What is the +quot;Guru Issue+quot;? What is the +quot;Guru Issue+quot;? After the departur

What is the "Guru Issue"?
=========================

  What is the "Guru Issue"?  After the departure of Shrila Prabhupada almost
ten years ago in November 1977, it has been questioned who would succeed the
founder and spiritual master of ISKCON.  Debate has continued up to and
including today where it is very much a part of the controversy surrounding
ISKCON's new gurus.
  Why is the guru issue so important?  The guru is not a mere ordinary
religious teacher but is actually a spiritual authority.  There are
countless mundane religious men who speculate about the existence and
philosophy of God, but only a bona fide guru has the authority to give a
religious idea.  On the other hand, a bogus guru is materially motivated.
One should know who is the bogus and who is the bona fide guru.
  We would like to thank His Grace Tamal Krishna Goswami for openly
addressing this controversial guru issue.  He had originally been selected
as one of Prabhupada's eleven successor acharyas.  However, he has recently
stated that such appointment was actually done after the departure of
Prabhupada and now admits that such action was a mistake.  From what we
understand in the Bhagavad-gita (9.30), when a devotee commits an error and
admits such mistake, the Supreme Lord Krishna does not at all see such error
as serious.  All sincere devotees can learn this very valuable lesson from
His Grace Tamal Krishna Goswami and remain constantly under the protection
of guru and Krishna.
  Prabhupada's Godbrothers also underwent a very similar form of the guru
issue and we can learn how such bona fide spiritual masters in our disciplic
succession sometimes leave behind them disciples who act to destroy the
disciplic succession.  Note the following letter by Shrila Prabhupada about
his Godbrothers.

  Hyderabad
  28th April, 1974
  Washington D. C.

  My dear Rupanuga Maharaj,

    I do not wish to discuss about activities of my Godbrothers but it is
  a fact they have no life for preaching work.  All are satisfied with a
  place for residence in the name of a temple, they engage disciples to
  get foodstuff by transcendental devices and eat and sleep.

It's interesting to note use of the phrase:  "transcendental devices".
Ordinarily "transcendental" means in connection with Krishna in pure
devotional service.  However the use of "devices" means somehow scheming and
trickery to gain material comforts such as a "place for residence" or "to
get foodstuff".  How many religious leaders today are simply bilking the
innocent public just to gain material comforts?  If Prabhupada's Godbrothers
in India were engaged like this, we should not be very much astonished if
such "transcendental devices" are sometimes employed by devotees in ISKCON
also.

  They have no idea or brain how to broadcast the cult of Sri Caitanya
  Mahaprabhu.  My guru maharaj used to lament many times for this reason
  and he thought if one man at least had understood the principle of
  preaching then his mission would achieve success.  In the latter days of
  my guru maharaj he was very disgusted.

Prabhupada is mentioning here that Shrila Bhaktisiddhanta was very much
disgusted with his neophyte disciples.  It is sometimes portrayed that
Prabhupada was very pleased with his leading disciples before he left this
world that he actually felt eleven of them competent to become diksha-gurus
or initiating spiritual masters.  However, there is no evidence to this
appointment and His Grace Tamal Krishna Goswami is humbly now trying to
rectify this mistake.

  Actually, he left this world earlier, otherwise he would have continued
  to live for more years.  Still he requested his disciples to form a
  strong Governing body for preaching the cult of Caitanya Mahaprabhu.  He
  never recommended anyone to be acarya of the Gaudiya Math.

Even though Prabhupada is a bona fide guru, he was never officially
appointed by his guru, Bhaktisiddhanta, as such.  Bhaktisiddhanta
recommended that a GBC be set up and among his disciples, the successor guru
would come out by Krishna's arrangement.  That successor guru was
Prabhupada.  But those who acted to create the successor guru were actually
disobeying the order of Bhaktisiddhanta.

