw was best for them (regardless of what SP instructed). 

Now lets examine what transpired here -  (setting aside the Dharma aspects of this, of whether he broke the laws of dharma, or what was right or wrong based on dharma).   One thing was this mataji had her temple service, as did the older daughter, and she had her devotional school setting, friends, etc.   Without discussing with the local GBC or TP, without working anything out with them, this 'Guru', acting in his position as a Guru, authority of his disciples, made arrangements for this mataji to not only re-marry, but to leave her services, leave that temple community, and move to another temple.  All without any consultation with the local TP and GBC authorities.   This can be very disruptive and is NOT something that is supported within SP's instructions on how ISKCON is to be managed.   IF that Guru, who was also a GBC, had acted in this way wearing his GBC hat such actions would be condemned.  One GBC cannot make arrangements for a devotee in another zone and temple to leave that community, leave their services, their children's devotional school environment, etc, and move them to another temple/community (which happened to be the community where this GBC guru resided) without the full knowledge and approval of the local GBC/TP authorities.   This sort of action totally undermines the Authoritative structure SP set up.    But, a Regular Guru should be able to have authority like this over his disciple, yes?   Yes, of course, in His Own Ashram.  But, not if he is functioning within ISKCON, then he cannot act independently like this.  He must respect the system of authority SP set up for ISKCON.   But, acts like this only work to undermine the authority structure SP set up.  All in the name of being a REAL regular Guru and Master of one's disciple.    But, if we regulate what a guru can or cannot do, then we are limiting their authority, we are subordinating them to be below that of the GBC,  TP's and even ashram leaders, etc.   Then, they can no longer be defined as Regular Gurus, but as Rtviks. REPRESENTATIVE GURUS.

When we go back to the idea that the GBC must regulate the authority of the Gurus the problem is where to draw the line?  And, time after time,    for regulating their dakshin, regulating their level of authority, regulating their duties, etc,  when we apply these regulations and limitations,   we seem to always end up with something that more and more resembles that of a Rtvik then a Regular Guru.

How can the local temple priest or ashram commander have more authority over one's life then one's savior guru???      Hmmm....   And the dilemma goes on....

The idea being put forth that the GBC should have a total 'hands-off' approach was shown to be impractical and impossible.  And, yet, any sort of regulation and defining of authority is also proved to be impractical and non-shastric. 

OVERLAP OF AUTHORITY:
And, overlapping of authority between GBC and guru is also another very thorny area, as seen in the following way (biased decisions).  Say a service is open and the local TP asks the local GBC to help find someone to do the service.  There are other more qualified devotees, but the GBC, who is also a guru, decides to appoint his own, less qualified, disciple to that service.  Thus, how do we regulate that a GBC must make GBC decisions wearing only his GBC hat, and not his Guru hat?   Again, it is just a different aspect of the same problem of how to define the authority of the guru, where the guru fits, and how to interface guru's authority into the structure of authority SP set up.   A MAJOR Potential for Conflict of Interest arises when the Guru is also a GBC,  or even a TP, or even a Sannyasi.  Why?  Because how can we legislate that the GBC who is guru, must make his GBC decisions only wearing his GBC hat, and not his guru hat?  Or a TP.  Say that the TP is a guru, but the treasurer has passed away and the temple needs a new treasurer.  A Prabhupad disciple is a CPA and is in need of service and was working with the past treasurer, but,  there TP/Guru has a disciple who asks for the service.  As TP the best choice would be to engage the Prabhupad disciple, but as Guru, he wants to assist his disciple.  His disciple pleads with him, he has wife and children, and the temple is offering to give apartment and maintain the family of the treasurer, so the disciple pleads, 'Please, gurudev, please help me, i am your surrendered disciple and i am begging you please give me this service?'    Can, or should the Guru do this for his disciple?      How can the GBC regulate which hat a Guru must wear? and When?  How can any one know for sure that what ever the decision the TP makes is made using which hat?   He is wearing two distinct hats,   how can he manage in a fair way?  If he chooses his disciple, then this would not be a good TP decision,  he has let his post of Guru take precedence over that of his being TP.  Which comes back to where to draw the lines of authority?  Should a Guru act first as guru, or put his ISKCON service as GBC or TP above that of being a MASTER for his disciples? It all comes back to how to regulate this by the GBC and then how to enforce it?      So much overlap and conflict of authority is inherent in having Gurus acting within the ISKCON ashrams when there is already a well defined structure in place and there was absolutely no provisions or guidelines given by SP how to interface Gurus into that system.

