Basic Transcript of March, 2019 Video

And in the End: A JOINT MESS

By Kailäsa Candra däsa

As the heady era of the Eleven Great Pretenders reached its apogee, the atmosphere in “ISKCON” became increasingly corrupt. Śrīla Prabhupāda, to a limited degree, had created an epistocracy—his “best men” as he twice called them—but free will, both individually and collectively, is what it is. When any kind of hierarchy like that degrades, it invariably turns into a quasi-religious oligarchy.
In this age of hate, hypocrisy, corruption, and quarrel, the chief remedial measure is that every man and woman must chant the holy name of the Lord. Nevertheless, remaining free from corruption—or becoming free from it—is integral to the process. If you remain corrupt, and if you remain an enabler of “ISKCON,” there will be no impetus for you (and those whom you influence) to effect a revolution in the Hare Kṛṣṇa movement of Kṛṣṇa consciousness.
After all, we have come here to enjoy in a way that is not authorized by the Supreme Controller, who has created this whole field. The corrupt conditioned souls exploit it as per their abilities and opportunities, and thus they suffer in an envious attitude as imitation enjoyers. The mis-leaders of “ISKCON” take this to the extreme, of course, but the song remains the same for everybody.
These twelve chief deviations are presented for your edification and realization in this four-part series, and the last three will now be detailed. They give you a hint about where “ISKCON” is at, why it has reached this level, and where it could wind up if allowed to expand. Its clerks operate their own cooperatives. If those are satellite centers, they are small. If those are the equivalent of metropolitan hotels, then that arrangement, heavily dependent upon Hindu revenue, is much larger.
Each one of these operations is a systemic joint mess, something that Hindu culture—which now has heavily infiltrated “ISKCON”--has more or less perfected in India, as well as in the mundane motel chains it controls in America. The real movement has long been spoiled by this pseudo-spiritual fraud, but the joint mess in “ISKCON” continues on, in no small part because rank-and-file enablers keep it going.
Last month, this series discussed how the short-term culmination of major deviations—which have been ongoing since the spring of 1972—had produced the unauthorized zonal ācārya scheme. This was The First Transformation, where all eleven of its chief beneficiaries were worshiped as uttama-adhikārīs. This transformation lasted until the thing cratered in the mid-Eighties.
Similarly, the ninth major deviation explained how the G.B.C. was able to cover its tracks through a rationalization—and, most ironically, even increase its power—once it became known that Prabhupāda never appointed anyone to the post of even regular guru, what to speak of as a full-blown mahābhāgavat.
The zonal scheme still worked for awhile, but things began to degenerate in the early Eighties. When T.K.G. was disciplined and his playground taken away—which also went down in the case of Hansadutta during the same time-frame—these two former zonals held a get-together at a swank A-Frame in Topanga Canyon, California. It was called the Pyramid House Talk.
In the first week of December, 1980, T.K.G. there laid down the gauntlet on the remaining nine zonals. He revealed, for the first time, that the appointment in 1977 was only that of the next set of rittviks. He admitted that Prabhupāda never intended it to be anything more than that, and that these eleven rittviks had no right to claim that Prabhupāda ever appointed them as successor Ācāryas.
Previous to this, Rāmeśvara had removed his opulent seat of worship from the temple room in Los Angeles and declared to his congregation that he did not deserve any such worship. He then claimed that he was only a madhyam-adhikārī. Three of his fellow zonals quickly arrived in order to force him to reverse course. However, not everybody could swallow the rationalizations which followed. Many began to doubt the legitimacy of an arrangement where a mahābhāgavat could abdicate his status and then, soon thereafter, be re-installed on the throne.
Not long after this incident, one of the most egregious of the eleven, the psychotropic sahājiyā Jayatīrtha, crossed the river and joined Swāmi B. R. Śrīdhar in Navadvipa. By that time, the Navadvipa mahant had become virulently inimical to the “ISKCON” leaders, especially the other new gurus. Yet, as was elucidated in describing the seventh major deviation last month, he was most instrumental in empowering the zonal imposition during the spring of 1978.
