Second of a Three-Part Series

“When my guru maharaja was present, even big, big scholars were afraid to talk with his beginning students. My guru maharaja was called ‘Living Encyclopedia.’ He could talk with anyone on any subject, he was so learned. So, we should be like that, as far as possible.
No compromise.. 
Ramakrishna, avataras, yogis: Everyone was enemy to Guru Maharaja.
He never compromised.” Letter to Karandhar, July 27, 1973

“Most if not all of the writers have had little if any regular participation in the life of ISKCON. It is a fact that those who have broken off from ISKCON tend to imagine it perpetually as it was during their last involvement, frozen in time. Hence the frequent astonishment of those who return after prolonged absence: ‘It’s so different!’”  Centralization Critics Off Base

“And the men on the chessboard get up and tell you where to go.”
Jefferson Airplane, “White Rabbit”

The time’s they are a-changin’, and the books they are a-changin,’ too. As could only be expected, the self-abrogated powers-that-be within the vitiated GBC are a-changin’ their own By-Laws, as well. Actually, the fabricated, so-called “ISKCON” movement is changing many things: It has already (to no small degree) surrendered to systemic Western Hinduism for crass subsidization of temples, programs, and sense gratification.

All emphases added for your edification and realization

Perhaps some of you glanced at the rather polemical piece (some months back) entitled Centralization Critics Off Base.  In it, the author,[1] an American blueblood, born and cultured in a collegiate line of scholasticism, opines that rank-and-file devotees who believe recent GBC changes are conspiratorial (and/or a feature of creeping centralization) are “off base.”  This most powerful upper-echelon member of “ISKCON,” a mega-influential hierophant within the vitiated GBC, maintains that all those changes are both warranted and good, with no hidden motives behind them:

“All the current temple bylaws and articles were gathered together and reviewed, outside legal authorities were consulted, drafts of possible revisions were sent out to temple presidents and discussed, brought back for reworking, and sent out again. We aimed at consensus. Changes were adopted at recent meetings of the GBC and temple presidents with unanimous votes.”[2]

Of course, none of these meetings had been open to even rank-and-file devotees (what to speak of malcontents), so apparently we are enjoined to simply take The Professor’s word for it.  Perhaps his word is not good enough, however.  A rough draft of the new ideas from those meetings had, somehow or other, filtered its way outside the confines of the oligarchic walls; when one devotee in particular[3] then read them, this man became alarmed--and it would seem rightfully so.

Creative Destruction: A Bridge Too Far

“But if you think the matter has gone too far, that there is no possibility of settlement, then you do not present the letter and let the matter take its own course as desired by Krishna.” Letter to Brahmananda, July 10, 1968

Here’s what Vyapaka dasa had recently written about the By-Laws being changed: “Adopting the revised temple bylaws provides the GBC with unprecedented powers (emphasis not added) to control temple Boards and Presidents. This was not the role of the GBC mandated by His Divine Grace A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada and contradicts the 1975 GBC resolution . . . Rabindra Swarupa dasa labels those unaccepting of his GBC edicts as outraged critics, Ritviks and alarmists, who have broken off from ISKCON, while living in a world frozen in time. Giving an opponent a bad name is a well-used tool in his arsenal; but unfortunately, it is merely a smokescreen designed to mask weak and weary arguments while avoiding an honest dialogue. . . The debate should be about what role Srila Prabhupada intended the GBC to play regarding temple management, and it is contingent upon the GBC to prove that Srila Prabhupada wanted them to wield (these unprecedented) powers. Rabindra Swarupa dasa's paper is woefully inadequate in this regard.”[4]

In effect, Vyapaka dasa concluded that the GBC was going too far, but The Professor responded to this accusation in his patented style:

“Now, say these outraged critics, the GBC, in flagrant violation of all the instructions Prabhupada has given, are reviving the errors of the past with an illicit gambit to disempower local devotees and seize total control.  I can state without equivocation that none of these charges is true.”[5]

Again, we asked to take his word for it.  However, notice the inflammatory nouns, verbs, and adjectives contained in this retort (outraged critics/flagrant violation/illicit gambit/seize total control).  He is no stranger to employing these kinds of barbs in his writings.  As we have previously pointed out, he attempts, at least in part, to dismiss all devotees who maintain that the GBC must be governed by its original charter (the Direction of Management or DOM), tagging them as deluded followers of a cult he labels “Zakheimism.” 

Stereotyping is highly destructive to genuine debate.  Nara Narayan das Adhikari, a most prominent proponent for the reinstitution of the original GBC charter and constitution (the DOM), was born with the Western surname of Zakheim. The Professor seeks to caricature him--and especially his effort--by using the aforementioned label, in effect, making his surname an ism. To re-institute the DOM is thus supposed to be tainted by that stereotype. In this way, running the initiative through the mud of a mundane surname (and all that is allegedly attached to such a personality and his name), the very idea of the DOM must be bad.  Actually, The Professor uses the same insidious technique near the very beginning of his treatise:

“’Our Whole Movement Could Be Killed,’ warned Vyapaka Prabhu, in the title of a posting on the ritvik website Sampradaya Sun. He alleges that the bylaws disclose a sinister effort by the GBC ‘wherein every temple is effectively taken over by the GBC or their proxy.’ Other writers (on that website) join in with him to inveigh against what they say is an attempt of the GBC to establish total centralized control of all temples . . .”[6]

The abovementioned treatise (by Vyapaka dasa) had been posted on a daily online news and opinion page not exclusively devoted to rittvik philosophy, although it often posts rittvik propaganda.  The chief editor of this rag had, some years ago, actually written an article belittling rittvik heresy, so he is on record as not being a rittvik.  Notice The Professor’s bad logic: By falsely painting the website itself (where Vyapaka initially posted his dismay about what was going on in the GBC) as rittvik, the substance of Vyapaka’s points are then easily dismissed--as allegedly part of the rittvik deviation.  In other words if--in his sophisticated and reptilian article--we find The Professor resorting to these kinds of creative devices (“Zakheimism,” “rittvik website,” and a flurry of buzz words), we can thus come to a reasonable conclusion about the clotted nature of it. We can infer with confidence that there must be a nihilistic element in the piece, that it has gone too far, that it is not objective, and that The Professor’s article may not be as straightforward as he would like us to believe. Indirectly, he indicates that indeed to be the case:

“This is still a work in progress, for it is a delicate business. Prabhupada wanted the GBC to exercise only limited managerial power . . .  (t)he provisional nature of this work is a reason for some confidentiality. It is incomplete.”[7]

This is really code, as you probably recognize.  Just as importantly, however, it is also indicative of a rationalization.  Indeed, the leaders of the fabricated, so-called “ISKCON” are past masters of the art of a peculiarly flawed form of ratiocination (in the name of deductive reasoning).  What he is doing here is attempting to buy time. The intervening months have proven this tactic--the same overall “ISKCON” strategy--as being quite effective. In other words, to re-word this: “It’s too delicate to discuss in any detail right now, prabhu, I’m sure you understand.  Provisionally, you should love and trust and give us the benefit of the doubt about this, prabhu.  Our takeover . . . err, adjustment . . . is incomplete right now, but once you see the good results of these changes—after we have already made them and they are locked in--they will make you very happy, prabhu.”

A Bright Shining Lie

“Therefore, with false identification I am becoming entangled more and more. So, one who is puffed up with this false prestige, ahankare matta hoiya, nitai-pada pasariya asatyere satya kori mani: He accepts something wrong as right.” purport to the Bengali poem “Prarthana” 

The Professor goes on to inform his readers, and particularly Vyapaka, that they don’t remember clearly what Prabhupada’s authorized managerial structure really was back in the day.  He mildly admonishes them—all those who have been similarly alarmed—that Prabhupada had set up a clear line of spiritual authority during his presence. The Professor says that they have forgotten what this was.  Between the lines, you can readily discern that he would have you believe that his GBC is brightly representing the will of Srila Prabhupada, wonderfully motivated only to spread Krishna consciousness in a better form. Directly claiming that some devotees do not recognize the responsibilities and powers of the GBC, he employs a timeworn ploy to seal the deal, expressing how “heartbreaking” it is for him to see their fragmentation and isolation.

It’s a heavy lift to swallow all of this pabulum. Our memories may not be as hazy as he asserts.  We remember well how Prabhupada repeatedly warned that all GBC power was solely dependent upon his specific approval and pleasure.  We remember that, on many different occasions, the GBC engaged in unauthorized initiatives that greatly displeased him.  The written record is there.  If you like, you can consult an organized presentation of it in our four-part series entitled 28 IF. We have also not forgotten that the GBC never fulfilled the most basic of its constitutional obligations, viz., to inform all Temple Presidents of their fiduciary responsibility to elect new GBC members.  It is all right there, in black and white, in the GBC Charter itself.  In case you do not know, that document is called the Direction of Management.

And we have not forgotten that His Divine Grace suspended the operation of the GBC in April of 1972 for an egregious and opportunistic deviation in protocol.   Bewildered by false prestige and identification, it had appointed, without any authorization whatsoever (according to its charter or from His Divine Grace Srila Prabhupada), a new member to the Commission.  That wild-card Governing Body, accepting something wrong as right, also initiated a colossal restructuring of the whole organization.  Whatever legal fuzziness may have been present in minor and arcane details connected to the original By-Laws, such deficiency is dwarfed by a succession of major deviations we have all had to endure since the spring of 1972.

For what it’s worth, your author was negatively impacted by that 1972 deviation.  Few of us have forgotten that the express election of Commissioners by Temple Presidents, mandated in the DOM to be held no later than July of 1973, was never convened.  Nor do we buy into the myth that the Mayapur conclave of 1975 was a panacea that made all of those previous deviations null and void.  Quite the contrary: The 1975 GBC meeting was infamous.  In point of fact, Prabhupada came a hair away from abandoning the whole thing—giving the Commissioners an ultimatum to that effect (they acquiesced, of course, which allowed them to buy more time).  And we have certainly not forgotten the false identification thrust upon us, all the bromides and big lies of the Zonal Acharya era, instituted with the enthusiastic approval of the Governing Body Commission. Back in the late Seventies and early Eighties, many followers accepted something wrong as being right--many, but not everyone.  No, we are not as forgetful as The Professor alleges, and we should like to remind him of this.

“The current reconsideration of bylaws by the North America temple presidents and GBCs is simply designed to rectify this deficiency by establishing in formal documents the position of ISKCON GBCs and temple president, who have a sacred obligation to Srila Prabhupada to safeguard the temples. Recent events make it a practical necessity. . . It seems, however, that some may have come to prefer our unintentionally acquired legal structure as being more ‘democratic’ and less ‘hierarchical.’ We should carefully take note that such a structure was certainly not preferable to Srila Prabhupada, who clearly established a descending line of authority. . . As we have seen, Prabhupada wanted a clear descending line of authority, with the GBC having power to safeguard the integrity of the teaching and practicing of Krishna consciousness in his temples.”[8]

Where was this “safeguard” when the foxes took over the hen houses?  When the Zonal Acharyas became Popes of mammoth GBC-concocted zones?  There was no safeguard provided at all!  Those Zonals, all of whom were influential GBCs as well, became Absolute Powers unto themselves, absorbed in a self-apotheosis previously reserved only for militant Popes during the Gothic Era.  His talk about “a clear descending line of authority” is a bright, shining lie.  None of them have any spiritual authority, because they did not even meet intrinsic and integral responsibilities--in so many situations at so many times--during the formative years of the organized Krishna consciousness movement. 

Instead, they spearheaded their deviation straight into the heart of Prabhupada’s movement--after he was first removed from the scene, of course.  As far as the integrity of the teachings is concerned, we have not heard a peep from the GBC concerning the massive changes to the books.  Why have they not stepped in and stopped this?  Instead, they neglect the really important issues, scape-goating every protest as a manifestation of “unintentionally acquired” democratic structures—but the GBC oligarchy has never instituted genuine representative government in its movement at any time during the occupation.

Via a sophisticated presentation, Centralization Critics Off Base and The Professor’s fellow aristocrats (self-presumed aristocrats, mind you) want us to believe that all the GBC men (with a couple of women thrown in to appease the feminist wing) are sincere and serious commissioners just doing their duty and making needed changes to the superstructure where required.  That is not at all what is going on, however. These new By-Laws are but the latest manifestation, a tip of the iceberg, of a momentum that was decades previously given a powerful push--and it has been an octave rolling downhill since the spring of 1978.  The Oligarchy constitutes a self-appointed hierarchy; there is very limited democracy in their movement, confined only to votes that they (sometimes) take amongst themselves. 

They believe themselves special; their bank balances, positions, and financial and property holdings assist to make these rapacious but pukka neo-kleptocrats self-important.  When aristocracy degrades, it becomes oligarchy or the rule of vicious men.  When aristocracy never actually existed in the first place, however, all the appointments, posts, and letters in the world cannot mask the tyrannical impulse ever-present in the thing.  They are the big guns, the major pieces on the “ISKCON” chessboard.  If you recognize them for what they claim they are, you may be allowed the status of a loyal and devoted pawn (which they can sacrifice at whim) on that chessboard, but you probably will never make it on to their Governing Board.  However, if you fail to honor their false prestige, then, when push comes to shove, they will tell you where to go.

The Evil of Confirmation Bias

“So, we are teaching Love of Godhead, not any particular type of religion. Our Krishna Conscious movement is not a religious movement; it is a movement for purifying the heart.”  Letter to Yadunandana, April 13, 1968

“It is very good that you have registered the Society. It is very important. Actually, we are not a religious institution. We are presenting a cultural program, making men of good character. Therefore, it is a cultural institution.” Letter to Chitsukananda, Oct. 12, 1971 

“We’re not gonna take it, never did and never will.  Don’t want no religion, and as far as we can tell.  We’re not gonna take you, never did and never will.  Gonna shake it.  Gonna break it.  Let’s forget you better still.” The Who, from the last track on “Tommy”

There are many reasons why “The Society” is now ruined, and many (if not most of us) are in a bit of a pickle due to that.  There are also genuine methods and affiliations that can allow you to overcome this existential problem; you should adopt them--the sooner, the better.  Our previous facility for sadhana has been undercut for some time; the rug was pulled out as soon as we were forced (some of us did not capitulate, by the way) to worship men whose astral bodies were and remain loaded with evil desires and nescience—adoring them as if they were uttama adhikaris.  And then, in kirtan or arati, witnessing newcomers masquerading as pujaris on altars scarred with the sacrileges of pretender mahabhagavat photos and worshipped by these young dupes.

However, there is one element to this problem that has been more or less ignored:  It is bad logic.  Bad logic underpins the argument of the whole “ISKCON” operation.  Ours is a process of absolute deduction, not induction. To put this another way, induction is made subordinate to deduction in buddhi-yoga or bhakti-yoga.

Bad logic, however, is based on misunderstanding what logic really is, especially when combined with the psychological syndrome known as confirmation bias.  In that case, the lethal ignorance of a false certainty replaces avidya in general in order to create a “reality”—a reality of the moment in which there are no unanswered questions, because everything is so easy to comprehend.  Confirmation logic is defined as seeing and recalling only that evidence, based upon limited reasoning, which supports an individual’s or group’s belief system, view, or cult affiliation.  Such weak or non-existent evidence simply affirms only the existence of those examples that support an already accepted bias. These then constitute a monopoly influence in the memory—and in the personal subconscious, as well--of the unfortunate devotee who falls victim to their sway.

