We have also reproduced these slides and the associated comments so as to facilitate the devotees to give this presentation in their local community. The comments for each slide have been written for maximum economy and effect, so there is no need for the presenter to worry about adding or subtracting anything from the presentation. The slides are given as a PowerPoint attachment at the end of this document. This attachment can then be used to produce the slides as acetates, to then be shown via an overhead projector. There are 27 slides in total, and each slide with the notes should take about a minute to present, and thus the whole thing should take no more than about 30 minutes. The presentation is aimed at encouraging the audience to take a copy of 'The Final Order’, and thus examine the issue in more depth if necessary. This will also serve as a replacement for the question and answer session that some presenters may not feel confident in facilitating.

There has been much talk recently about ‘reforming’ ISKCON's diksa guru system as a means to solving all the Movement's problems. This presentation will demonstrate that the very question of whether or not to reform itself suggests a false dilemma. We shall show that there was never any authority to replace Srila Prabhupada as the diksa guru for ISKCON in the first place. And since replacing Srila Prabhupada was unauthorised, the real solution must be to restore him back again, not ‘reform’ initiating ‘gurus’ that were never supposed to exist.

ISKCON as an institution was set up with certain standards, systems, rules and regulations. Such fundamental, characteristic properties of the institution are not subject to change, unless that change was authorised or initiated by ISKCON's supreme authority himself.

Similarly, when ISKCON was set up one of the many standards was that Srila Prabhupada was the only diksa guru for the institution. Not that he shared this role with some of his godbrothers say, or that he set himself up as the diksa guru for only a limited pre-specified time period. No, he was the diska guru from the very second the institution began, continuously and without cessation.

As can be seen, any fundamental change to the standards of ISKCON must be directly authorised by Srila Prabhupada himself. It is axiomatic that only one with AUTHORITY can authorise. For ISKCON the authoritative source of all standards and systems is of course Srila Prabhupada. The GBC are purely set up as a managerial body to execute Srila Prabhupada's instructions. The GBC do not have any authority to make changes to anything Srila Prabhupada set up, on their own initiative. They can only oversee, maintain and hopefully expand that which was already established in ISKCON by Srila Prabhupada.

Thus any change must be authorised directly by Srila Prabhupada. We cannot just speculate ourselves and then somehow assume our speculation will be OK with Krishna. Neither is the GBC authorised to emulate or copy any guru, scripture or tradition outside of what Srila Prabhupada instituted. To change the running of Srila Prabhupada’s institution requires a direct order from Srila Prabhupada himself. To speculate about what Srila Prabhupada should or must have done, based on our own so-called understanding of ‘vedic culture’ is quite laughable. Before we came in contact with Srila Prabhupada none of us, including any of the GBC, had the first clue about how to spread Krishna Consciousness. Most of us did not even understand the most basic points of spiritual life; and yet now it is being suggested that we suddenly have the ability to read Srila Prabhupada’s mind and determine how the autocratic Vaisnava acarya must or should have continued initiations within his institution. If Srila Prabhupada really did not leave any clear instructions on what to do, then the safest thing would have been to just keep things as they were, not just independently and presumptuously guess at the manner in which Lord Krishna’s parampara system should be maintained. Of course Srila Prabhupada did make his intention perfectly clear, but the system was changed.

Thus there must be an explicit instruction for both:

Srila Prabhupada being replaced;

And exactly WHAT we must put in his place.

Once we have 1 & 2, then it is simple, and we have the authority to replace Srila Prabhupada with a new system. Without 1& 2 however, whatever Srila Prabhupada gave us must remain in place. This is an axiom of spiritual life; a disciple cannot change the order of the guru. If he could then HE would be the guru, not the guru.