As such, many of the leading men in “ISKCON” had gravitated to him, had broken away from the Mother Ship, and had formed what was initially called the Mahā-maṇḍala. This was the first schism, and, although it cannot be exactly dated, it became an influential ontological entity in the early Eighties. The G.B.C. was on the verge of strongly confronting Jayatīrtha for his egregious sexual and drug deviations, so he broke away. When Jayatīrtha rejected “ISKCON,” few could remain blind to the fact that the zonal ācārya paradigm was breaking down . . . badly.
This led to even more politics, of course, and the remaining so-called gurus on the Ācārya Board were thus forced to expand it. Three more were added, but this step only briefly stemmed the tide of discontent. When all kinds of new sexual fall-downs—both homosexual and heterosexual—became common knowledge to the rank and file, it was a time for a change. The competition, conflict, and continuing crises had exacerbated to such an extent by the mid-Eighties that a mood of rebellion was wafting throughout every temple, especially in America.
The great enjoyers had de facto excommunicated Hansadutta from their brotherhood in May of 1983, and T.K.G., a great chameleon and shape-shifter, was brought back into the fold. He predictably reversed course on what he said at the Pyramid House, so that breath of fresh air proved very ephemeral. Nevertheless, the arc of justice was bending against the remaining pretenders, and soon thereafter came even more revelations of all kinds of illicit sexual connections on their parts.
The great enjoyers were on the verge of losing the temple presidents, who had formed an entity known as NATPA. These presidents were not enjoying like the gurus; instead, they were burdened by all of the improperly initiated new people. Their indoctrination fell to the temple presidents, who were now being besieged by their congregations as a result of so many nasty discoveries about the “new gurus.” The presidents were demanding reform . . .
. . . and then Sulochan was assassinated in May of 1986.
That was the straw that broke the camel’s back, and it set the stage for The Second Transformation. After describing it, we shall make the connection between “ISKCON” and the Rittvik movement, which initially surfaced as a splinter group in the late Eighties. It is a major deviation, of course, but IS IT (?) also in the category of an “ISKCON” deviation? This question will be examined.
Finally, we shall conclude with The Third Transformation: Today’s Hinduization of “ISKCON,” the commencement of which was somewhat recent. If any of you have just visited major “ISKCON” centers, you have certainly experienced it.
Just as a dictator needs the army to stand by him in order to remain in power, to continue their scam, the high-profile “ISKCON” gurus of the early Eighties required loyalty from the temple presidents. However, the movement’s cauldron began to boil once it became common knowledge that Prabhupāda never appointed any gurus, although that appointment was stated as indisputable fact for years.
Chastisements of T.K.G., Jayatīrtha, and Hansadutta for outrageous behavior--combined with the nasty schism between “ISKCON” and the Navadvipa Mahant (representing Gouḍīya Mutt)--created a considerable increase in institutional tension. In the early Eighties, a few more leading men were voted in as gurus, and no one in that club was much bothered by any malcontents outside the walls of the cult. However, IF any such discontent effectively reached the temple presidents, that would prove most problematic.
And, by 1984, it did.
In Towaco, New Jersey, at what was supposed to be nothing more than a routine meeting of the American and Canadian temple presidents in September, something unanticipated transpired. With the exception of only one, the presidents, almost spontaneously, voiced their consternation with, and disapproval of, how the zonal ācārya system was playing out.
They had become opposed to its opulent worship program and its gurus taking over. Something was drastically wrong, and they called for another meeting to dig into the problem more deeply and come up with comprehensive solutions. This became known as the Guru Reform Movement.
The temples were now populated mostly by disciples of those bogus gurus. They remained loyal to their initiating spiritual masters, and they had little, if any, regard for the temple president. They more or less ignored the temple presidents and were even a bit contemptuous of them. The G.B.C. of the zone, as could only be expected, also did little or nothing to assist any temple president in his zone, but, instead, generally threw support to the guru who initiated there.