GBC CANNOT BE GURU?
Due to these conflicts there have been some who put forth the idea that no one should be allowed to be a GBC and Guru at the same time (or a TP and guru).    This idea is put forth as one idea to resolve the conflict of interest between that of Guru and other ISKCON authority.   This way,   these devotees say,   the lines of authority will be drawn.  GBC's would be  be free to make GBC decisions without bias toward their disciples, as GBC cannot have disciples, and Gurus can then be free to be the Masters of their disciples and give advice free from conflict of that as a GBC.   

BUT, this is also not practical.  And, again, so much speculation and regulations need be passed by the GBC to regulate this, all of which is speculative because there is not one single instruction by SP that such a system is what he wanted. 

And, just see the total absurdity of this idea.  SP had given the post of GBC to his most advanced disciples.   So, if we pass a new rule that GBC's cannot become Guru,  then either we are saying that the Most Advanced devotee cannot become guru,   or they cannot become GBC....  Which is it?  Is becoming Guru a seat that is more advanced then being GBC?    If so, then we are limiting that the most advanced devotees are to become Guru and once they become guru,  can no longer be GBC.  But this is not SP's system.  He put his most advanced men as GBC.   If we say that Guru authority lies below that of GBC,  then we are saying that to become guru one need not be as qualified as a GBC.   But, when a guru becomes more qualified and able to become a GBC he should do what? renounce his disciples and cease being a bonafide guru????  
The idea that a GBC cannot be guru, or guru cannot be GBC is also absurd

LACK OF DIRECTION - WHO IS TO BLAME?:
-----   I have not answered your points yet because I wanted to show that the problems interfacing Regular Gurus - MASTERs of their disciples, into the well defined structure of ISKCON authority as SP set up and gave us has MANY MORE Times the lack of guidance by SP then do the few points you brought up regarding an on-going rtvik system. 

And, here i will address my point about referring to one particular blue colored cowherd boy - whom i am pointing my finger at Him and telling everyone that this boy is nothing short of being a RASCAL. That boy is a rascal.  Someone needs to tell maharaj Nanda and mother Yasoda that this boy is a real rascal.  They need to tie Him up, spank Him, take away His flute, stop Him from seeing Radharani -  no - no we can't do that to Srimati Radharani...  well maybe Balaram can wrestle Him to the ground and do so 'something'...   But, i am pointing my finger at that boy and calling Him a rascal.   If He sees that as offensive, if Srila Prabhupad finds this offensive, then i stand to be punished for my offense,  but, i see Him as the real rascal here. 

Why am i calling Krsna a rascal in this issue?    Because He is the Ishavar Parama,  He is ultimately responsible for SP not giving us a crystal clear indisputable path to follow.   If there were a single clear path, then there would not be all this confusion and lack of direction.      Thus, I declare that the blue son of Maharaj Nanda is a RASCAL.   HE is personally responsible for this.  I say that it is Krsna who somehow prevented SP from giving us all the details exactly how he wanted initiations to go forward.  We can try to blame SP, but that is not fair, as in this area it is the direct doings of that naughty boy, Krsna, and no one else.  Maya devi herself could not have done this,  as SP is fully under Krsna's control. 

You have pointed out that Prabhupad did not tell us how the rtvik-acharyas were to be added in the future.  By who? and adhering to what standards or qualifications?    These are two major points.    However, they are only two, and i do not see them as being fatally major.    

On the other side,   we are left with how to fit the regular guru into the authoritative structure SP set up.  How to regulate, how to --- so many things i gave examples to above.   The fact that SP never spoke one single word about there being Regular gurus in ISKCON's future, or how they are to be accommodated and assimilated into this iskcon.   There are so many thorny issues trying to resolve those things. 

Whereas, the two areas you point out in regard to an on-going rtvik system, in my view, and also proven in practice (as there are on-going rtvik initiations being conducted by a few presently), those issues appear to be resolvable in a much more easy and straightforward manor then any idea put forth on how to fit Regular gurus into the ISKCON ashram structure.  There have been no snags or snafus or problems in following an on-going Rtvik system.  

WHAT SYSTEM RESOLVES THE PROBLEMS?:
Lets also see how either system resolves the most problems:
Trying to fit, deal with, regulate, define, and work with many MASTERs, or Gurus within the managerial and authoritative structure SP set up for his Ashrams has no real solution as there was no guidance given by SP, and trying to resolve these issues simply causes many other problems.  There are no real workable solutions to this,   not that i have seen.  

