“ . . . don't create any awkward situation that may be criticized. Caesar's wife must be above criticism. Up to now as I have got respectable situation, I wish that all my disciples will have similar respectable position in society. That will keep my name good.”
Letter to Caitya Guru, 7-11-76

"Everyone will take, all my disciples. If you want, you can take also, but if you follow. . . I may, one, go away, but there will be hundreds, and they'll preach. If you want, you can also become a leader. We have no such thing, that 'Here is leader.' Anyone who follows the previous leadership, he's a leader.”
Room Conversation, 11-2-77

“When asked who would succeed him as the leader of the Kåñëa consciousness movement, Çréla Prabhupäda 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. I don't make any distinction between Indian and European. All my disciples are leaders . . . as much as they follow purely. If you want to follow, then you can also lead, but you don't want to follow. . . To become a leader is not very difficult, provided one is prepared to follow the instructions of the bona fide guru.'”
Back to Godhead #13, 01-02, 1978, “His Final Instructions”

His Divine Grace Çréla Prabhupäda did not name a successor Äcärya nor did he appoint eleven dékñä-gurus to replace him after his disappearance. In July of 1977, he only appointed eleven rittviks to perform initiation ceremonies on his behalf, but that did not make any of those men dékñä-gurus nor did it mean that those leading secretaries would automatically become initiating spiritual masters after he departed. They were rittviks, and many of his disciples had served in this capacity during the years (1966-77) that he was physically manifest, initiating, and spreading his movement.

All Emphases Added for Your Edification and Realization

As we shall see in the final three parts of this series (beginning here in Part Eight), Çréla Prabhupäda was often disgusted with the shenanigans of the governing body (a management entity created in the summer of 1970), and his displeasure was expressed and reproduced for posterity in a variety of letters to his various disciples. We shall be quoting many of those excerpts here at the end of this multi-part series, particularly in Part Nine.

He created this managerial entity, known as the Governing Body Commission, primarily to fulfill two purposes: To give him relief from management responsibilities, so that he could concentrate on writing, and he hoped it would lead to an improved managerial arrangement for his movement. It did neither. As things turned out, this so-called G.B.C. could not adequately fulfill those purposes in any real or meaningful way, and, ironically, the Commission complicated life for both His Divine Grace and ISKCON in general.

Reality, the Real, and the Deceptive

“The deceptive outward manifestations are not necessarily to be accepted when such delusions are detected by our true activity. The seeming reasons often carry us to a wrong direction, and we are not favored with the Truth, and seeming truths are found to be efficacious in particular circumstances with susceptibility of transformation.”
Bhaktisiddhänta Sarasvaté, The Vedänta: Its Morphology and Ontology

"It’s funny how the colors of the real world only seem really real when you viddy them on the screen."
Alex, A Clockwork Orange

“Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.”
Philip K. Dick, I Hope I Shall Arrive Soon

On historic Route 66 in east-central Oklahoma, a motorist will certainly notice “Pops” restaurant on the far west end of Arcadia, arguably at the very heart of this famous thoroughfare. Route 66 was the longest road in the United States before the interstate system was constructed in the Fifties, and a Sixties television show featured it prominently. Its heyday, however, was in the late Forties and early Fifties, which also corresponded to great popularity in the matter of Americans drinking soda pop in bottles. Technically, the establishment is a restaurant, but it specializes in the sale of practically every carbonated, bottled beverage ever marketed in the U.S.A.

Its symbolic emblem (or roadside sign) is in the shape of a leaning soda bottle, standing sixty-six feet high and weighing over four tons. It is lit in shifting, multi-colored patterns by L.E.D.s that appear to be continuously connected neon tubes working there way up and down the structure they constitute, i.e., there is nothing inside those tubes. It provides quite a sensational show at twilight and throughout the night.

Symbolically, this roadside spectacle parallels the fabricated “ISKCON” confederation in a number of ways. “ISKCON” is supposed to represent the guru-paramparä from days of very distant yore, but it doesn't. It instead is little more than a post-modern concoction. While there are many structures and businesses along Route 66 that came into existence even previous to the era that “Pops” (apparently) represents, it is not one of them. It caters to those attracted to that ambiance, but it was constructed in 2007, i.e., it is a post-modern establishment, not part of the original Route 66, a simulacrum.