In November of that year, the leader of the Guru Reform Movement, the temple president of Philadelphia, created a position paper entitled: “The Next Step in the Expansion of ISKCON: Ending the Fratricidal War.” It struck an institutional nerve—big-time! If there had been the INTERNET, it would have certainly gone viral. Many disciples directly initiated by Prabhupāda flooded that author with encouragement. The mind-boggling abuse of power by the zonal ācāryas was now being confronted, and this, in a few short years, resulted in The Second Transformation.
However, the Guru Faction, still very strong, had some remaining cards to play in order to stay in power and opulence. In early 1985, through the aegis of the G.B.C., they added four more to their club. The temple presidents were complaining, but they were not yet united.
That would change in August at an emergency meeting of the G.B.C. Most ironically, the site chosen for this two-day conclave was Kirtanānanda’s Moundsville complex. He was adamantly opposed to anything resembling a guru under vidhi-bhakti regulation, which the temple presidents were now demanding of the movement’s initiating spiritual masters.
Ravīndra Svarūpa was now THE MAN, and he distributed yet another bombshell, entitled, “Under My Order: Reflections of the Guru in ISKCON.” Your host speaker had contacted him earlier in 1985, and, at least partially as a result, he now became aware of the importance of Prabhupāda’s term “regular guru,” which His Divine Grace introduced in May, 1977 at Kṛṣṇa-Balarām.
Ravīndra’s new position paper became the ascendant thesis of the Guru Reform Movement, and the G.B.C. gradually became amenable to its proposals. Two years later, those proposals would become integral to the dismantling of the zonal ācārya scheme, replacing it with The Second Transformation.
However, that change was a superficial reform. It was NOT a rejuvenation. It did not actually solve any of the ROOT ISSUES. It was considered and advertised as a revolution, but it was nothing of the sort. It had no real and lasting value, and it did not actually purify the underlying corruption, because, in essence, it was itself nothing but a corrupt compromise.
(Bhakta Ernest) I have a question.
Bhakta Ernest.
“Should we not consider that transformation a good thing and a step in the right direction? Didn’t the overall mood and dealings between devotees improve after the temple presidents prevailed over the zonal ācāryas, with the G.B.C. finally swiching sides and backing the proposals of the Guru Reform movement?”
It was a step sideways, because the compromise that resulted from it allowed all the previous gurus to maintain their positions as so-called spiritual masters, despite the removal of their vyāsāsanas from the temple rooms and mitigation of the opulent worship of those great bluffers.
Judge by the results: All of the gurus previous to The Second Transformation were part of a chain of succession that had no spiritual or devotional authority underlying it. After The Second Transformation, many of them remained in good standing and were simply allowed to switch masks. Allegedly, they were regular gurus the whole time, but they made an innocent mistake. Their disciples kept their statuses as being genuinely initiated by those bluffers, despite the fact that any kind of real reform should have made each and every newcomer aware that he or she had been deceived from the very beginning and was improperly initiated.
That the atmosphere at the temples superficially improved (once The Second Transformation locked in during 1987) is a tangential and inconsequential factor. It served to legitimize that which remained illegitimate. In that sense, it was even worse than the era of the zonals, because a program of no real solution was now advanced as completely solving the previous deviation.
As Ravīndra summed it up: “We tried the single Ācārya system, and it failed, so we tried something better.” Better superficially, but ultimately worse, because devotees within the walls of “ISKCON,”--and even many outside malcontents--were pacified by the transformation (your host speaker not included).
The result of that superficial Guru Reform Movement is what constitutes the tenth major deviation. Timing is everything, and the time was ripe for actual rejuvenation in the mid-Eighties, but most of the temple presidents compromised.
Professor Blueblood prevailed and was the biggest winner. The gurus survived by agreeing to move down a notch, and most of the myths established after Prabhupāda departed were thus perpetuated. The few temple presidents who insisted that the gurus had to release their improperly initiated disciples from the fraudulent initiation contracts—they all lost . . . and they lost big.