This path has been transversed now for 30 years and the GBC are no closer to resolving these issues as they were in 1978.   Also, these problems were an issue when there were only 11 Gurus,    and with 120 gurus the problems have not gone away.  How can anyone assume that the solution is to open the doors and allow 1000's of gurus to run amok in SP's ashrams, especially when the GBC have not yet been able to settle on any idea of how to define their authority or exact place in the ISKCON structure?   It is madness to think this would resolve anything when the GBC have taken 30 years and have yet to come up with any acceptable and workable definition separating GBC authority from that of Guru, and defining how the two are to interface.  Since the issue remains unresolved, then opening the doors and increasing the number of gurus will certainly not resolve anything, but make the whole problem many 1000 times more chaotic.

Whereas the acceptance and implementation of an on-going Rtvik process is proven to not introduce any further complications or problems in the society,   Rather, it is seen to Only work to RESOLVE all of the current issues of conflict of interest, conflict of authority, how to define, regulate, etc.    ALL of these thorny issues become totally resolved.  They simply do not exist in the on-going rtvik system.  

Who is the actual guru in an on-going rtvik system?   SP.   Who is to collect the Dakshin?   The BBT (I would say is best choice, since this is where SP personally deposited dakshin when given to him).    Does the BBT become the presiding priest, thus the real guru?    No, BBT is Prabhupad's personal trust account. Giving to the BBT is the same as giving to SP, Thus SP will remain the presiding priest for the initation yajna. 
Oh, but, this is speculative, is it not?   No, it is simply restoring what was in place. 
Conflict of authority?   No, RtvikAcharyas were never given any sort of authority in the managerial or authoritative structure.
The duties of the Rtvik are well defined, and limited, and there is No Overlapping of authority between the Rtvik and the GBC or TP, etc.   They simply perform the functions of giving names, chanting on the beads, and performing the fire yajna.  Their duties are well defined by SP and were already established by him.  There is nothing to speculate on here.  It is simply restoring and implementing the system he clearly set forth.  

On-going rtviks,  how are they to be chosen, how are they to be qualified, who is to define the standards?     Yes, as you have pointed out, these areas seem to have been left without direct guidance, that is why I point my finger at that boy, Krsna, and call Him a rascal...   But, we can see that these are not so great of obstacles, they are resolveable and in practice we see that resolving them does not cause any problems in the society.    

Yes, some decision has to be made in this area, some defining of the process.  But, it is really straight forward and is not so critical, as you seem to want to present it.  The proof of this is in the results.  Currently, some devotees have gone ahead and given Rtvik initiations being convinced this is what SP wanted, and seeing that 30 years have passed and the GBC continue to refuse to do anything, they have decided to come forward and do the needful.  We do not see that any conflict, any major fall downs, any major problems have arisen from this.  It appears to be a relatively straight forward idea and is easily implemented.   

Whereas after 30 years trying to fit the Gurus into the GBC structure this continues to baffle those who support that system, and continues to exhibit so many thorns, as soon as one tries to remove one thorn, 3 others poke up.  It has proven to be unresolvable.  30 years of track record speaks loudly.   Still, you and others, the GBC, are trying to come up with band-aide solutions, each one thinking they have found the answer, only to find more thorns lying below ready to poke up.  

The on-going rtvik system is based on a system SP set up, was in place, and has no inherent conflicts with the system of authority and management SP set up.   In fact, it works to compliement that system very nicely. 

Why, then, did SP leave with out addressing those few issues, how to add to the Rtvik Acharyas, and based on what qualifications?   Two issues.    Yet, there are some who say that SP may very well have had dealt with those issues, but only with Tamal and that he never told anyone.  Gauri Das Pandit was Tamal's personal servant in the summer/fall of 1977 and he accompanied Tamal on a number of occassions in SP's room.  In the absence of Tamal, GauriDasPandit is the only one who can shed any light on this issue.   He claims that SP had held other discussions with Tamal on the Rtvik issue, and had given more detail how it was to be implemented in his absence.  But, he claims that Tamal did not want to pass this information on because he was motivated. He wanted to become a regular guru when SP left, he was not interested in just being a Rtvik, and so he did not want to pass on those more detailed instructions.   This is what Garui Das has been saying for 30 years, but the GBC have chosen to not only ignore him,  but have nearly labeled him a liar.    His motive seems to have always been to just want to help, to inform everyone what he had heard and witnessed personally.  But, the GBC will not accept his version, and the main reason seems to be because it does not support their current views.  They have taken Tamal's word, but they reject Gauri das because he is not a GBC, not a Guru,    he was just a small servant of a sannyasi, who is he?    But, at least according to Gauri das SP had spoken in more detail to Tamal about what he wanted.  The July 9th letter was written by SP speaking with Tamal, and not to others.  Gauridas Pandit tells us SP told Tamal a lot more.   He was the only other person there who heard those conversations,  I am not saying we must believe everything he says,  but, i am saying we must give him at least proper respect. We need to weight what he has to say and count it in our conclusions.  