It attracts customers via a colorful variety of patterns—via, quite literally, a showbottle roadside emblem. Its patterns are multi-faceted, but, if you spend enough time watching them, you notice a repetitive sequence. Similarly, “ISKCON” attracts its customers through showbottle rituals, ceremonies, and parades that are colorful and variegated, but there is no real knowledge underlying those spectacles.

Both “Pops” and “ISKCON” are deceptive manifestations in the sense that what they supposedly represent, in fact, they do not. Once you get past the makeshow, there is really nothing inside of “ISKCON” that has any eternal spiritual value. They are both simulacra. They glam off an ambiance and cash in on something which they do not directly represent or even genuinely symbolize. They are not real.

Vaiñëavas have their own definition of what is real and what is unreal, so let us undertake an overview of these definitions.

“One should therefore surrender unto Him if one wants to know Him as He is and that is the real process to approach the Infinite by the infinitesimals.”
Letter to Räjä Mohendra Pratap, 7-13-47

The process of buddhi-yoga or bhakti-yoga, when practiced in the right way, is a real process. It is practiced in the material world, which is unreal, but it links the practitioner to Reality, so it is called a real process.

“According to these Äcäryas, Bhagavad-gétä and Çrémad-Bhägavatam are, in their original stand, the real commentaries of the Vedänta Sütras.”
Letter to Mr. Bailey, 10-2-51

Here we see that Bhagavad-gétä and Çrémad-Bhägavatam—both of which are cent-per-cent spiritual and absolute—are called real commentaries on Vedänta-sütra, which is also absolute. In other words, genuine Vedic literature is automatically non-different from Reality, but it also can be called real. This means that real can also refer to something directly spiritual or absolute.

“Neophyte devotees simply try to understand the pastimes of the Lord and are not very interested in hearing about the activities of His devotees, but such discrimination should not be indulged in by any real devotee.”
Çrémad-Bhägavatam, 4.12.44, purport

A real devotee is beyond the level of the sahajiyäs, the mixed devotees, and the neophytes, i.e., in one sense, although the kaniñöha is engaged in genuine vidhi-bhakti, these three lower levels are unreal manifestations of what it means to be a real devotee, i.e., the madhyama-adhikäré is a real devotee.

“Once the populace is situated in the varëäçrama-dharma, there is every possibility of real life and prosperity both in this world and in the next.
Çrémad-Bhägavatam, 4.12.44, purport

Real life, as distinguished from unreal life, begins when a man or a woman becomes an Äryan and adheres to the Vedic standard.

“So, this material representation, false representation(s), are temporary. The Vaiñëava philosophy, they do not say false. Why they will say false? God is real. His energy is real.”
Platform Lecture on Caitanya-caritämåta, 12-29-66, New York

Arguably, this is the primary application, since the Mäyävädés, Jains, and the Buddhists consider the material energy to be either a reflection that has no real existence (vivarta) or zero and non-existent (çünyatva). Vaiñëavas accept the philosophy of pariëämaväda and do not agree to the view of the impersonalists and voidists, instead understanding that the material energy is a real transformation of spiritual energy. However, it is endowed with a quality not present in the spiritual world: Temporariness. The material energy, in the form of entities (or things) at the gross level, is also suffused with the properties produced by the three modes of material nature, which are not eternal.

sa dvidhä sthüla çükñamatvan amürtaçca mürta ucyate

“Finite time we can know, and it is two-fold: Unreal, immeasurable and subtle, and real, measurable and gross.”
Sürya-siddhänta, 1.10

The term real can also be used to connote something that is both measurable and therefore utilitarian, as per this example from the astronomical siddhänta.

In other words, there are different but not contradictory applications of the word, and something can still be called real when it is not perfectly linked, in and of itself, to the spiritual world. For example, a devotee who has not achieved siddha—and, therefore, still has some connection to the mäyä—can be considered a real devotee, and the process or spiritual discipline he or she is practicing can be considered real, as well.

In the highest sense of the term, Reality begins at the border of the spiritual world, once consciousness has surpassed the mahat-tattva and Virajä River, i.e., it begins at Brahman realization in the paravyoma. Everything below that is unreal from the standpoint of eternity. However, we are not concerned with the higher dimensions of temporary existence—such as Maharloka, Brahmaloka, and the realm of nirväëa—even if they are considered ultimately unreal. We are concerned with the unreal that we deal with here on a daily basis, internally and externally, particularly when it is at its most deceptive.

This world we struggle to survive in appears to be factual, but, since it is only the temporary manifestation of three-fold modalities and their interactions, it can be considered unreal. In the svapna or dream state, we experience unreal creations that are, with rare exceptions, more bizarre and transitory than what we experience during the waking state. These constant transformations mean that everything here proves unreliable, although we think there is some kind of reality to it, i.e., we think it reliable and then are forced to acknowledge that the whole show is ultimately unreal.

This material world is a shadow of Reality, but, even from this shadow, we can intuit that there must be a Reality underpinning it. Çréla Prabhupäda's educated disciples in America could grasp this truth, and this was a most important factor in his accomplishments here. The college preaching programs were also generally successful, because some of the more advanced students discovered Prabhupäda's cult in the course of their personal search for Reality, culminating in knowledge of the Supreme Personality of Godhead, Lord Çré Kåñëa. The other cults, such as the Buddhists, were similar yet different from what Prabhupäda presented, because renunciation of material life in them was not accompanied by any real spiritual information, i.e., their understanding of Reality was thus very limited. The principles of the Absolute Truth are non-different from Reality, and, since they are unchangeable, we achieve security by being faithful to and adhering to them.

On the other hand, the ever-changing cult of “ISKCON” is unreliable and does not offer an äçrama of real security. Once you are able to detect its dogmatic delusions, its deceptive manifestations should no longer be accepted. It almost always presents a pukka display of what appears to be the real process of devotional life, but that is not authorized spiritual activity. Following the path and mentality of that Society will carry you in the wrong direction, i.e., in the name of Reality, you will not be favored with realization of the Absolute Truth at any time. Instead, you will become absorbed in the seemingly important constructs of “ISKCON” dogma, along with its social interactions. In the process, because of susceptibility to transformation—and especially within its particular milieu—you will indeed be changed.

The rational faculty is not to be neglected in Kåñëa consciousness. Although the spiritual world of form and activity is beyond rationality, reaching it through irrational acts or sahajiyä association is not the way. “ISKCON” has become an entity that no longer compares itself to the Ideal, because it falsely considers itself already absolute. It is simply operational, but it believes that is enough. It worships Deities. It rubber-stamps institutional gurus. Those gurus initiate people. It operates, and, since it is operational, therefore, it must be bona fide. This is how they rationalize. It is now the product of a synthesis of various models, all foreign to Vaiñëavism and in bizarre combinations, and it radiates that imagery through the agency of its operation.

Its leaders and members have accepted its simulated signs of Reality to be real, and, as a result, its operation deters every individual effort at buddhi-yoga, stifling the Hare Kåñëa movement of Kåñëa consciousness. You will be subjected there, on a frequent basis, to the orbital recurrence of its simulations claiming to represent a glorious past which has led to, and is still part of, its current formation. These emotional memories are invoked by its leaders in order to radiate an ambiance that was prior to its Hinduization, but “ISKCON” simply only uses the shadow of those memories, i.e., it is no longer connected to them. It was a different generation entirely, but “ISKCON” attempts to simulate that mood every now and then; when it does so, it feigns to have what it does not actually possess anymore.

If you truly want to be able to recognize Reality for what it is, you must avoid the unreal manifestations of a materially compromised cult that has broken away from that Reality and is simply engaged in covering it. “ISKCON” is a sahajiyä movement, and, due to its enhanced powers of deception, along with a makeshow of what seems to be a real process, even the elect will sometimes become temporarily bewildered by it.