  But Sridhar Maharaj is responsible for disobeying this order of guru
  maharaj, and he and two others who are already dead unnecessarily
  thought that there must be one acarya.  If gurumaharaj could have seen
  someone who was qualified at that time to be acarya he would have
  mentioned.  Because on the night before he passed away he talked of so
  many things, but never mentioned an acarya.  His idea was acarya was not
  to be nominated amongst the governing body.  He said openly you make a
  GBC and conduct the mission.  So his idea was amongst the members of GBC
  who would come out successful and self effulgent acarya would be
  automatically selected.  So Sridhar Maharaj and his two associate
  gentlemen unauthorizedly selected one acarya and later it proved a
  failure.

This excerpt is important for those persons who have left ISKCON and have
now taken shelter within Shridhar Maharaja's camp.  They should know that
the propaganda spread by Dhira Krishna Swami in favor of Shridhar Maharaja
is not actually approved by Shrila Prabhupada.  In Chicago, many senior
Vaishnavas like Tripurari Maharaja, Jagatguru Maharaja and others have now
taken shelter within Shridhar's movement.  They should be notified of
Prabhupada's instruction within this letter.

  The result is now everyone is claiming to be acarya even though they may
  be kanistha adhikary with no ability to preach.  In some of the camps
  the acarya is being changed three times a year.  Therefore we may not
  commit the same mistake in out ISKCON camp.

Unfortunately, many of the Prabhupada's so-called successor gurus were
prematurely selected and now more and more gurus are being selected by a
voting process.  Prabhupada warned against this happening and to prevent
this from going on, we suggest that the GBC immediately make a clearly
written statement to all devotees admitting the errant policy that was
enacted after Prabhupada's departure.  The importance of such a statement is
to make it very clear how this selection of gurus is not bona fide and
future generations of devotees shall not make the same mistake again and
again.  Then they may establish the proper method of how a devotee becomes a
guru by researching extensively into the subject matter.

  Actually amongst my Godbrothers no one is qualified to become acarya.
  So it is better not to mix with my Godbrothers very intimately because
  instead of inspiring our students and disciples they may sometimes
  pollute them.  This attempt was made previously by them, especially
  Madhava Maharaj and Tirtha Maharaj and Bon Maharaj but somehow or other
  I saved the situation.  This is going on.  We shall be very careful
  about them and not mix with them.  This is my instruction to you all.
  They cannot help us in our movement, but they are very competent to harm
  our natural progress.  So we must be very careful about them.

  Regarding how initiations can be done today in ISKCON, because there is an
absence of a fully Krishna conscious devotee, initiations can be done by the
following method.

  Bombay
  10th November, 1975
  Stockholm

  My dear Alanath dasa,
    Please accept my blessings.  Upon your recommendation I am accepting
  the following as my initiated disciples.  It is your responsibility as
  the president of the temple to see that these devotees strictly follow
  the rules and regulations such as chanting 16 rounds minimum on the
  beads.  You should hold a fire sacrifice and they may hear the mantra
  from my recorded tape through the right ear.  The beads may be chanted
  on by Hamsadutta.

On the recommendation of a bona fide devotee, the initiate accepts the
spiritual vows and becomes a disciple of Shrila Prabhupada.  Prabhupada's
physical presence is not required.  If someone thinks that the personal
presence of the guru is required, this truism is not supported anywhere in
Prabhupada's books.  However, to accept a guru and to undergo initiation
requires that the initiate be prepared to accept the transcendental
instructions of the guru.  If he does so, then he is a bona fide disciple in
the disciplic succession.  There are disciples who do undergo formal
initiation in the presence to the spiritual master, yet neglect to execute
his instructions.  Therefore the actual importance is to follow the
instructions, and that we have in Prabhupada's books, tapes, letters, etc.

    Regarding the controversy that is going on there in Stockholm, what is
  the reason.  This must be considered at a full meeting of the GBC.  You
  may suggest a way to mitigate this difficulty and if it is not accepted,
  then both of them should resign.  I know that Hamsadutta is very expert
  in selling books but books are not only for selling but also for
  reading.  Now has the GBC become more than Guru Maharaja?  As if simply
  GBC is meant for looking after pounds, shilling, pence.  The GBC does
  not look after spiritual life.  That is a defect.