Anyone who has Gauri das pandit's email, can you forward him this and ask him to contribute to this discussion.  I find his views to be very interesting. 

So, the fact is there is some evidence that SP may very well have provided guidance on those missing aspects of how the rtivk system was to go on, but, due to the motivated self-interest of one or more disciples, those instructions may have become lost.   Even Tamal admitted that he and others were so motivated to wanting become gurus. 

Yet, whether or not SP gave the instruction and they became lost, or he never gave them,  the real cause is the same, that Rascal Krsna has His hand in it.   And, the results are the same.   Again, I do not see those aspects (how to chose additional rtviks) as being unresolvable, and they appear to be straight forward and easy to do.  What i do find unresolvable are all the examples i pointed out in this article in trying to make Regular Gurus fit into the ISKCON ashram structure SP set up.  That i find to be full of many more serious unresolved issues, and i do not see any acceptable resolution to them. 

You will probably disagree, and so the debate will go on.   I appreciate your mood that you are not out to Defeat anyone.  You state that you just want to try to determine what SP really wanted.     I very much appreciate that and have tried to have that attitude as well, but not as successful as you in controlling myself.     I don't have any motive to become a rtvik-guru,   rather, i find much more to gain if i were to try and become a rubber-stamped guru myself,    i have so many projects i want to do,   build more doll project, and start a working VAD community, etc.   I could engage millions of $ and thousands of men in doing these projects,   and one way would be to become a guru and make disciples and engage them to help me do all these things.    But,    i am not qualified to be such guru.   Besides, i am convinced Krsna wants the on-going rtvik system. 
So, why would Krsna have allowed that either SP did not give us all details, or if he did, that such details were lost?   Krsna is the Supreme Controller,  why would He do this?    

This is why i say that boy is nothing short of being a Rascal, 

Why would Krsna do this?   Simple.   This is the material world, after all. This is Kali yuga.  Krsna appeared Himself just 5,000 years ago,   then on His departure Kali came and everything quickly went downwards.   Even Krsna's own departure is telling.  He went to the forest to meditate on Himself and He was shot in the heal with an arrow, and then left this world.  But, worse is that He left behind what appeared to be a material body.  SP tells us He did this to delude the atheist.  On one side Krsna Himself came directly and gave Bhagavad Gita and exhibited His pastimes.  But, on leaving He left some confusion, and for those who doubted who He was, He left them fuel to justify their doubts.  He left Gita, but He also brought in Kali, the age of confusion and conflict.   Similarly Mahaprabhu appeared just 500 years ago and broke open the storehouse of love of god.  He revealed to us the highest relationship of Krsna and His internal Pleasure Potency, Hladini Shakti, Radharani.   But, on leaving Islam spread, then came the British Raj, and India all but forgot even the birth place of Mahaprabhu, and his mission seemed to all but disappear before Srila Bhaktivinod and Bhaktisiddhanta revived it. 

Now Krsna has sent our Srila Prabhupad who has spread KC to every town and village all over the world and gave full rebirth to Mahaprabhu's mission.  Yet, on his departure we find a total mess due to lack of explicit and clear direction on how the initiations were to go forward.   A lack of clear direction.  

This, is why i say Krishna is the rascal here.   But, why is He doing it?   Because this is kali yuga, it is the material world.  There will be chaos here,  it is unavoidable.   

On one hand i see how this issue resembles the faction in Islam which created two distinct camps, the Sunnis and the Shiites.   I can't recall which, but one side says that when Mohamend passed away he had appointed his son to be the next leader of Islam, and that each leader is to chose who the next will be.   The other camp says that Mohamed specifically did not want his son to take over, but he left it up to the current imams or leading priests to decide who will be the next leader.  
Over the past 1500 years  there has been much bloodshed between the two camps.  Each one declaring the other camp to be infidels, they do not hesitate to wage war and hideous terrorist attacks, killing then men and plundering women and children of the other camp.