Seven Grains of Rice

“If you take--if you are cooking rice--you take one grain of rice, and you press it, if you see that it is now soft, then the whole rice is cooked. The sample. There is a bag of rice. You take a few grains, sample. You can understand what is the quality of the whole bag.”
Platform Lecture, Bhagavad-gétä 12.13, Bombay, 5-12-74

“Pseudo-religions, religions that cheat, are condemned in Çrémad-Bhägavatam. Any religious system which . . . annually changes its resolutions is not a religion but a farce.”
Dialectical Spiritualism, Critique of Pascal

“Resolved: Unless he becomes a first class devotee and follows the four regulative principles, Karändhar must be removed as President of Spiritual Sky.”
Annual Meeting, G.B.C. Resolution Five, 3-28-75

The Governing Body Commission meets annually in Mäyäpur, usually in March. At the end of the conclave, which lasts anywhere from four to eighteen days, it produces its resolutions, i.e., what was resolved during the meeting. Let us remember that this G.B.C. purports to be populated by the best of the best. It is supposed to be the real manifestation of Kåñëa conscious management, representing Reality (on this plane) in terms of administration. It has sometimes been compared to what the demigods are in terms of universal administration on behalf of the Supreme Controller, the ultimate Overseer and Sanctioner.

If the G.B.C. is actually this—or, rather, if it ever was this—then there should be some evidence to back up that contention. For one thing, there should be solid evidence of professionalism, since, after all, the G.B.C. is supposed to be, at bare minimum, an equivalent to the board of directors for any major, international conglomerate. Professionalism would also entail the absence of absurd or farcical resolutions, like the following:

“Resolved: Unless he becomes a first class devotee and follows the four regulative principles, Karändhar must be removed as President of Spiritual Sky.”
G.B.C. Annual Meeting, Resolution Five, 3-28-75

The disastrous 1975 G.B.C. meeting--in which Çréla Prabhupäda threatened to give the whole movement to the G.B.C. but himself leave it and in which he rejected almost all of their initial resolutions--nevertheless still managed (pun intended) to produce this whopper (Resolution Five). Here we see that, in its Minutes for that year, it mixes the concept of a first-class devotee and a devotee who merely follows the four regulative principles. These four principles, in and of themselves, do not constitute spiritual life. They are the principles of an actual human being (as opposed to a mleccha or a debauchee or a rogue), i.e., only a prerequisite to entering the path of liberation or becoming a neophyte devotee practicing vidhi-sädhana bhakti.

A first-class devotee is known as an uttama-adhikäré or mahäbhägavat. He has attained sädhya-bhakti and, at minimum, is situated in ecstatic devotional service, having achieved perfection of life, siddha. However, Resolution Five here is indicative of how sloppy the G.B.C. was during the time that Prabhupäda was physically present. It is also indicative of that body's self-complacency and nonchalant, arrogant attitude in terms of producing even a cogent document that records its managerial resolutions.

The argument can be made that these Resolutions are more professional now. If so, it's about time! Nevertheless, during the heyday of the zonal äcäryas in the early Eighties (and all of those zonals were G.B.C. members), the movement was supposedly guided by eleven fully self-realized men, all of whom convened together once annually in West Bengal in order to chart out a course for uplifting the world to pure devotional service for another year. If the argument is made that, in 1975, they had not reached such an elevated level (so that something like Resolution Five was still possible), then, six years later, at the peak of zonal äcärya power, its Annual Resolutions should at least professionally reflect the perfection of its leading members.

Let us, therefore, take a stroll down memory lane and take one big grain of rice out of the pot and test it. The zonals were most powerful during the years 1978-1982. In 1983, their monopoly was broken, and, by the mid-Eighties, the Second Transformation brought all of them down from their elevated seats in the temples. Since the schism with the Gauòéya Mutt went down in the spring of 1982 (thus disturbing the whole movement, at least to some extent), it is not unreasonable to conclude that the power of the zonal äcärya imposition peaked in 1981. With this presumption, let us take those annual Mäyäpur resolutions and see whether or not there was any kind of marked improvement noticeable from any of those years previous to the zonal äcärya epoch.