It is sometimes said that the GBC is equal to Prabhupada.  However from this
comment we can understand that only when the GBC is following the policies
and instructions of the guru, then they are as good as guru.  Prabhupada
chastised the GBC severely like this on more than one occasion.

  All of our students will have to become guru, but they are not
  qualified.  This is the difficulty.
    Your ever well wisher,
  A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami

Prabhupada desired that his students advance far along in spiritual life so
that they can become mature devotees with potency to become worthy enough to
become gurus.  However as late as November 1975, he is lamenting that his
students are still not yet on the level of guru.

  Back to Godhead Editorial
  Vol. 13 No. 1-2

  What Now?

    How many times have we recently been asked, "Who will succeed His
  Divine Grace A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada as the spiritual
  leader of the Hare Krishna movement?"  And how often have we been
  confronted with the ominous inquiry, "Will the Hare Krishna movement be
  able to survive without His Divine Grace?"

The reply to Satsvarupa Goswami's query is that the Hare Krishna movement
cannot survive without His Divine Grace.  Now that ISKCON is suffering from
a guru identity crisis, there is every chance that ISKCON will become
another mundane religious institution simply by following concocted methods
of electing gurus.  A religious institution is immediately finished when the
acharya's instructions are neglected; and not when the acharya leaves the
world.

    How then will ISKCON--the International Society for Krishna
  Consciousness--go on?  The answer is that our spiritual master has given
  us a complete arrangement for pushing forward the worldwide Krishna
  consciousness movement. During his last months in this world, Shrila
  Prabhupada selected eleven senior disciples to act as initiating gurus
  who could accept disciples after his disappearance.  In this way he
  insured the continuation of the parampara.

This idea was adopted by post-Prabhupada ISKCON.  Prabhupada selected eleven
men to act as initiating gurus(?)  However, there is no way possible that he
could have "insured the continuation of the parampara".  On the contrary,
ISKCON and many of these new gurus are suffering severe reactions for
disobeying the orders of Prabhupada by creating gurus and posing as gurus.
If such an appointment by Prabhupada were actually true, it would have come
with the supreme blessings of Krishna and Prabhupada himself.

  His Holiness Tamal Krishna Goswami has been very kind to bring this guru
issue into the open even after our often strongly worded letters.

  January 12, 1987

  Your Grace,

    Please accept my humble obeisances.  All glories to Shrila Prabhupada
  and his disciples.  I hope that this letter finds you in good health and
  in blissful Krishna consciousness.
    This letter is in regarding my last letter dated 4 January concerning
  the topics surrounding the proper placement of bona fide gurus within
  our sampradaya.
    Dear prabhu, we are very much surprised at the lack of knowledge our
  devotees are displaying in the matter of understanding who is guru and
  who is not.  Please be aware that a lack of understanding in this matter
  as displayed by most all the devotees, in all levels does not indicate a
  healthy situation for ISKCON.
    Could we reiterate what we have already stated in previous letters?
  What we are proposing is controversial but is backed up by statements by
  Prabhupada.  Let's begin before the departure of Prabhupada.

  1)  Satsvarupa asks how initiations will go on after Prabhupada's
  departure (May 1977).

  Satsvarupa:  Then our next question concerns initiations in the future
  particularly at that time when you are no longer with us.  We want to
  know how first and second initiations would be conducted.
  Prabhupada:  I shall recommend some of you, after this is settled up.  I
  shall recommend some of you to act as officiating acharya.
  Satsvarupa:  Is that called ritvik-acharya?
  Prabhupada:  Ritvik.  Yes.

  2)  These new initiates would be Prabhupada disciples (June 1977).

  Tamal Krishna:  These men.  They can also do second initiation.  So
  there's no need for devotees to write to you for first and second
  initiation.  They can write to the man nearest them.  But all these
  persons are still your disciples.  Anybody who would give initiation is
  doing so on your behalf.
  Prabhupada:  Yes....  So without waiting for me, whoever you consider
  deserves.  That will depend on discretion.
  Tamal Krishna:  Oh yes, discretion.