The heady era of the zonal popes thus gave way to quasi-collegiate brotopia, and an atmosphere of paper-thin equality and peace in the movement lasted for about two years. Then, another crisis surfaced from the ocean of Maya. The triumph of The Second Transformation was destined to be challenged, as festering discontentment with it soon churned up in the form of the Rittvik concoction, the eleventh and penultimate deviation to be discussed in our series.
In late 1989, three disgruntled brāhmins—all initiated by His Divine Grace—were engaged in simple living and high thinking at a rural American outpost. It was unaffiliated with “ISKCON,” and they were doing quite nicely. They were publishing a monthly newsletter—previous to the emergence of the INTERNET—and it was entitled “Vedic Village Review.” The articles in it were sound, and the points they were raising in those articles were full of logic and Vaiṣṇava ethics.
Māyā had to put a stop to this fledgling development, and she had a secret weapon in order to do just that. After all, malcontents on the outside could always be rather easily dismissed by “ISKCON” protagonists on the basis that the outsiders did not offer any kind of initiation paradigm. Then came a former personal servant of T.K.G. from the State of Washington with a shocking message: Prabhupāda never wanted any of his disciples to initiate newcomers, because he was supposed to be the only dīkṣā-guru, even after he departed physical manifestation.
As most of you know, beginning in 1970, all initiation rituals were performed by rittviks on behalf of His Divine Grace. This was the system even when he was present for the rituals on his vyāsāsana, which was the case during both of your host speaker’s initiations. Previously, he himself had directly conducted the fire sacrifice while initiating new disciples, but in 1970, rittviks performed the function.
If he was present for it, he would hand his new disciple his or her beads and, sometimes, speak to him or her. Nevertheless, the rittvik system required the temple president or a visiting sannyāsī or the G.B.C. for that zone to conduct the somewhat complicated rituals. Everyone knew that each and every yajamāna thus blessed was the initiated disciple of His Divine Grace Śrīla Prabhupāda.
Now, this fellow from the American Northwest named Gaurī dās Pandit dās declared to the three afore-mentioned brāhmins at their Mississippi farm that Prabhupāda wanted this system to continue--even after he departed. All the so-called new gurus were only to be śikṣā-gurus: Instructors, not initiators. Through a convoluted justification, he told his three godbrothers that the appointment of eleven rittviks by Prabhupāda in July of 1977—which re-installed the rittvik system (that had been shut down for months due to Prabhupāda’s very weakened physical constitution)—was meant to be continued . . . if necessary, into perpetuity.
The slogan of this dispensation was “no change,” although this devotee had sat on the alleged Rittvik revelation for over eleven years. He said that he inadvertently overheard Prabhupāda say that this was to be THE WAY to conduct all future initiations. There was and is no tape recording of this so-called order. There was and is no transcription of this alleged discussion.
More importantly, there was and is no document specifically establishing and spelling out the details of this system, unprecedented in Vaiṣṇava tradition. For all practical purposes, its shaky justification relied upon the hearsay from one relatively unknown devotee, who says he overheard it incidentally while serving a very well-known sannyāsī, who was then Prabhupāda’s caretaker. That was T.K.G., and he denied that Prabhupāda presented any such idea or order to him in 1977.
Although it seems incredulous, these four men at the rural compound actually believed that the G.B.C. would accept and adopt this new proposal. That belief was not without reason, because many of the newcomers over the years--those who had accepted initiations from either the zonals or its latter iterations--were disgusted. They were disgusted with not only the institutional system pushed by The Second Transformation (including re-initiation after a guru had been exposed and had been defrocked) but also with the new personalities who were now initiating spiritual masters in good standing with “ISKCON.”