In Iskcon we now have a similar split over who, what, how SP wanted the initiations to continue.  And there have even been murders, and so much disruption, fighting and bad-blood between the 2 sides.  At times I have thought that our fate may become the same as Islam, that in the future the two camps will increasingly separate and turn against one another. 

But, I pray that will not be the case, and I have good hope it will not be.  For one, there are major fundamental differences between our basis and history and that of Islam.  Islam was born in violence.  Mohamed's teachings were radical and he and his followers were attacked by those who did not want to accept him or his teachings, and he assembled armies and fought back.  Islam quickly went from fighting in defense to using the sword and waging war in the mood of conquest as a major means of spreading their teachings and way of life, which is a means they continue to this day.  Their teachings are born in violence and they use violence to spread their teachings.   Whereas Krishna Consciousness is born of Love of God and is spread by the chanting of the Holy Name.  We convince others by the power of knowledge and enlightenment. 
Thus, i hold out a strong hope that in the not too distant future the two camps in iskcon will be able to resolve their differences, and that we will do something Islam could not do.   We will do what SP asked us to do, how to prove our love for him in his absence.  We will tolerate the differences, we will continue to openly discuss and debate and hear and listen with the aim of reaching a common understanding or an acceptable tolerance and will work COOPERATIVELY together to spread KC.     That hope is not baseless, it is rooted in the fact that the foundation of our movement has the potency to achieve this, and we have the potency of SP's instructions asking us to do this for him, to prove and show our love for him. 

I see that Krsna caused the confusion,   just as He caused or allowed all the injustices to the Pandavas which then led up to the battle and ultimately to His speaking the Gita.   When a great acharya leaves there will be some period of chaos.  We have all seen this chaos,   it would, however, be to Prabhupad's Glory,   to ISKCON's glory, if after 30 years of confusion and mishaps,  that all parties can overcome our differences and re-unite in a mood of cooperation -   when that day comes - NOTHING would be able to stop us from saving this world and establishing KC as the prominate religious and science all over the world.  

THE SOLUTION:
I see a solution.  

The solution is that both sides are correct to a degree, and both paths are bonafide and based on SP's teachings, thus both paths have to be accepted and allowed to function side-by-side in full cooperation with each other.  In this way we can put an end to the two camps and reunite iskcon as a single army of LC again.  Am I a dreamer?   All I can say is, this is my desire and my prayer and my request to all the assembled Vaishnavs.

I do, however, see that naughty Krsna has a hand in creating the chaos and lack of clear direction.  One reason may be to show the world how potent our mission really is, that after 30 years of misdirection and faction we can reunite and refocus ourselves, due to the potency of SP's teachings.  Thus, it would be Krsna's doings to increase the glories of SP.   One thing about Krsna is, He is a person and we can discuss this matter with Him directly.  We can stand before Him and humble ask, then beg if we must, and i feel we must,  that He help us in our efforts to prove our real love for Srila Prabhupad, that Krsna gives us the means and strength to work this out, to show us the path by which we can all work cooperatively together.  We can go before Srimati Radharani and humbly beg for her mercy in this way.  We can ask Krsna's older brother to intervene and help us.  When we all actually become sincere in this way, Krsna will reveal the path for us to come together.

Those who oppose the rtvik side, my article is meant to show that there are even more major deficiencies and unresolvable flaws on the side of having 'regular gurus' functioning within the GBC structure of authority and management that SP set up.  That there is more of a lack of clear guidance in how to implement this then there is on the on-going rtvik side.  

Yes, SP clearly taught that during the presence of one's own guru one should not take disciples.  After he departs he may do so, if he is qualified.  But, then SP also gave another criteria, "On my order".  Anyway, the points i tried to make above was to show that trying to make Regular gurus work in SP's iskcon, and fit them into his system of authority, will always have issues and problems - and the reason is that SP gave not one single instruction - absolutely no guidance at all - how his GBC system of authority and management was to accommodate regular gurus.  And, no matter how we try to accommodate them, the problem is without any such guidance to fall back on, anything and everything we do is speculative and flawed and will not succeed in the long run.  So, then, at this point when we have one instruction that says we 'can' become regular guru, but on the other hand, it seems impossible to implement this within SP's ashram,  especially with 11, 111, or 1,000s of gurus,   then we may look to tradition, to the past, to see how this can be resolved. 