  3)  In Prabhupada's final instructions (BTG Vol. 13, 1-2), he states
  specifically that he did not appoint any leaders which means no one as
  successor guru(s).
  "When asked who would succeed him as the leader of the Krishna
  consciousness movement, Shrila Prabhupada replied:  'All of my disciples
  will take the legacy.  If you want, you can also take it.  Sacrifice
  everything.  I--one--may soon pass away.  But they are hundreds, and
  this movement will increase.  It's not that I'll give an order:  "Here
  is the next leader."  Anyone who follows the previous leadership is a
  leader.'

  4)  Despite this clear instruction, Satsvarupa Maharaja in the editorial
  of the same Back to Godhead issue and in his Lilamrita Volume 6 declared
  that Prabhupada did select eleven men to succeed him as initiating guru,
  therefore today there is controversy and confusion.

    Now in your letter dated 19 November 1986, you did establish that
  Prabhupada did not appoint gurus but he appointed ritvik-acharyas which
  is established by the above mentioned line of reasoning.  Then you
  indicated that if gurus were appointed, such appointment was done after
  Prabhupada's departure.  Such appointments as done by GBC are not in
  line with Krishna consciousness as you have pointed out in your letter
  dated 27 December 1986.  Prabhupada explains that (CC Mad 1.220
  Purport), "Mundane votes have no jurisdiction to elect a Vaishnava
  acharya.  A Vaishnava acharya is self-effulgent and there is no need for
  any court judgement."  However in Satsvarupa's new book called, "Guru
  Reform Notebook" (p. 62), he declares that "The process for deciding who
  gives diksha must come from the GBC."
    If you do discuss the matter at any length with any devotee as I have
  done with the publishing of my book, "The Science of Accepting a
  Spiritual Master--A Handbook for the Beginning Student of Spiritual
  Life," you'll find that as many devotees there are, there are that many
  different ideas, opinions, do-not-knows and confusions as to who is guru
  and how does one become guru.  I again reiterate that this diversity of
  opinion is not good for the foundation of such a spiritual movement like
  ISKCON and is typical of pseudoreligious movements which have little or
  no spiritual potency.  It appears that there exists to be a difference
  of opinion between yourself and Satsvarupa Maharaja as you take the
  shastrically correct position that the GBC has no jurisdiction to
  appoint gurus while Satsvarupa holds that GBC intervention is necessary.
  Simply the research has to be done as found in Prabhupada's books and
  summarized tightly in our literary attempt.
    Without authorization, eleven men had accepted the title of guru upon
  Prabhupada's departure.  This was a mistake as Prabhupada did not
  appoint anyone to act in this manner.  In retrospect, this error should
  be admitted and the proper method of how to become guru very firmly
  established.  Now is the proper time for such action.
    The question is, how did Prabhupada want his society to continue after
  his departure?  Now we can answer your question of how can the departed
  guru accept disciples.  This is most controversial point of our
  presentation not because it lacks sufficient evidence but because it
  requires some transcendental intelligence to comprehend.

    1)  Prabhupada did not appoint successor gurus.  That means that the
  successor guru would have to come out by the will of Krishna.  That
  method is the same method as was practiced by Prabhupada himself.  The
  successor to Prabhupada would have to display the influence of a
  Vaishnava guru by the following version of Upadeshamrita (p. 58).
  "Shrila Bhaktivinoda Thakura has given some practical hints to the
  effect that an uttama-adhikari Vaishnava can be recognized by his
  ability to convert many fallen souls to Vaishnavism.  One should not
  become a spiritual master unless he has attained the platform of uttama-
  adhikari.  A neophyte Vaishnava or a Vaishnava situated on the
  intermediate platform can also accept disciples, but such disciples must
  be on the same platform, and it should be understood that they cannot
  advance very well toward the ultimate goal of life under his
  insufficient guidance.  Therefore a disciple should be careful to accept
  an uttama-adhikari as a spiritual master."

