Currently efforts are underway to 'reform' ISKCON's current Guru system for the 3rd time in just 20 years. Each reform has had the following in common:

1) They have been the knee-jerk reaction to some guru fall-down;

2) They have attempted to reduce the power and status of the diksa gurus that replaced Srila Prabhupada.

3) They have attempted to make the position and status of Srila Prabhupada more prominent.

The irony of these attempts at reform, especially the most recent 'Bombay proposals', is that they are also designed to stem the rapid interest in the 'ritvik' system that is currently sweeping the society. We say ironic since the aim of the reforms is to simply move towards what the ritvik system actually achieves i.e. to make Srila Prabhupada Prominent and the status of those who perform the actual initiation ceremony less prominent. In the ritvik system Srila Prabhupada's position is completely prominent, whilst those who conduct the ceremony have a completely minimal status. Thus these reforms simply legitimise the ritvik aspirations, whilst at the same time hoping to satisfy them by picking arbitrary levels for both Srila Prabhupada's prominence and the minimisation of the diksa guru.

To justify the reforms 3 'scenarios' have been presented:

1. 'Acarya' Guru System: Status of Diksa Guru - Maximum; Srila Prabhupada's Status - Less Prominent;
2. 'Bombay Proposals': Status of Diksa Guru - De-emphasised; Srila Prabhupada's Status - More Prominent;
3. 'Ritvik' System: Status of 'Initiator' - Minimal; Srila Prabhupada's Status - Maximum;

Thus the 'Bombay proposals' are pitched as being a happy 'medium' mitigating the extremities of the other two systems. Further the 'Ritvik' scenario is presented as being the 'deviant' one since the other two scenarios both at least accept the 'parampara' principle, but differ only in application.

Philosophically and in relationship to Srila Prabhupada's teachings however there are actually only TWO scenarios, for scenarios 1 and 3 above are actually the same since they both accept that the role of the diksa guru in the life of the disciple as absolute. In fact scenarios 1 and 3 are identical with only the identity of the diksa guru changed. Since the 'ritvik' system is not a different 'guru' system but merely a system that keeps Srila Prabhupada as the diksa guru.

Indeed in relationship to Srila Prabhupada's teachings it is actually the 'Bombay proposals' which are 'deviant'. Both from Srila Prabhupada's own personal example and the teachings in Srila Prabhupada's books, only ONE type of diksa guru-disciple relationship is presented, and that is where the role of the diksa guru is supreme and prominent, NOT minimised:

Say somebody:

1) Awakens us to our original consciousness so we can worship the lord.

2) Plants the Bhakti Lata Bija

3) Gives us the pure knowledge of Krsna consciousness.

4) Gives us the transcendental knowledge by which we can be free from ALL material contamination.

5) Vanquishes ALL the reactions caused by sinful activity.

6) Delivers us from the clutches of maya.

7) Takes care of us and elevates us to spiritual emancipation.

This is exactly the role that Srila Prabhupada played. It is also the role that 'scenario' 1 tries to imitate, and scenario 3 CONTINUES.

This is a complete concoction. Srila Prabhupada has never even MENTIONED the term 'Indirect disciple'.

This again simply states the obvious - that when one contacts Srila Prabhupada's vani or vapu directly, one contacts Srila Prabhupada directly.

The same sastra nowhere states that Srila Prabhupada's role as the diksa guru of ISKCON must end once he disappeared.

Again this is another concoction. Srila Prabhupada states that the link to the parampara never deviates:

Thus by promoting a system whereby the relationship with Srila Prabhupada remains even if the devotee who conducts the initiation ceremony falls away, Badri prabhu is merely promoting a system that in substance is no different to the ritvik system.

Here we see that Badri prabhu has merely stated exactly the same philosophy on guru tattva that we have now - that Srila Prabhupada delivers VIA his devotees - one of whom is the diksa guru. Thus Srila Prabhupada is NOT the current link, but the current diksa guru is. So we see that when it comes to the real issue of the philosophy, Srila Prabhupada's position is made no more prominent than it is now.

This of course is a blatant lie. The ritvik system does not stop people progressing in Krsna consciousness. It merely inhibits people's desire to replace Srila Prabhupada as the guru for ISKCON. On the contrary Badri's system totally lowers the standards for Gurus, by accepting that they do not need to be liberated, and that they need to be controlled, trained and monitored. Thus it simply encourages any regular devotee who fulfils the most basic requirements of being an initiated disciple, to aspire to take up the post of guru.

The Bombay proposals continue in this vein with more speculative and arbitrary rules that can be used to control , monitor and 'review' the gurus. 

Of course the most telling point in this whole discussion regarding guru 'reform' is that everyone HAS to speculate as to exactly what the standard should be -

Do they have vyasasana or not? If so what should be their size and where should they be placed?

Do they have honorific titles or not? If so how should they be used?

Should they have Vyasa-puja celebrations? If so how lavish should they be?

ETC. ETC.

The very fact that Srila Prabhupada has given NO direction on this issue at all, is itself evidence that he had no desire to operate a successor guru system to replace him. Otherwise why are there no instructions on this subject in his books?

Are we supposed to figure it out by speculating, like we are doing now?

Or do we ask the devotees what they would like, like we are doing now?

Or do we just invite everyone and anyone to give their proposals and see what flies, like we are doing now?

Or do we ask other sampradayas, and go outside Srila Prabhupada's teachings, like we are doing now?

Or are we supposed to consult members of the Gaudiya Matha like we did originally?

The reason we have got into such a mess trying to operate a diksa guru system in ISKCON is because we have just made it up as we went along. The only diksa guru system we learned from Srila Prabhupada is the one he himself practised with his disciples, and yet this is the ONE system the GBC are all agreed on they will NOT introduce, EITHER with Srila Prabhupada OR his disciples as the diksa guru.

The main point the GBC are completely missing - that they have to continually invent what to do in regards to a guru system because Srila Prabhupada did not give any instructions regarding one, since he did not want one.

There was no need for Srila Prabhupada to describe what was already going on - only to ask that it continues. If a major CHANGE to what was occurring was to happen, it is THAT which would need to be described.

We are expected to believe that Srila Prabhupada wanted to set up a whole guru system in ISKCON without giving any instructions as to HOW it would happen, or HOW it would be practised etc. Rather just from one phrase spoken in a room conversation to a few devotees (May 28th), we are supposed to construct everything. This is why immediately they had to go to Sridhara Maharaja to figure out what should be done. Subsequently we have simply tried to make adjustments to the guru system that will be appealing to the devotees, but no reference is made at any time to Srila Prabhupada's instructions.

The irony is that the above argument about a lack of detailed instructions is used in reverse regarding the ritvik system - that how would Srila Prabhupada set up something completely new and foreign etc. without giving elaborate instructions regarding such a system etc. But that is the whole point. Srila Prabhupada is not setting up anything new - he is simply keeping everything the same. In such a scenario Srila Prabhupada would simply need to give a letter to the whole movement stating a mechanism for how the initiation ceremonies could continue to be conducted without his direct involvement - (since every other aspect of the guru-disciple relationship did not require Srila Prabhupada's physical presence as had been demonstrated practically for many years by the way the movement was run when Srila Prabhupada was here - with the majority of Srila Prabhupada's disciples having no physical interaction with him.) And guess what - that is exactly what Srila Prabhupada did on July 9th.

The only solution is to keep in place the system Srila Prabhupada personally set up and practised for all the time he was here, and which he told us to continue - with him as the diksa guru.

The Final Order - The Final Solution

OR

More Speculation - More Guru Reform

The Choice is yours.

All glories to His Divine Grace A.C.Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada!