ISKCON History Notes #1

PADA: One thing that's very interesting is that Hari Sauri and others said at the time of the March 1978 GBC meetings that Kirtanananda was acting like a rogue from the GBC because he was not attending the meetings, and he had appointed Kuladri to be his representative at the meetings. Basically, Kirtanananda had already started initiating people without consulting with the other GBC, and he was boycotting the GBC meetings so no one would be able to challenge him being worshiped as the acharya.

That means, they already knew they had a renegade from the GBC's authority right at the start of their "guru appointment" program.

Hari Sauri was the GBC for Australia, New Zealand and Indonesia, so he had a powerful post, and he was also saying this could be a troublesome situation since "we have no experience in making gurus." So he was sort of admitting that the members of ISKCON were immature and not really capable of being gurus, and there could be some problems related to their collective inexperience.

The leaders were also saying in 1978 -- since they were young and inexperienced devotees, they would have to consult with a "senior" person -- namely BR Sridhar Maharaj of Navadvip. And so he became "the (shiksha guru) advisor" for the GBC guru group's program. Meanwhile Hari Sauri was saying the Guru program is very clear to all of us because there are clear statements in Srila Prabhupada's books about this matter.

So these are major contradictions.

(1) They said they are young and inexperienced devotees (who cannot handle the post of guru?).

(2) Simultaneously, they admit they have a renegade problem because Kirtanananda is acting independently by initiating people in early 1977 before consulting with the GBC body, and he is essentially boycotting the GBC meetings.

(3) Simultaneously, the leaders are saying they are so much neophytes that they need to consult with the Gauidya Matha's senior gurus like Sridhara Maharaj, never mind there is no order to consult with Sridhar Maharaj.

(4) Simultaneosuly, everything is clear because its all described in the books, so really, there should be no conflict or problem, nor any need to consult with an outside advisor.

All of these things taken together are contrary to each other?

Rochana said the temple presidents were apprehensive about the 11 gurus being appointed right at the start, but he would not support our questioning of their guru appointment? And he went along with the appointed gurus program all the way up to 1986 when he was a member of the ISKCON "50 man committee" to add more gurus to the GBC guru program. So he was advocating on behalf of the 11 gurus all along, and advocating for voting in even more gurus, and that makes him one of those responsible for a lot of the chaos that ensued.

And then Sridhar Maharaj was made "the advisor" in 1978, and Satsvarupa, Jaggadisha, Jayadvaita, Kirtanananda, Jayapataka, Tamal Krishna, Hansadutta, Tripurari and others all claimed that Sridhara Maharaj had been appointed as the advisor for ISKCON, however no evidence was ever shown where this appointment was made?

And this was a huge early on problem since Sridhara Maharaj then became the ghost writer of the GBC's "position papers" and annual reports, including the 1978 GBC paper "regarding initiations" in ISKCON. Jayadvaita Swami also related his 1978 meeting with Sridhar Maharaj -- when Sridhara Maharaja advised that the 11 would have be viewed as Rati keli siddhas (assistants of the gopis) by the new disciples, and the new disciples would have to view the 11 as absolute acharyas, and the God brothers were advised by Sridhar Maharaj that they should not object to any ill behavior of the 11 because this will "disturb the faith" of the newcomers.