To make a full analysis of all the resolutions for all of the annual meetings of the governing body would require a tremendous amount of time and work, and there would be little gained by it. So, let us take one big grain out from amongst all of the forty years of resolutions, and let us then take seven small grains of rice out from that analysis of the 1981 G.B.C. document. Does it shows signs of improvement from previous years? Does it give conclusive evidence that its leading members (ten of whom were present there at the conclave as so-called uttama-adhikärés) actually resolved anything of real value? In analyzing these seven grains of rice, are we reassured that the documentation of those resolutions is a real and genuine reflection of the Absolute Reality that the whole Commission is supposed to represent?

That is a rhetorical question, of course.

This document, the final copy of the 1981 G.B.C. Resolutions, contains no less than fifty-nine spelling mistakes, the majority egregious (and many laughable). It contains numerous instances of wrong capitalization or lack of capitalization, along with many spacing errors, such as two separate words conjoined into one word. The document is most unprofessional, especially when considering that it is supposed to be an annual statement by a commission meant to govern the devotional world of a particular branch of the Brahma sampradäya.

March 8, 1981
“Resolution Three. That the initiating Acharyas standing committee shall recommend to the GBC names of devotees for consideration for appointment as now (sic) initiating Guru’s in ISKCON. A 2/3rds vote of committee members present shall be required for this recommendation.”

In case you didn't figure it out, “now” actually was supposed to be “new.” We find here strong and direct evidence that appointment of institutional gurus via voting procedures was considered a valid way to determine a genuine spiritual master, which it isn't. Also, this resolution was simply a fig leaf meant to cover the fact that the eleven pretender mahäbhägavats (one in big trouble, as we shall soon see—and he did not attend the conclave that year) had no intention of actually expanding their number. They were eventually forced to do so two years later, after one of their own was excommunicated by the G.B.C., but none of these recommendation procedures came to anything in 1981 or 1982.

March 11, 1981
“(ISKCON Law) Resolution Seven. That all initiating Gurus agree to only request a disciple to leave a particular temple when it is deemed by the Guru that it is a matter of 'spiritual life and death' for the disciple.”

Notice that Guru and Gurus in this Law are capitalized. Here we see a couple of related institutional impositions. One, the dékñä-gurus actually wanted that their initiated disciples be trained by temple presidents and not themselves, so this resolution fits right into their enjoyer modus operandi. More importantly, a bona fide spiritual master would never agree to any such restriction like this one, i.e., he can order his disciple to go anywhere for any reason at any time. Here, however, his disciple is bound to a specific temple unless it is a matter of the disciple's (so-called) “spiritual life and death.” Interesting that quotation marks were put around that clause, because it is so ridiculous.

March 11, 1981
“(ISKCON Law) Resolution Eleven. That a GBC committee will be formed, consisting of the GBC members who are initiating Gurus. They have the power to nominate new initiating gurus, by consensus. Any nomination shall be forwarded to the governing body commission for their confirmation.”

By consensus? Specifically, what is that supposed to mean? Unanimity or majority or two-thirds? This is the kind of sloppiness that is found throughout the document, but, over and above this consideration, once again we find another institutional arrangement to nominate people to become initiating spiritual masters and then forward that nomination to the G.B.C. for its vote. All institutional nonsense, a complete concoction.

March 13, 1981
“(ISKCON Law) Resolution Four. That an ISKCON-wide news paper be developed (suggested name,Sajjna-Tosani -the satisfaction of pure devotees). This paper should be punlished (sic) monthly on inexpensive newsprint and sufficient copies should be available so that every devotee in ISKCON will have access. Articles about ISKCON activities in all fields should be presented, thus giving all devotees a view of the glorious activities of their fellow Vaiñëavas in other parts of the world.” Sounds like they wanted to create something like Pravda was for the Soviets during the time of the U.S.S.R. Anyone ever seen a copy of this “ISKCON-wide” newspaper? Your author never has seen one nor has ever even heard of one being published. Again, another slip-shod resolution, without any specific arrangements as to who is to be the editor, who are to be the writers, how the initial publications are to be subsidized, etc. Maybe it never came into being because there were no “glorious activities” whatsoever to report.