Solution:  Those who go on to become regular guru they must do so outside of the iskcon ahsrams, by starting their own independent ashram.  
Objections:   SP never said this,  it is a speculation...    
Counter Response:   SP never spoke of an iskcon which would have 100's of diksha gurus and how that was supposed to work under the GBC system.   This idea that regular gurus are supposed to stay in iskcon is also a speculation, but more, it has no precedence and no shastric guidelines. 
Resolution:  We look to SP's teachings, first and foremost.  What is the traditional situation for Regular Diksha gurus.  In SP's books we find quotes like:  "In the system of varnasrama-dharma, which is the beginning of actual human life, small boys after five years of age are sent to become brahmacari at the guru's asrama",  "The twice-born member of society achieves second birth through the sequence of purificatory ceremonies culminating in Gayatri initiation. Being summoned by the spiritual master, he should reside within the guru's asrama and with a self-controlled mind carefully study the Vedic literature." SB 11.17.22
There are so many references to a guru having his own ashram.  We never find quote like:  In the ashram in which a diksha guru functions...  neither do we find references to ashrams where 100's of gurus share the same ashram where that ashram has a Governing Body as the top ashram authority.  Always, we read of the Guru's Ashram as his own place of residence where he functions as the guru, the master.  Narad Muni has his own ashram, Vyasadev his,  the Six Gosvamis each started and taught in their own respective ashrams.  SBSS Prabhupad had his Gaudiya Math ashrams.

And we can look to SP's own example. He started his own ashram.   This is the tradition we find most common, that one who becomes regular guru he does so within his own ashram.

Normally a guru will appoint one of his disciples to manage his ashram while he is living, and toward the end of life he will appoint that person to take over his ashram.  Other disciples can go and open their own separate ashrams.  SP appointed the GBC body to take over the management of his ashram,    but he never Appointed any one to become the next acharya of his ashram.   [Rather, we argue that he set up the on-going Rtvik system in which he remains the Acharya for his ashram].

The point is that for those who want to become guru,   starting there own ashram does NOT lay outside of SP's teachings.  It firmly lays WITHIN his teachings in that SP's books and teachings refers to gurus as having their own ashrams.  And, he has said we can become guru.  To become guru means to become master of your own ashram.  Where is the example in SP's teachings that one can become guru by being a lessor, undefined, authority in an ashram along with 100s of others not very well defined subordinate authorities?   
As far as leaving ISKCON?   Not leaving the greater society of iskcon, but to take leave of the actual ashram, the brahmacari/brahmacarini ashram.   When one becomes Grhasta one takes leave of the ashram of the guru, but not his association. 

So, outside of the brahmcari / sannyas ashram of ISKCON those who want to become regular guru they can start their own ashram, make their own disciples and provide facilities for their own disciples, yet they are still welcome to come to SP iskcon temples and participate just as grhastas do.  

And, for SP's ISKCON ashram,  there is the on-going Rtvik process.  


CAN ONE ACCEPT A PAST ACHARYA AS ONE'S BONAFIDE GURU?:
One major opposition to the on-going rtvik is if it is bonafide or not.   Can one accept a guru who is no longer present before us?   Can one be actually SAVED by such a guru?  

For this I cite the following converstion by Srila Prabhupad.  SP discusses a system very similar to an on-going rtvik system in relation to Jesus.  The importance of this discussion is that it shows in SP's view that he did not see such a system as being bogus.   The first instance of the discussion is a direct copy found in the Vedabase, the second instance I have replaced the references to Bible and Jesus' teachings to SP's books and teachings, and replaced references to Jesus with references to SP.  This is to show how similar the argument SP was giving has to do with that of an on-going rtvik system - and how SP argued that such a system is bonafide. 

[Note:  I found this years ago when i did a search of the Veda base to try and find references to "Living Guru", "Living Spiritual Master", "Present guru", etc.   This was the only reference I found where the term  'Living Spiritual Master (or similar term)', was found.  Interestingly, this term had become very popular during the Zonal Acharya days, and yet we find it was not a term that was used by SP at all, rather he rejected it.]

Here is the original text:

On Sep 22, 2007, at 9:46 AM, Ameyatma das (ACBSP) wrote:

Briefly, i do somewhat understand your points about viewing issues both literally and via understanding of wider collaborating sources.

Good.

