It’s Not On Prabhupada

June, 2017

by Kailäsa Candra däsa

“Thus, the so-called sannyäsés try to construct another home in the name of the sannyäsa-äçrama and glide down into all sorts of luxury at the expense of others. So, all these varëas and äçramas have now become so many transcendental frauds.”
Light of the Bhägavat, Verse 32

World monarchy has failed ever since kings began to satisfy their personal senses with the taxes accumulated from the citizens.”
Çrémad-Bhägavatam, 4.12.10, purport

“The baseness so commonly charged to religion’s account (is) not chargeable at all to religion proper but rather to religion’s wicked practical partner, the spirit of corporate dominion. And the bigotries are . . . in turn chargeable to religion’s wicked intellectual partner, the spirit of dogmatic dominion.
William James, The Varieties of Religious Experience

Transcendental fraud is vikarmic, and there is nothing transcendental about it, although it sometimes seems to be more than what it actually is in the eyes of blockheads. It has victimized countless innocent people in the name of devotional life, and that is but part of the pitiless intrigues of the mäyä contaminating what only appears to be the Kåñëa consciousness movement. False religious systems prosper in Kali-yuga. Within them, we find misinterpretation of scripture, the sacred books being re-written, static mottos along with worn clichés, hypocritical priests, jealous sannyäsés, and many other ludicrous manifestations propped up by professional ecclesiastics posing as men of spiritual life.

“These foolish creatures do not know that they are nothing but play dolls in the hands of material nature and that, at any moment, material nature’s pitiless intrigues can crush to dust all their plans for godless activities.“
Caitanya-caritämåta, Ädi-Lélä, 3.98, purport

Then again, there is the Kali-yuga executive class. Formerly, it was dominated by emperors, monarchs, and kings. At this time, they exist in name only, since a weak version of constitutional monarchy has replaced the king in all Western nation-states that still formally accept royalty. When monarchs arrange, in conjunction with the priestly class, to increase their powers and more fully satisfy their senses, the people suffer. That oppressive system was dominant in former epochs, and, to no small degree, that is why monarchy—monarchy with real power–has been abolished in the Western world. Nevertheless, it could make a comeback at any time, because it has not yet been entirely uprooted.

All emphases added for your edification and realization.

His Divine Grace Çréla Prabhupäda was never a king and should never have been represented as one (read, the Moundsville compound inside its “Palace of Gold”). After the Vedic age, authentic political authority degenerated and disintegrated throughout the world. Saintly, powerful men had previously taken the role of government leaders and represented Godhead on earth. With the advent of Kali-yuga, however, this transcendental system collapsed, and unauthorized, uncivilized men gradually took power.

A Vedic monarch, preferably a räjäåñi who is also a bhakta, is fit to become even a world ruler, as long as he is guided by genuine brähmins and Vaiñëavas and actually follows their directions. Any other arrangement involving king and priesthood is dangerous, and that includes at every level of government, whenever and wherever “religion” and the executive join forces, either overtly or covertly.

This Movement is Run Machiavellian”

In the late Eighteenth Century, in two nation-states of Western Europe, as well as entirely in America, monarchy was either rejected, overthrown, re-constituted, or severely challenged. In France, it was temporarily overthrown, along with the First Estate that buttressed it. French Enlightenment philosophers, such as the very influential Voltaire, Montesquieu, D ‘Alembert, Diderot, and Condorcet were either Deists or atheists. They provided the intelligence, logic, ethics, and justification for their revolution by exposing, in written form with diligent detail, the hypocritical, oppressive, and evil cabal that was the royalty, the landed aristocracy (the Second Estate), and the Catholic ecclesiastics.

During that time-frame, their talent and energy was appropriated and exploited by Jean Jacques Rousseau, who was never accepted by the philosophers within their circle. There was good reason for that, because Rousseau did not represent the Age of Reason and its vision. His glorification of a so-called social contract based upon a “natural order,” wherein instinct and emotion were considered the best modes for human advancement (rather than reason and intelligence), was the antithesis of Voltaire, et. al. Rousseau’s devolutionary ideas were a harbinger of Romanticism, which gradually upstaged the Age of Reason during the first half of the Nineteenth Century.

Rousseau was an irresponsible womanizer and, throughout his life, almost completely dependent upon others in order to stay alive. Via witty and polemical diatribes, his vision of returning humans back to an anti-civilizational mode of spontaneity caught the imagination of the less-intelligent class of men. It was, in no small measure, ultimately responsible for the Reign of Terror, in which around twenty-thousand people, the vast majority of them completely innocent, were publicly guillotined.