The first Rittvik proposal was that rittviks were meant to be accorded special statuses as pre-eminent śikṣā-gurus, and that they had to be appointed by the governing body in order to conduct initiations of new devotees on behalf of “ISKCON.” As word of this “dispensation” spread, it filtered into many temples more powerfully than did the propaganda of Neo-Mutt, representing its deceased leader, Swāmi B. R. Śrīdhar. The Rittvik concoction was a major deviation, and its promulgation by the original four brāhmins, at least two of whom were skilled and effective preachers, constituted a major event in the “ISKCON” movement.
(Bhakta Ernest) Vāsu Gopāl has a question.
Vāsu Gopāl.
“It seems a bit unsound to accept the Rittvik concoction as a major deviation in the history of “ISKCON.” Rittvik competes for devotees with “ISKCON,” and rittviks are never allowed to preach at—and are even sometimes banned from--“ISKCON” centers. These camps are inimical to one another, so by what logic do you propose that Rittvik is a major event that is directly connected to “ISKCON?”
Taken as a whole, the Rittvik movement is not only a splinter group from the Mother Ship, but it is also a clone of “ISKCON.” Unlike Neo-Mutt, the first splinter group of the early Eighties, the latter Rittvik is Prabhupāda-centered. This makes all the difference in the world. As splinters, the Rittvik factions (divided into competing camps within itself) are all in competition with “ISKCON.”
However, AS CLONES THEY ARE NOT! If Rittvik had not come into existence in the late Eighties, “ISKCON” would have had to have invented it. At the outer fringe (meaning deviant, outside layer) of the esoteric core of spiritual life—both “ISKCON” and Rittvik are united in an occult way.
At the exoteric and mesoteric circles, however, they are in competition, but Rittvik nevertheless is just what the doctor ordered for “ISKCON” in the late Eighties. The Second Transformation brought a bit of mundane and superficial good, granted. That collegiate whitewash, however, also had counter-productive elements embedded within it. New disciples were not invigorated by it as they had been during the balls-to-the-wall zonal ācārya epoch. As such, an ever-increasing number of them were no longer willing to engage in severe austerities for a new and different set of quasi-collegiate gurus and leaders.
Also, NATPA and the Guru Reform movement lost steam, because they no longer had the high-profile pretender mahābhāgavats to battle. Neo-Mutt no longer served as competition, and it had not been challenging “ISKCON” for years; that especially became the case after Swāmi B. R. Śrīdhar died in 1988.
The Rittvik concoction served as an almost perfect foil for the leaders of The Second Transformation. Also, it helped that the mood of the centrifugal rittviks was very similar to the mood of the new “ISKCON” movement. The mood of Neo-Mutt was and is nothing but a down-line version of the burnt remnants of Gouḍīya Mutt. It is different. Rittvik, however, afforded “ISKCON” a more suitable opponent, a much better source of friction in order to regain energy and momentum.
The fight against the Rittvik deviation gave “ISKCON” leaders, its Party Men, and all of its fanatics a source of righteous indignation and the moral high ground, although, of course, none of these people can ever claim any kind of real high ground. What has been pointed out here should elucidate why the Rittvik deviation must be considered a major event in the expansion of the fabricated “ISKCON” confederation. At root, Rittvik is VERY CONNECTED to “ISKCON.” So don’t be shocked when, in the future, these two deviations find a way to forge an institutional unity.
Now, some of the previously mentioned deviations required further explanation after they were first delivered to you here, because understanding how and why they were corruptions is not readily evident at first glance. Such is not the case with the twelfth and final deviation presented in this series. This deviation is, of course, the Hinduization of “ISKCON,” The Third Transformation.
In his public lectures, morning walks, room conversations, and letters, Prabhupāda described Hinduism as nothing more than a hodge-podge. Let us quote two of his letters in this connection and then proceed to describe how “ISKCON” has been further dumbed down by anti-Vaiṣṇava Hindu culture:
In a letter to his Bombay temple president in the summer of 1972, Prabhupāda wrote:
“. . . avoid publishing (my writings) in hodge-podge journals. These so-called Hindus are generally impersonalists, and we do not want to have anything to do with them.”