The point i was making regarding my desire to only take guidance on such matters by following SP's teachings does not equate to the literalist's view.

Then if you are not a literalist adhering ONLY to the teachings of Srila Prabhupada then you must define the types of proof that are acceptable to you. Any discussion must begin with definitions of acceptable proof. Without actually pinning down what is acceptable proof nothing can be resolved and discussion is fruitless. Therefore please let me know you definition of acceptable proof(s) other than and in relation to Srila Prabhupada's teachings.

The point was made in regards to whom I accept as my preceptor and master.

One may accept Srila Prabhupada as his preceptor and master and still accept all other Acharyas in the Brahma Madhva Gaudiya Sampradaya to which he belongs. This is the point. When one is unable to reconcile the statements of one's guru alone, one has the statements of the previous Acharyas in his line and also of the accepted sastras to help reconcile them. If one has only one frame of reference then one may come to the wrong conclusion. But when all opinions are unanimous then how can there be any doubt. One dot on a paper can have innumerable lines drawn through it, just as devotees have tried to prove almost anything by taking only a single quote out of context of Srila Prabhupada, but if we have two or more dots or opinions of previous acharyas including that of Srila Prabhupada then they must all be reconciled. You can only draw one line through two dots. Just as the guru parampara can have only one opinion.

As I said before Radha and Krsna are NOT married but Jiva Goswami told his disciples that they were. Who is right? Jiva Goswami or the rest of the parampara??? The rest of the parampara, of course. Jiva Goswami's instruction to his disciples was an interim instruction to them only due to their not being able to understand parakiya rasa. Similarly what is right the rtvik acharya system or the sastric system of guru parampara. The sastric of course and Srila Prabhupada's system of May/June 1977 was simply an interim system.

1 - The meanings of what SP says, from my view, must be understood via an in depth study and broad understanding of his teachings in total.

I agree. So an in depth and broad understanding of his teachings reveals that the rtvik acharya system was never put forward as a viable longterm alternative to the sastric system.

So, i do take SP's teachings literally, but with respect to his other teachings,     and with respect to the scriptures that he has taught us are to be to followed faithfully (BG, SB, CC, etc.).

What about the rest of the guru parampara? What authority do you ascribe to them?

This is all wrapped into following his teachings - literally - yet at the same time there does arise the need for analyzing from various 'seeming' contradictions to reach the proper conclusion.

Agreed.

If we literally accepted the injunction that all stool is impure, then we must accept that cow dung is also impure.  But, since there is injunction that cow dung is all-pure, we must also accept this.  Then the only proper understanding is the combined meaning.  This is deductive, yet based on literal .

All stool is not impure because there is at least one exception, cow stool. Therefore the statement all stool is pure is not absolutely literally correct.

2 - Later instructions supersede previous instructions.  This, I must accept as this is an instruction of SP.

Since you say that you accept this axiom, could you please indicate whether you think the Will of Srila Prabhupada which is dated 6/4/77 but which comes into effect only upon his physical departure is a later instruction or the letter of 7/9/77 is later?

However, if there is a situation where a later instruction seems very much out of place,   then we must used deductive reasoning to assure we are understanding either the later or eariler instructions properly.

So you do not accept the above later/earlier idea as axiomatic. In that case what is your proof that the letter of 7/9/77 supersedes all other instructions on diksha?

Some times it is fairly black and white.

Things cannot be "fairly" black and white, they are either black and white or grey in some way. When we discuss philosophical points and logical points we must be precise.

Earlier SP taught us to chant "Bhaja Sri Krsna Caitanya Prabhu Nityananda..."   and later he instructed that since he had learned this from his father,

Interesting. I had never heard that. Could you point me to this explanation in Srila Prabhupada's teachings. Of course then again he also stated that his father was a pure devotee. So it would seems that pure devotees can chant these things differently. As far as I know and have personally witnessed the Gaudiya Math also chant bhaja. My understanding is that when Srila Prabhupada was in Vrndavan he heard the Vaisnavas behind the guest house (close to his rooms) constantly chanting (with loudspeakers) bhaja nitai gaura radhe shyam japa hare krsna hare rama. This is a sect of Gaudiya Vaisnavas that do not agree with some of ISKCON/GM philosophy and so he wanted to change the panca tattva mantra bhaja to jaya which is more like the jaya used in the CC jaya jaya sri caitanya jaya nityananda jaya advaita candra jaya gaura bhakta vrnda. Please give me the reference for this.