March 13, 1981
ISKCON Law.(amendment) 52. The temple presicent (sic) is directly responsible to his regional secretary, local GBC and the governing body commission. Others do not have direct authority over the temple presicint. (sic) Disagreements regarding practical philosophy or policies can only be implemented via. the above chain of responsibility. Objectiors (sic) must defer to the temple presidents’ position and can initiate change only via the local GBC.”

How are disagreements implemented anyway? It is mixing apples and oranges, and is but another farcical resolution—except it is more than a mere resolution, it is ISKCON Law!

March 13, 1981
ISKCON Law.(amendment) 54. Rumors are against Vaiñëava principles. . . Nothing shall be circulated about the fall-down of a senior Vaiñëava except by the GBC Chairman . . .”

So, there is an egregious fall-down on the part of one of the institutional gurus. This ISKCON Law means that it is unlawful for anyone other than the G.B.C. Chairman for that year to report (or circulate a report of) this fall-down to anyone else in the movement. How could this possibly be enforced? More importantly, should such a Resolution . . . err, Law . . . even be resolved in the first place? Rumors are one thing, but “ISKCON” has never been able to effectively check them, what to speak of egregious fall-downs! Basically, this Law was created in order to protect the ten remaining pretender mahäbhägavats, because, by 1981, it was well-known amongst the upper echelon that at least four of them were engaged in egregious and illicit activities.

MARCH 16,1981
“Provisional Order 1. That HDG Bhavänanda Däsa Goswami and HDG Tamal Krishna Goswami will go to meet with HDG Hansadutta Swami and will dedicate their hearts to stay and talk with him as long as necessary.”

“Dedicate their hearts”: What does that mean? “Talk with him as long as necessary”--but for what purpose? Of course, we all know the purpose by now, but the vague nature of this provisional order is quite mind-boggling. The strategy was flawed in many ways. Turns out it came to nothing, because Hansadutta was excommunicated two years later at the Mäyäpur meeting. Also, why send two of their institutional Jewish gurus to turn around the sole German guru of the cult? Just sayin' . . .

You have just read seven samples from the G.B.C. Minutes of Resolutions (1981). You really don't need more than this in order to get a distinct taste of just how the movement was “managed” during the heady days of the zonal äcäryas, i.e., you can understand the whole bag (or the whole gig) for just what it was. Everything going on today in that organization is still cent-per-cent connected to its history in every way, i.e., the whole bogus religion known as “ISKCON” is nothing but a farce—and has been so for many decades!

Beyond Diversion, Sophistry, and Rationalization

“What will happen when I am not here, shall everything be spoiled by GBC?”
Letter to Hansadutta, 4-11-72

“You can see how beneficial this Kåñëa consciousness is. Please don't be blind, but try to consider it a little liberally, without any sophistry or prejudice. Try to understand the philosophy of Caitanya Mahäprabhu and be happy.”
Quest for Enlightenment, “The Mercy of Lord Caitanya”

“One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we’ve been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We’re no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It’s simply too painful to acknowledge, even to ourselves, that we’ve been taken. Once you give a charlatan power over you, you almost never get it back.”
Carl Sagan, Science as a Candle in the Dark

Upon a superficial purview, “ISKCON” appears as an intelligent, clean, and compassionate movement, possessing a kind of universal perspective. It also usually projects a liberal demeanor in most of its circles. So does Positivism and Secular Humanism, for that matter. Its narrative embraces this superficial perspective (whether or not it is historically accurate) and, most importantly, whether or not it synchronizes with the Vedic and Vaiñëava siddhänta. On all counts, it is not and does not.

The “ISKCON' misleaders are trying to do something, but is that what Çréla Prabhupäda authorized? Where do we find in Prabhupäda's preaching that he was trying to transplant anything? Yet, The Professor contends just this. Çréla Prabhupäda was presenting the gift of Kåñëa consciousness, and he made a few time, place, and circumstance adjustments in the process. In point of fact, he did not change anything.