Actually, they are either impersonalists or henotheists, although, in the ultimate issue, these two badges culminate into the same thing. In a letter to an Indian disciple—one who later became an institutional guru in “ISKCON” after Prabhupāda departed—His Divine Grace wrote:
“Other than the bona fide Vaiṣṇava functions, we cannot divert our devotees' attention to such participation in so-called religious functions. This has spoiled the Hindu religion into a hodge-podge pseudo religion.”
This quote should not be misinterpreted, as the Hindu religion was never bona fide from its inception. It is, and always has been, a third-order simulacrum of hard-core Śaṅkāra Māyāvāda. The Hindus have a scattered belief system that is united only in the fact of their panoply of cults worshiping all kinds of Deities, combined with their wrong belief that the Supreme Absolute Truth is the impersonal Brahman--and that the goal of life is to merge into it and become one with it.
It is a philosophical hodge-podge, and the Kṛṣṇa consciousness movement does not approve of it. Such worship of demigods and so-called incarnations of God should never be confused with Vaiṣṇavism. It is an impediment to Prabhupāda’s branch, and he did not come to the Western world to represent it. He considered that India had lost its original culture, and that the chief cause for this was Hinduism.
He directly stated in a letter that none of the Hindu centers in the West were bona fide, and he came here to present something that WAS. He said that Hindus were out of touch with spiritual science, and that it was difficult to deal with or educate them due to their ignorant sentiment. And, most importantly, he was adamant that Lord Caitanya’s Kṛṣṇa movement had no connection to the Hindu religion.
Yet, beginning in the mid-Nineties at the Bhaktivedānta Manor--and then exploding into all of the other major centers at the turn of the century--the Hinduization of “ISKCON” has proceeded at an alarming rate. Hindu dance troops and plays and weddings are now standard affairs in “ISKCON” temple rooms. The Sunday feasts at its major centers are dominated by Hindus. If a Hindu purchases a new vehicle and donates it to an “ISKCON” center, a nonsense “car pūja” is performed.
Obviously, “ISKCON” benefits in some way from this compromise, and it does not take much examination to come up with the most obvious reason. Considering the pick has dwindled since the mid-Eighties--and the Hindus who come to “ISKCON” centers are well off financially and inclined to donate--this new revenue source has made many, if not most, “ISKCON” centers dependent upon the local Hindu community for meeting the temple’s extravagant expenses.
(Bhakta Ernest) Gokulānanda has a question.
“Are the dumbing down of “ISKCON” and its current dependency upon a bigger and better source of revenue (besides the dwindling pick) the worst aspects of this unauthorized Hindu influence in “ISKCON?” If that’s all there is, it would seem to me that you would not list it as one of the twelve major deviations since 1972. Is there something more—or potentially more-- than revenue and dumbing down lurking in the strong connection now between “ISKCON” and the Hindu-Hodgepodge?”
There is, but it is indirect and hidden. “ISKCON” needs the rubric of the Hindu religion in order to be accepted as a major player by the Interfaith Initiative. The world order that will emerge after all hell breaks loose internationally will require a One World Religion. “ISKCON” wants to make a strong claim in its formation, and that requires it being seen as a representative of Hinduism. “ISKCON” has been compromised since the late Seventies, and it is willing to accept any compromise in order to achieve its goals. Its current compromise with the Hindu hodge-podge sets the stage for a much more dreadful one later on.
In summation, the cause is in the effect. The initial deviations, at least in the form of their trace influences, are still cent-per-cent present in the current warping of the fabricated, so-called “ISKCON” confederation. There is a chain of causality in all of the eleven major deviations preceding the current Hinduization. This must be recognized if you want to actually understand what went down and why in Prabhupāda’s movement, even before he departed.
In May of 1977, Prabhupāda’s final year with us, in the meeting of the Commish with His Divine Grace, important questions were asked about future initiations, but the whole thing was botched. This later led to a major deviation from what he ordered in that meeting: The colossal hoax of the zonal ācārya scam less than a year later, a corruption of horrific magnitude. In the month previous to his disappearance, another kind of corruption went down when Prabhupāda’s order that all of his disciples were to come to see him was changed.