  2)  Therefore not only the originally named eleven men who succeeded
  Prabhupada, but all of Prabhupada's disciples, could potentially be
  spiritual master.  However, none of them being fully conversant with the
  philosophy of Krishna consciousness were not qualified to immediately
  begin to accept disciples other than what is now commonly referred to as
  the "monitor" guru as explained in "Easy Journey to Other Planets".  If
  anyone were qualified as uttama-adhikari, or fully conversant with the
  philosophy of Krishna consciousness, he would have detected the flaw in
  such a succession by the eleven successor acharyas.  The fact that such
  lack of knowledge still remains today is evidenced by the necessity of a
  "Guru Reform Notebook" which, in and of itself, wrongly suggests that a
  guru is ignorant.  However a true guru, uttama-adhikari is fixed and as
  stated above, "One should not become a spiritual master unless he has
  attained the platform of uttama-adhikari."

  3)  Initiations would go on by the ritvik process.  Prabhupada's
  physical presence is not necessary.  Towards the end, he was accepting
  disciples without his own approval and the new initiates were becoming
  Prabhupada's disciples simply on the recommendation of the ritvik-
  acharyas.  That process was meant to continue until the successor
  acharya had appeared.  Although it is not natural that the guru does not
  have a worthy disciple to succeed him, initiations should continue by
  ritviks until the successor comes out.

  4)  It is stressed over and over again that one must go to a guru.
  However, that guru does not necessarily have to be physically present.
  This is a material consideration.  Usually, it is a physically present
  guru who can guide one personally.  However, it is not all-important.
  It is suggested that one should not take shelter of less qualified gurus
  but only take shelter of the uttama-adhikari guru.  Prabhupada states
  (CC Concluding Words Antya 5, p. 319), "Physical presence is sometimes
  appreciable and sometimes not, but vani continues to exist eternally.
  Therefore we must take advantage of the vani, not the physical
  presence."  And what is diksha?  It is not accurately described as a
  fire sacrifice performed by a physically present guru but it is when the
  disciple agrees to follow the instructions of the guru--personally
  present or not, the orders are equally beneficial when obeyed properly.
  Diksha is defined (Bhakti-sandarbha 868), "By diksha one gradually
  becomes disinterested in material enjoyment and gradually becomes
  interested in spiritual life."  Why should that not come from an exalted
  guru like Prabhupada?  Simply because he is not personally present does
  that mean that one cannot have access to his teachings in his books that
  has been described to be with us for the next ten thousand years?

  5)  The process shall go on exactly as it states in your letter,
  "Someone can become Prabhupada's shiksha-disciple when he first joins,
  reading Prabhupada's books.  After he sufficiently understands the
  books, if he meets a devotee who inspires confidence in him and
  exemplifies the teachings of the book, he may accept such a devotee as
  his initiating spiritual master and also accept instruction from him."
  However, as stated above, this process should only go on if there is an
  uttama-adhikari devotee who can properly accept disciples.  This process
  can go on without a uttama-adhikari devotee as done at present but
  should not be encouraged.  Rather initiations should go on by the ritvik
  process until such uttama-adhikari becomes manifest.