“Krishna loves ISKCON!” the invultuated Hindu patron screams.  Well, maybe so, back when ISKCON actually existed--but the Supreme Controller is today no fan of “ISKCON.”  Arguments based upon confirmation bias are not about seeking fact or truth; they are all about getting over or, as Dylan succinctly put it: “You just want to be on the side that’s winning.”  Using abstract and faulty syllogisms, the dissemblers absorbed in confirmation bias simply want to overcome all opposing viewpoints in order to further their own self-serving prejudices. 

The major premises that they employ sound good, sort of.  However, if you take a closer look at them, you then see that they are all nothing more than screeds, worn clichés, and self-interested shibboleths.  In “ISKCON,” there are literally hundreds of these.  To give but a few examples: “The GBC received the only spiritual authority of Prabhupada’s disciplic succession.”  “You are actually initiated by ISKCON (this one has been used as a bridge to enforced “re-initiation”).”  “Somebody has to cheat them.”  “It is in order to deceive the disciple.”  “Just put on the uniform, and you become the soldier.”  “Rittvik-acharya, then it becomes as good as Acharya (after the Acharya departs).” “The GBC has an automatic, self-corrective mechanism.”  “He’s up on the altar, so he must be initiated.” “If you criticize ‘ISKCON,’ you are criticizing Prabhupada.”

What happens when bad logic dominates the group-think of what was originally a strong spiritual movement?  The movement degrades into a religion, that’s what. It degrades into but another kaitava-dharma.  In the case of the fabricated, so-called “ISKCON” confederation, this organization is now a combination of Western Hinduism, organized religion, and a peculiar kind of covert racketeering. 

You will notice that all articles and/or explanations offered by “ISKCON” leaders or party men always point to the same end.  What this means is that the conclusion of the syllogism (if you can call it that) always serves the self-interests of the upper-echelon of their movement.  That same end always bends whatever “points” are introduced into any presentation.  That’s what happens when cults go too far, when they go off the deep end.  That’s what happens when unprecedented offenses are made to the self-realized spiritual master.  Such hammer-headed thinking is indicative that both the parampara and the higher demigods have cursed the entity.

Those Western occultists and seekers who were seriously interested in Eastern intelligence and culture came to His Divine Grace Srila Prabhupada primarily in the late Sixties and early Seventies.  He then informed them of the importance of shastra. In the process, he enlightened them to the reality that what he said was non-different from that sacred scripture.  He made no compromises with any other “gurus.” He made no compromise with Mayavadis or their down-line fringe, the Hindus.

He made no compromises with his powerful but deviant godbrothers, the vast majority of whom were deeply envious of him (and sometimes put obstacles in his way).  He made no compromises with the caste gosvamis, with the Radha Kunda babajis, or with any of the apa-sampradayas prevalent during his time.  He made absolutely no compromise or even contact with the Buddhists.  He did not come to the West to establish another religion; he came here to bring us Krishna Consciousness—genuine culture combined with real or higher intelligence (prajna).

We do not need some version of an academic American blueblood telling us what is what.  We did not come to Krishna consciousness in order to get turned into nothing more than another brick in the wall of but another gold-plated, Eastern-oriented kaitava-dharma.  The majority of Prabhupada’s original students abhorred that sort of thing and came to him, in no small part, in order to defy and expose it. 

If you want to make a solution to all your existential problems, then take shelter of Krishna consciousness.  Seek out some good association that has not warped the logic of the Truth, the process of the Truth, the teachings of the Absolute Truth, and the historical accuracy of what first went right and what later went down differently.  Leave the institutionalized delusion and its laconic hierarchy and free yourself from so many problems in one fell swoop.  There can be no compromise, and there is no compromise.  Every North American occultist and transcendentalist must be freed from the influence of “ISKCON,”—the sooner, the better.       

To Be Continued