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

a) ‘Become Guru’

but to replace Srila Prabhupada:

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

Srila Prabhupada’s often stated instruction for his disciples to go and preach and become guru, as originally spoken by Lord Caitanya Mahaprabhu, is often used as evidence to prove that Srila Prabhupada must be replaced. For these instructions to be applicable the new replacement gurus would obviously need to have been told to accept disciples, only take over once Srila Prabhupada has physically left the planet, and be properly qualified to act as diksa guru. Only if these three criteria were met can we claim that the evidence really does allow for the replacement of Srila Prabhupada. As we will show, these instructions have been completely misunderstood by the GBC. They fail in all three aspects: in activity, timing and qualification.

But ‘become guru’ states:

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

We can see that the statements made by Srila Prabhupada in connection with the order to become guru completely contradict the three essential criteria mentioned previously. Srila Prabhupada states the OPPOSITE of what would be required were he to be legitimately replaced.

Again in examining activity, timing and qualification we see: - No disciples should be taken; the instruction is not given with any time restriction as to when it can be applied, indeed it must be carried out immediately (not after departure only); and neither is any special prerequisite stage of spiritual realisation necessary before these gurus can act. Indeed Srila Prabhupada said anyone could be guru, men women and children, simply by repeating what they had heard. Thus the level of realisation was not even an issue.

The so-called ‘appt tape’ of May 28^th 1977 (so-called since no one was actually appointed until July 7^{th 1977}) is also put forward as evidence for this change. This is odd since the opening lines of the tape merely re-confirm NO CHANGE - with only the promise that ceremonial OFFICIATING priests were to be appointed. These priests would ensure that, as far as Srila Prabhupada’s diksa status was concerned, everything would stay the same. Their function was simply to assist in conducting initiation ceremonies without the need for Srila Prabhupada’s physical involvement. Later on in the May conversation segment this is confirmed when Srila Prabhupada is DIRECTLY asked if those initiated will be HIS disciples, and he answers ‘YES, they are disciples’ - such a DIRECT question is not asked anywhere else on the tape, and the answer confirms no change.

The section used by the GBC as evidence for replacement, and which comes at the end of the tape segment, merely states the obvious - that IF Srila Prabhupada says ‘be guru’, then one becomes a guru. However, Srila Prabhupada had just finished telling them that he will only be appointing OFFICIATORS and ritviks, not INITIATORS and gurus.

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

C) ‘Law of Disciplic Succession’

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


Simply states PRINCIPLE of WHEN change POSSIBLE

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

So all we have been told in the last two slides is what is required before any change can occur - an order needs to be given to that effect, and the execution of the order can only take place after a certain point in time.

So we are simply being told that which this presentation already assumes. It will not help those in favour of change to simply produce evidence which tells us that we should not change anything without first being ordered to, and that even then we must wait till after a specific date before carrying out the change. These points we already agree with and accept. For years the GBC have used the tape as their main evidence for change, and yet even if it is authentic it adds nothing to their case. It merely reinforces the stringent conditions required before any change could even be contemplated. What we have not been told is the whereabouts of the actual order to be diksa guru. Without that order there can be no case for change.

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

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

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

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

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

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

All these different speculations have simply kept adjusting Srila Prabhupada’s prominence upward in order to keep everyone ‘happy’. It follows that even the GBC agree, albeit through political expediency, that this is the right direction to move in, and therefore one could assume that eventually they might come to the ‘no change’ position anyway. It is in this context that all the heavy pronouncements against the ‘no change’ position must be seen. They accuse this position of being the ‘greatest deviation’ in Vaisnava history. If so one might ask why these accusers have themselves historically been consistently deviating towards the position of greatest deviation for the last 22 years!!

Comment
Every change proposed, no matter how minute, is a deviation from the original system in ISKCON. And all these deviations have in common the fact that they seek to replace Srila Prabhupada to different degrees, and accommodate ourselves with some sort of guru status. All the different schemes merely differ in the degree to which they try to do this, but they are all in the same category. They all seek to CHANGE the system Srila Prabhupada left us, and new initiates are constantly coerced into compliance with whichever system the GBC finds fashionable on the day. Whatever the system, it is simply another variety of change.