    In summary, therefore, Prabhupada did not appoint gurus and since the
  GBC should not do so, all initiations done since Prabhupada's departure
  were done in a errant manner.  Consider, for example, my scenario.  I
  joined the movement as you were leaving Chicago in 1980 when the temple
  moved from Evanston.  Instead of searching out a bona fide guru and
  being taught the science of how to know who is guru, we were
  automatically given a guru by zone.  First it would have been
  Jayatirtha, then it was to be Acharyadeva, then finally it was
  Rameshvara; however, we had no idea what were the qualities and
  character of such a guru.  The temple authorities had assured us that he
  was the topmost servant of Prabhupada, an incarnation of Nityananada and
  confidant to Radharani.  Not knowing better, we did accept such
  arrangement, however this was indeed bad training and faulty practice
  and definitely should not be allowed to continue.
    By calling you as not an uttama-adhikari I did challenge your
  position.  If so, how did you allow this misunderstanding to go on?  You
  are perhaps the most advanced devotee of Prabhupada and it is not at all
  a fault that you are not quite on the platform of uttama-adhikari.  It
  is my opinion that no one yet is on that most exalted platform of being
  fully conversant with the science of Krishna consciousness simply by
  witnessing the present confusion and controversy surrounding this guru
  issue.
    Because I have risked my spiritual assets and in the name of Vaishnava
  aparadha, I may go to hell.  We would like you to please chastise us by
  strong arguments how we have erred in our serious research in which we
  have spent long hours so that we can make some apology and make
  advancement in Krishna consciousness.
    If we are right however, then let us adopt the suggestions and
  proposals we have outlined in our essay, "Some Practical Suggestion on
  the Guru Issue" which, in a nutshell suggests that the whole ISKCON
  society should contain all Prabhupada disciples until that time a highly
  advanced guru comes out to not only rectify ISKCON, but to see that the
  interests of Krishna consciousness are impacted on modern society.
  That's a safe way to see that Prabhupada is put in the center as we have
  just begun to scratch the surface of the fathomless teachings of his
  books and lecture tapes.  By having everyone study Prabhupada, there is
  less chance of sectarianism and party spirit to factionalize ISKCON.
  Please consider this suggestion very carefully as it is quite
  controversial.
    I have done this in pursuance of the truth as given by the infallible
  disciplic succession.  Just like the exalted six goswamis who have
  scrutinized the Vedic literatures to establish the sva-dharma or the
  occupational duty of people in this age, we have studied Prabhupada's
  books in order to come to the proper conclusions concerning the guru and
  topics surrounding him.  We are nothing but since we have done this
  without trying to do any harm or without any pretension, we hope that we
  have supported the conclusions of the science of Krishna consciousness.
  If divine truth is effortlessly passed through the ages intact, then
  there would be no necessity for our writing such book and letters.
    Just like a weed sprouts up when the devotional creeper gets watered,
  we see the guru issue as a weed that should be nipped as soon as
  possible.  As Narada warned Vyasadeva in the first canto of the
  Bhagavatam during Vyasa's despondency, Narada exclaims that any
  deviation, no matter how slight, is a cause for havoc on the path of
  devotional service.  Declare everyone as Prabhupada disciple.  They may
  remain the eleven acharyas' disciples if they opt for it, but don't
  encourage it.  Let them all drink the nectar of the lotus feet of such a
  highly advanced guru directly without guilt as this privilege is due
  them according to the mercy of Krishna.  It is their right.  This
  process can go on for many thousands of years if necessary until the
  successor comes out.  If the Gaudiya Matha had initiated on
  Bhaktisiddhanta's behalf, after his departure, they would have not
  become the dead or dying branch they are today.  A radical departure
  requires a radical cure.
    We have presented our case just like a lawyer with various evidences
  from the lawbooks of Prabhupada.  I hope that this attempt to address
  the guru issue meets with your interest and stimulates some thought.
  You are an expert judge and have heard our side as well as others now
  you can render some decision for the good of ISKCON during your meetings
  with other GBC men.  I do realize the extremely controversial
  suggestions we are proposing but perhaps they only appear incredible due
  to their simplicity.  However, due to extensive and impartial research,
  all arguments have led us to such conclusions.  In other words, the
  conclusion reached herein has been supported by all angles of shastric
  vision.  Otherwise we would not dare try to lecture anybody like you.
  Please consider all these points and we hope that you may see fit to
  reply.  Please excuse our strong words and offenses.  All glories to you
  because you have adopted service to Prabhupada as your mission in life.
  I apologize because sometimes you have to listen to such verbal abuse
  from belligerents like me.  May all the higher authorities bless you in
  all your endeavors, may Prabhupada be pleased with you always.