He was not primarily trying to transplant Kåñëa consciousness into a mleccha culture; instead, he was primarily giving a pure, potent, and effective version (completely authorized) of Kåñëa consciousness to some fortunate disciples and followers. He wanted all of them to become educated in the bhakti science. They had (and still have) the option to accept the version he gave as it is. They are under no obligation to be influenced even slightly by whether or not the host culture allows it to be culturally transplanted.

The Kåñëa consciousness movement is meant for individual devotees to take advantage of via their sevä and thus prosecute spiritual life. If they then are able to work together according to its bona fide paradigm--and to do what they can to spread it in an organized fashion--so much the better. If that finally results in the host culture being transformed, great. This movement is primarily meant to have individuals return home, back to Godhead. To that end, it is meant to have its adherents become pure devotees in this lifetime.

The transplant narrative is both a diversion and a rationalization; it is essentially employed as a covert form of damage control. The diversion is in the guise of what appears to be an all-encompassing narrative, but that presentation is loaded with heavy-duty mäyä.

What the “ISKCON” leaders are trying to do is establish their own movement, which is seen as an apa-sampradäya for those who have clear enough intelligence to recognize it as such. Those “ISKCON” leading secretaries want to have a board of directors which rules over institutional gurus, who then allegedly all work in harmony. That is the essence of their scheme. There can never be a bona fide guru active within such an ecclesiastical paradigm. Ecclesiology is a complete anachronism; it can never be bona fide.

They thought they did right, but it turned out to be wrong. Here we have the “simple mistake” rationalization, i.e., the “growing pains” excuse. The Commission's whole basis of authority from the time of its creation completely depended upon knowing what to do and what not to do. They failed miserably in what can only be judged an insincere effort.

They were warned early. They fought against those warnings, denigrating the messengers carrying those warnings, running them through the grease (and, in the case of Pradyumna prabhu, even taking away his assigned, ultra-important service). Their presentation was and remains a whitewash, and it is historically inaccurate. The only reason the G.B.C. concluded that their scam was on the wrong track (to some degree) was because their movement was on the verge of cratering in the aftermath of the assassination of Sulochan, which was a real event, as opposed to so many simulations.

What the “zonal äcäryas” did after Prabhupäda's disappearance WAS against the Vaiñëava philosophy, it was not bona fide, and it was far more than a mere “not exactly what Prabhupäda wanted” arrangement. Psychologically speaking, it was a massive power grab, and it wrecked incredible damage upon thousands of good devotees. It devastated the bona fide Kåñëa movement that was functioning reasonably well before the hoax was imposed.

The overview and implication that the original “zonals” were mostly good men, that they made well-intentioned mistakes (trying to spread Kåñëa consciousness, allegedly), and most of them even today remain good devotees, is a self-serving rationalization. Call it secular humanism at its most refined, but devotees are never humanists. That overview is mundane, and such a permissive understanding of the history (of the oppressive imposition of the “äcäryas of the zone”) is simply a counterpart to secular humanism, i.e., damage control. No genuine devotee of the Lord will ever be duped by it.

One of the most devastating conclusions is the idea that the Kåñëa movement can only find the ultimate right way by trying so many other ways, i.e., if one does not work, then try another way. This is NOT AT ALL BONA FIDE. It is not a genuine Vedic conception or process. Instead, such improvisation is democracy in action, but the Vedic and Vaiñëava path and teaching does not encompass this method. It is fix-it-as-you-go methodology which is the modus operandi of the fabricated “ISKCON” movement in general—and the vitiated G.B.C., in particular.

The Mutt failed in its own way by selecting one Äcärya, and he turned out not to be so (although he was, especially in çästra, incredibly learned). “ISKCON” is claiming its movement was and is far better. It wasn't in 1978 when the zonal äcärya imposition came down, it wasn't when the collegial transformation replaced the zonals in the mid-Eighties, and it's not now, either. That first movement pushed eleven bogus “zonal äcäryas,” and then, soon afterward, professorial, collegiate, sophisticated sophistry. It was rationalized as a major improvement and similarly rationalized as putting an end to mind-boggling misuses of institutional power. However, in essence, it was nothing more than a very superficial upgrade.