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

Thus we seek to stick with tradition - the ISKCON tradition - the system that Srila Prabhupada set up, practised and left us. The ‘change-vadis’, as we might call them, have deviated from this traditional ISKCON system, and further have not provided any evidence for this deviation from having Srila Prabhupada as the one and only diksa Guru within ISKCON. The ‘change-vadis’ have gone against ISKCON tradition. Previous to the point of change, early in 1978, we had no history in ISKCON of any system except the one based entirely around Srila Prabhupada as the diksa guru. We are the traditionalists, the GBC are instigators of novelty in many varieties.

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

The argument that the GBC are at last, finally ‘reforming’ back to the REAL system given by Srila Prabhupada does not make any sense either, since this could be done in a second without any dispute or need for proposals. The GBC would simply need to produce this blueprint for the guru system Srila Prabhupada authorised, and then just implement it. Who would argue with that? Certainly not us. This idea of suddenly discovering the real order would also imply that every system and every adjustment carried out by the GBC over the last 22 years was completely bogus speculation. We would have to believe that only now have they discovered this magic blueprint for the exact guru system Srila Prabhupada ordered after 22 long painful years of error. We can see just what a tangled mess we get into when we whimsically change the order of the guru.

Srila Prabhupada did teach by example how the guru should be set up and worshipped. It was on this model that the disastrous zonal acharya system was based. But ironically this is the one guru system that the GBC is agreed we should NOT go back to. Yet it is closest to Srila Prabhupada’s example.

So we are expected to believe Srila Prabhupada would implement a guru system in ISKCON without telling us exactly WHAT and HOW it was to be implemented. As well as the history of the different guru systems in ISKCON, the lack of any instructions on a guru system is evidenced by the fact that straight after Srila Prabhupada left, the GBC felt compelled to ask H.H.Sridhara Maharaja what to do. This in itself was an act of sheer desperation since Srila Prabhupada had clearly indicated that Sridhar Maharaja was largely responsible for the break-up of the Gaudiya Matha by proposing an acharya who turned out to be bisexual.

You can not build a case for a replacement guru system on the fact that Srila Prabhupada may have used the word ‘grand-disciple’ once on a tape. There needs to be clear evidence detailing exactly what and how things need to be done. As H.H. Tamala Krishna Maharaja famously stated at the Topanga Canyon confession, Srila Prabhupada would have spoken for ‘days and weeks’ ‘about how to set up this thing with the gurus’, had that been his intention. That point remains valid, regardless of what guru system is being proposed. Of course there would be no need for Srila Prabhupada to speak for ‘days and weeks’ about doing NOTHING, and CHANGING nothing, since it was already understood that the guru is the authority not the disciple. If Srila Prabhupada intended to remain in place as ISKCON’s diksa guru there would be no change. Since there would be no change he would not have needed to give endless lectures on the matter, just specific directions regarding the necessary adjustments in minor ceremonial details. This is exactly what happened.

Because of this simple mistake the GBC are reduced to flapping around asking anyone and everyone, right down to the bhaktas, what should be done.

Level 2 Proof

No evidence for WHAT change

SO NO CHANGE

So there is no order for precisely WHAT change should occur, and no order for change itself.

This gives an extra level of proof. If Srila Prabhupada were to replace himself with a guru system based around his disciples, he would need to have told us both the fact that he is to be replaced, and exactly what he is to be replaced with. Especially in light of the fact that the guru system was to be practised within a unique worldwide institution with no historical precedent or direct scriptural reference.

When it came to the application and implementation of anything, from deity worship right down to how prasadam should be served to guests, Srila Prabhupada never left it for his disciples to just ‘figure out’. He never once told his disciples to just invent new programmes based on their own incomplete speculative understandings of ‘tradition’, or by consulting sources outside of his books without specific authorisation. Why should it be any different with the most important aspect of the science of Krishna Consciousness, namely the application of guru tattva?