  Sincerely,
  Vaishnava dasa

  May 1, 1987

  Your Grace,

    Hare Krishna.  Please accept my humble obeisances.  Thank you for your
  letter dated 26 Feb 1987.
    In your letter, you had mentioned the possibility of sending me the
  results of the Mayapura ishta-goshthi concerning our proposals on the
  status of all gurus within ISKCON.
    I do realize the great deal of controversy that this issue evokes and
  cannot comprehend what form of reply you would care to make about this
  matter.  As far as I can understand, not much had been resolved at
  Mayapura about understanding the requirements or the method of selecting
  gurus within ISKCON in reference to the revealed scriptures or the
  directives of Prabhupada.
    As far as I had understood, you have openly stated in your lectures
  and conversations that Prabhupada did not select anyone to act as
  diksha-gurus.  So, we have suggested to you as chairman of the GBC that
  devotees may take advantage of Prabhupada's mercy directly by being
  initiated as Prabhupada disciples under the guidance of the bona fide
  devotees within ISKCON.
    This proposal may be further supported by this quote from a letter by
  Shrila Prabhupada to Dinesh (10-31-69):  "Regarding the disciplic
  succession coming from Arjuna, disciplic succession does not always mean
  that one has to be initiated officially.  Disciplic succession means to
  accept the disciplic conclusion."
    As far as we are concerned, we do not simply say that Prabhupada is
  our guru and neglect the desires and opinions of the contemporary bona
  fide devotees of Krishna.  We are trying our best to try and support the
  disciplic succession by service and cooperation as far as possible.  But
  when there may be deviation within ISKCON in some areas, then how can we
  support that?  And when we say that Prabhupada is the direct guru for
  everyone, there is nothing wrong with that.  Any guru who comes after
  Prabhupada must be in perfect agreement with Prabhupada.
    But how can we understand gurus that have done so many controversial
  things that they must be disciplined, "bloop" or removed altogether from
  ISKCON?  And now there are more and more new gurus.  So what is the
  qualification of these new and newer gurus?  We are simply trying to
  understand the reasoning of the GBC.
    I hope that you have time to reply.  Please also find enclosed a new
  publication called the Vedic Advocate; a newsletter that I have started
  earlier this year.  I hope that it meets with your approval.
    Thanks again for being so kind as to give your attention to these
  matters.  Lord Krishna and Prabhupada have blessed me with your
  association.  Thank you very much.  Hare Krishna.

  Sincerely,
  Vaishnava Dasa


  April 27, 1987
  Dallas Temple

  My dear Vaisnava Prabhu,

    Please accept my obeisances.  All glories to Srila Prabhupada.  I beg
  to acknowledge receipt of your letter dated January 12, 1987.
    Rather than going into a lengthy discussion, I feel that you have made
  a very cogent presentation and I would be prepared to agree with you on
  a single point:  Everyone in ISKCON is Prabhupada's disciples.  Rather
  than trying to discuss the nuances of whether they are diksa disciples,
  ritvik disciples, siksa disciples, etc., let us be satisfied to come to
  this mutual agreement:  Everyone in ISKCON is Prabhupada's disciple.
  That does not bar them from being the disciples of others as well.  But
  we should understand that the greatest emphasis has to be laid on the
  indebtedness that each ISKCON member has to Srila Prabhupada.  Although
  there may be advantages to discussing the finer nuances on each
  individual's relationship, I think such a discussion would be more
  profitable if there were a number of people present to add their
  conclusions rather than a discussion between only ourselves.  I do not
  know whether such a discussion will take place in the future, but I hope
  that it will.  In the meantime, I am certainly embracing this mood of
  encouraging all devotees of ISKCON to feel their connection with Srila
  Prabhupada is legitimate and equal, whether they have met him physically
  and taken initiation from him, or not.  The entire issue is how much
  they take shelter of his instructions.  That will actually determine
  their legitimacy as his disciples.
    Again I thank you very much for your enlightening words and hope this
  meets you well.

  Your servant,
  Tamal Krishna Goswami

  We hope that the Vedic Advocate can at least help provide the forum
requested by Shrila Gurudeva so that the guru issue can be resolved.  As
stated by Hanumat Swami in his periodical "Hanuman Express Dispatch": "All
that is needed for evil to prosper is for good men to do nothing."  Our
humble request is that devotees give some thought of how to try and resolve
the guru issue to the satisfaction of the disciplic succession.

--Vaishnava Dasa