The Mutt failed, and, as a result, two so-called äcäryas emerged in 1937. “ISKCON” failed via eleven pretender mahäbhägavats. There were murders during the Mutt era, and there were murders, particularly at Moundsville (although not limited to there), during the post-samädhi era. The G.B.C. and all “ISKCON” leaders claim that the Mutt failed, but that “ISKCON” is still functioning, i.e., that it has not failed. The Commission insists that we should have an optimistic perspective about its movement--that it is going to succeed. It urges everyone to not become discouraged.

Neither “ISKCON” nor the G.B.C. WILL EVER SUCCEED. Any “success” by either of them is illusory, temporary, and material. “ISKCON” is a cent-per-cent bogus movement, an apa-sampradäya shot through with numerous apa-siddhäntas, along with warm and fuzzy narratives of progressive transformations, which are thin veneers having no real basis. They aren't fixing anything, and they are only dealing with symptoms, never approaching root maladies. As far as the symptoms are concerned, they are actually engaged in nothing more than deterrence--in the guise of allegedly solving numerous problems. That is just one of the reasons for the massive “ISKCON” bureaucracy; there are many others.

Watch out when they play the “we were young” card. Sounds like it's straight out of a Bob Seger song. A Kåñëa movement, whether young or old or somewhere in between, must be bona fide in order to be spiritually effective. This we-were-young-and-strong-headed ploy is but another diversion conjured by The Professor, who is a master at the black art of diverting topics away from the real issues to those which are fantasies.

If Prabhupäda had to do everything himself, then what was the meaning of the creation of the G.B.C.? He had no institutional backing in 1965, true, but he really did not require any. He created his own institution, and that is a chief reason why he accepted uttama-adhikäré ultra-opulent worship. They were all his temples, and all the worshipers were his disciples or followers. All these rationalizations about the new men who came to him being immature, not qualified—particularly in the context of the short amount of association they had with him--ARE ALL DIVERSIONS!

He gave the G.B.C. men their service, which included many perquisites. They were supposed to earn those perks by carrying out their service in an authorized manner. Yet, they didn't even have enough integrity to ask him, in 1973, whether or not elections should be held for the G.B.C. according to the injunctions of its founding charter, the Direction of Management document. In other words, they were already doing their own thing even by that time.

The REAL ISSUE has nothing at all to do with immaturity, amount of association, or qualifications upon contact with the pure devotee: THE REAL ISSUE WAS AND REMAINS ALL ABOUT INTENTIONAL DISOBEDIENCE TO THE ORDER OF THE ÄCÄRYA!

We should all be amazed at how much everything that went down actually was right? Except for 1970-71, the ISKCON leaders HARDLY DID ANYTHING RIGHT! Virtually everything those misleaders did (from the point of the vote in 1972 to centralize the movement's finances) was conspiratorial, wrong, and cent-per-cent under the influence of both individual and group ahaìkära.

After the failed 1972 conspiracy, the smoke-covering-the-fire analogy was no longer applicable to any of the G.B.C. leaders. As the deviations increased in both scope and damage almost every year after that ad hoc meeting, the smoke-covering-the-fire analogy became less and less applicable. It is in the interest of all of us to expose “ISKCON” and G.B.C. nescience. We should do so in order to destroy the efficacy of all of their transformation rationalizations, which are used to buy time and create a firewall of deterrence.

The institutionalized religion of “ISKCON” and its power node of the G.B.C. only offer a closed door. This will not check people from intellectually continuing to turn to scientists and professional academicians for guidance about the meaning of life. Of course, these men are only too happy to lead their followers into the swamp of materialism. This barrier between institutional religion and science has been constructed by centuries of rationalization, diversion, and sophistry, and, because the vitiated G.B.C. has changed everything, its movement does not offer a positive alternative to the mundane Western momentum. As a result, self-realization and God-realization have become very difficult to attain at this time.

Go to Part One
Go to Part Seven
Go to Part Nine