Of course there is no real philosophical difference between the two chants.

but that SBSS's GM chants "Jaya Sri Krsna Cait... "  then he instructed that we should now all chant the later.    This is straight forward and clear.

Well it's actually not so straight forward and clear because it comes without any real explanation. Why should one be wrong?

There are times, however, such as the Rtvik-Acharya issue, where SP may have given a later instruction that may seem very out of place from all previous instructions.  In such case we must use deductive reasoning to assure that we have properly understood past and new instructions properly.

I agree. And I have deduced that since the system was not set up to include more than just 11 persons it is at best temporary/interim.

3- Written are more important then verbal....   hmmm..   I do not fully accept this.

OK, how about instructions that are clearly meant for general application supersede instructions that are clearly meant for a particular person, place or time/circumstance.

I take written instruction to be more formal, however, i also accept the principles that "guru mukha padma vaakya,  to have my consciousness purified by the words emanating from his lotus mouth".

OK, what about when there is a difference between the actions of Srila Prabhupada and his instructions???

How i take verbal and written instructions depends how they were delivered.

Agreed (see above).

A private letter, although written, but written and intended as personal instruction to one individual may not take precedence over a general instruction given verbally, but in a formal manor.

I would more clearly say that a personal instruction needs to be proved to be a general instruction or it simply has to be accepted as what it is, a personal instruction. The onus or burden of proof that it is general is on the person trying to prove that it is general.

4 - Hmmm, i do not call this a literalists,   but a loyalist. 

Everyone is loyal in his own way. One's loyalty may be exhibited in his literal adherence to the words of the guru and another's loyalty may be exhibited by his ability to reconcile the seeming contradictions in the words of the guru, by his understanding them in the context of the teachings of the whole guru parampara and the sastra. So to say you are loyal is to indicate that you think others are not loyal. I prefer to be more precise and state how one exhibits ones loyalty.

I am loyal to the person who saved me,   yet.  I do not agree that this can be defined as literalists. 

You already stated above that you are not a literalist in the sense that I described in my previous email. Again though you now have to define your form of adherence. How literal are you? What are the proofs that you accept and reject? See above.

Fidelity to taking the instructions of one's savior spiritual master over what appears contradictory advice given by another Vaishnav has nothing to do with taking the literal words of ones guru, but is more based in loyalty born of faith in the words of one's savior spiritual master.

Well, if those words are from one's guru's previous acharyas and/or the sastra then either one reconciles them (non-literalist) or one ignores them (literalist). We are not speaking here of having to accept just any Vaisnava's words. We are speaking of accepting the sastra and the words of the previous Acharyas in one's own line and reconciling them with those of one's own guru. If one does not do this, then one's attitude is basically that the guru-parampara starts with one's guru and that his words alone are the only proof, this is the literalist attitude. So which is it that you accept????

You then wrote:
<<<<

... If so then I will assume that you subscribe to the following points.

1. Srila Prabhupada appointed 11 "rtvik acharyas" to initiate, whoever was closest, on his behalf.

2. Srila Prabhupada never appointed any gurus.

3. Srila Prabhupada said that "more could be added" to the list of "rtvik acharyas" but did not indicate exactly how that should be done.

4. Srila Prabhupada said that one could become a guru on his order and/or through qualification only.

5. Srila Prabhupada's will states that there should not be any change. (Note: Srila Prabhupada's will does give instructions for appointing new "executive directors" for overseeing ISKCON properties, but not specifically GBCs or others.)

Please let me know if this summarizes your position.

>>>>>

1, yes,   2, yes,   3 - granted,

You said granted here. Why? Do you agree or not? If it's so clear how this was supposed to be done then please provide me the evidence, otherwise at least have the decency to answer this yes or no. If Yes, then my point is proved. The rtvik acharya system was interim. And if no, then please show me the evidence.

 

4, yes,  5, NO - this i fully contend SP had given very explicit instructions how the GBC were to be 'elected' in the future, and that was via the DOM - which I have written on regarding on my website.

Good, I am very interested in the DOM. I do not know all that much about it and how and why the GBC do not accept it. As you say later on I was unaware that it was to come into force only after Srila Prabhupada's departure. The GBC make it sound like it was an early attempt to form the GBC which was later abandoned. I will read your article on this and please send me anything else on this. I am all in favor of some sort of curb on GBC absolute power. The DOM does seem to me to be a real step forward. If it is clearly a legal requirement for ISKCON then i