Cannot you not see that there is a river of continuous corruption flowing through all of these twelve events? After Prabhupāda departed, there was the unauthorized eleven pretender mahābhāgavat corruption, aided and abetted by imbibing all kinds of nescience from Swāmi B. R. Śrīdhar. The G.B.C. and the leading men of “ISKCON” had become so contaminated that they ate up his bad advice, which went dead against what Prabhupāda both wanted and ordered.
The First Transformation hit choppy waters when it was discovered that Prabhupāda never ordered any of the eleven to be spiritual masters, although that was the propaganda throughout its initial implementation. In order to cover over that discovery, another big lie was hatched, rationalizing The First Transformation on the illusory basis of the G.B.C. being the Successor to His Divine Grace.
After these came the three major deviations which have been discussed here. Consider all twelve of these events as constituting a linked and continuous flow of causes leading to an effect, which then became the next cause. In the process, our Vaiṣṇava yoga culture a gold-plated pseudo-spiritual organization--has been converted into just another organized religion.
Too many people are seeking easy answers. They want to merge into a group identity, which has nothing to do with the search for Truth. “ISKCON” provides them this convenience in the guise of a new individuality, which is nothing but institutional conformity with a quasi-devotional flavor.
All of this amounts to “devotional” depravity operating under the paradigm of institutional corruption within the overall matrix of Kali-yuga. An abstract identification via improper initiation is being peddled, and it gives the foolish chela meaning which was not actually earned. Cheap gurus and cheap disciples. All of it functions within a joint mess shot through with corruption. That can never produce anything more than a surrogate experience for those implicated in it.
There are no easy answers. Part of the reason why "ISKCON" has been able to hold on and even expand is because it offers many easy answers—all of which are not ACTUAL answers but often only rationalizations. You have to pay the price. You have to dig into the weeds. You have to put the pieces of the puzzle together, and that requires understanding cause and effect.
By accepting the pabulum of the corrupt "ISKCON" leaders with their one-liners and cavalier dismissals about the events of the past--all of which are still active (even if that causality is not so readily seen)--you set yourself up as an ENABLER of the institutional delusion. That may be pleasant for you now. However, it won't be when you are held accountable for your laziness in spiritual life and your empowerment of those who do not deserve to even represent, what to speak of lead, a genuine spiritual and devotional movement.
In a letter to one of his governing body commissioners, on October 8th, 1974, His Divine Grace gave the following warning:
“All these properties and opulences, whatever we have got, this will not go with me when I go away from this world. It will remain here. I am training some of my experienced disciples how to manage after my departure. So, if instead of taking the training, if in my lifetime you people say ‘I am the Lord of all I survey,’ that is dangerous conspiracy.”
The current ācāryas of “ISKCON” are all bogus, and their initiations are thus all improper. Their pretenses are becoming more and more obnoxious as time goes on, and His Divine Grace—foreseeing that his leading men could misuse their individual and collective free will—warned about them early on in the purport to Mantra Twelve of his commentary on Śrī Īśopaniṣad:
“By a false display of religious sentiments, they present A SHOW OF DEVOTIONAL SERVICE while indulging in all sorts of immoral activities. In this way, they pass as spiritual masters AND DEVOTEES of God. . . to mislead the people in general, they themselves become SO-CALLED ĀCĀRYAS, but they do not even follow the principles of the ācāryas. These ROGUES are the MOST DANGEROUS ELEMENTS in human society. . . Śrī Īśopaniṣad confirms that these pseudo religionists are heading toward the most obnoxious place in the universe after the completion of their SPIRITUAL MASTER BUSINESS, which they conduct simply for sense gratification.”


KCd's Monthly Missive's archive



youtube: therealexplanation


2013 - 2016© Vaishnava Foundation | Privacy policy