In short:

The case is clearly watertight. How can anyone really want to change what our beloved Guru has left us? He has not told us to change anything, nor given us any instructions on what changes should be instituted. We have no independent authority for making any changes, and thus the issue of making changes does not even arise, since all actions must be rooted in the direct instructions of Srila Prabhupada. Who thinks he knows better than Srila Prabhupada ?

However just in case we are a little slow in understanding what Guru means, or have the anartha of ambition or speculation, just to make everything TRIPLY clear, Srila Prabhupada has also given direct instructions to NOT CHANGE.

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

The final Will explicitly mentions ‘no change’, and makes it clear that all future devotees in ISKCON will be initiated by Srila Prabhupada. We also have the other letters that use words such as ‘continue’, ‘future’, and the opening exchange of the ‘appt tape’ speaking of what will happen after Srila Prabhupada leaves. All these evidences further keep things the same. And the books of course only speak of the pre-1977 initiation system - as discussed in our 'sastric basis' paper. Thus many instructions emphasising ‘NO CHANGE’ and positively instructing things to stay the same. Indeed Srila Prabhupada emphatically stated again and again that if we changed one single thing everything would be spoiled. Could that be a reason for ISKCON’s current malaise?

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

Thus the case for ‘No Change’ is substantiated on every level possible, and gives an irrefutable case that is impossible to defeat. How can anyone defeat the direct orders of Srila Prabhupada?

Thus all the tangential issues that have surfaced in the ‘Guru debate’ are made entirely obsolete. As soon as we have ‘No Change’, all these issues fall into the realm of ‘Change-Vada’, that is they only have relevance if Change was instructed to take place. Thus all these discussions on ‘Guru-Tattva’ are only relevant if we have FIRST entered into the realm of ‘Change-Vada’, which we have demonstrated is unsupportable. We simply have to stay with ‘No Change’. Then no such questions or discussions arise since everything continues exactly as it was, unchanged.

Thus any discussion surrounding these ‘Replacement Gurus’ must wait until the authority for their existence within ISKCON has first been proven. This could be a long wait, so in the meantime we propose no change.

Thus we can see that ISKCON must be maintained just as it was set up. Srila Prabhupada has not given us any instructions to change any of the systems and processes he originally put in place. Perhaps the most central aspect of ISKCON preaching is the training of new devotees up to the standards set by Srila Prabhupada. These were the standards by which he agreed to initiate. Initiation is an essential step in spiritual development. He established that within ISKCON he was the sole giver of transcendental knowledge and diksa. Thus it is fundamental to ISKCON’s success that Srila Prabhupada be given back his rightful role.

He further ordered that these systems and processes be maintained, with specific emphasis on the procedure for initiation, specially setting up a system using priests to assist him to give initiation without the need for his physical presence. Prototypes of this system he gave us from the beginning of ISKCON, as early as 1969, and expanded and maintained it as ISKCON developed. He then put it in writing, with adjustments eliminating his physical involvement, and then had it sent to all the managing officers of ISKCON. In this way he established it as the official system to be followed within ISKCON. This insured that nothing was to change, and everything continued in the identical fashion to the way Srila Prabhupada personally set it up.

As we have seen our conclusion has been strongly substantiated on 3 re-enforcing levels, each level offering ever stronger proof than the one previous.

Just to demonstrate how powerful and overwhelming the case for ‘No Change’ is, we have simply taken ONE piece of evidence, from just ONE level of proof, and with this alone have defeated the whole GBC case. This of course is ‘The Final Order’ paper, which focuses almost entirely on the July 9th directive, just one evidence for category 3 proof, and then asked two simple questions. From this we have demonstrated that from any angle the GBC have no case for change.

This amply demonstrates the robust nature of the ‘No Change’ case.

It is imperative then that ISKCON revert back to Srila Prabhupada’s original system, and restore him to his rightful role in ISKCON, exactly as he set up. There are no ‘details’ of change to discuss, since no changes or replacement diksa gurus were ever ordered by Srila Prabhupada.