Rousseau was an advocate of utopian equality, in which all men and women were supposed to be “educated” as equals in all respects via an egalitarian version of democracy, which soon degenerated into mob rule after the storming of the Bastille. The bloodthirsty Jacobin Robespierre was heavily influenced by the writings of Rousseau; you could say that Maximillien Robespierre was practically his disciple.

Ultimately, the French revolution culminated in a powerful general, fresh off military victories in Italy, taking over and imposing dictatorship. America never had to experience a Napoleon Bonaparte, since the republican revolution in the New World, about a decade previous to the French effort, never overly-valued such unworkable egalitarianism in order to get rid of monarchical rule. It was heavily influenced by the writings of real Enlightenment thinkers. Many, if not most, of America’s founding fathers–along with the author of the Declaration of Independence and its third president–were certainly men of the Enlightenment.1

They all abhorred what the union of religion and monarchy produced in Europe, and a by-the-people-for-the-people system was incorporated into the United States, one which stressed liberty over any artificially imposed construct of “equality.” The American system, which centered around a republican, federal model anchored in a constitution, replaced both the “divine right” of kings, as well as any form of constitutional monarchy (which was accepted in the French Revolution, but thereafter replaced by mob-rule).

Oh–and just for your information–south of Paris is located the Chateau d’Ermenonville–better known back in the day as the “ISKCON” Castle—and it was the domicile of Rousseau during his final decade. It now allegedly serves as a museum of Vedic history. Think that is simply accidental? It gets better! Villa Våndävana (near Florence, Italy) is a Renaissance palace originally owned by, and the residence of, Niccolò Machiavelli. It is now, allegedly, a center for Vedic arts and crafts. How do you like them apples?

The power arrangement that transpires in the fabricated, so-called “ISKCON” confederation is not approved of by Çréla Prabhupäda nor is he at all responsible for it. It is the product of institutional power via individual and collective misuse of free will by his leading secretaries and managers; the Supreme Personality of Godhead Himself could not have checked that misuse. What can be checked at this time, however, is its momentum. We shall thus continue to expose the apa-sampradäya, along with emphasizing the fact that you cannot pin any of its deviations on His Divine Grace Çréla Prabhupäda.

In case you are a bit bewildered by the quote which serves as the sub-header of this section, that is not from Prabhupäda. It is from one of his governing body commissioners to your author (on my birthday, no less!) in the winter of 1978.

Sophisticated Priests, So-Called Sannyäsés,
and The Great Sinister Movement

“The Miami situation is a great discredit for us, because we have made such a bad impression on the neighbors that they have had us kicked out. This is because of nasty management.”
Letter to Satsvarüpa, 6-4-75

Now it is practically in your hands to finish and push on what I have started. I am now getting all respect and honor, so now you must preserve that standard and not dishonor me.”
Letter to Bhagavän, 12-10-71

“So far your statement, ‘Our final success will be when you actually sit tight and translate books and let us manage successfully,”’ yes, that is my desire, but if you can do it or not, that has again disturbed me very much. Now I have given you everything, but I do not see that even the basic principles of advancement in spiritual life are always there, and sometimes there is tendency to neglect what is our real purpose of life . . .So, I am still thinking how things will go on?
Letter to Satsvarüpa, 4-10-72

Out of necessity, but only in the very beginning, was Çréla Prabhupäda micro-managing the Kåñëa consciousness movement. He was training yogés and yoginés from the early days, because that was its purpose, viz., to create transcendentalists. He was not forming but another ecclesiastical convention in order to continue that scourge in human society. With the creation of the Governing Body Commission in the summer of 1970, and having adequately trained his leading secretaries in all of the important facets and details required for managing his branch of the Caitanya tree, His Divine Grace left management to them. Of course, that strategy began to backfire as early as 1972, but it did not have to do so.

Prabhupäda was an elderly man. He wanted to occasionally meet with important people in order to impress upon them the necessity of Kåñëa consciousness at all cultural, social, and educational levels in the Western world. He especially wanted his trained disciples to take on the responsibilities of management, so that he could devote himself to translating major Vaiñëava works and writing purports to explain them.2

His Divine Grace was the Guru of the Americans, and the management portfolio was not meant for him; it was meant for his leading disciples who had that inclination. Indeed, your author joined his movement almost on the very date when Prabhupäda dictated a letter to one of his female disciples, instructing her (and everyone else through her) that all personal questions should henceforward be brought to the attention of his managers for answers and solutions, rather than writing to him about any of that.3

Do you really believe that Prabhupäda wanted to create another Catholic Church? Some of his initiated disciples served as priests for various functions, and he did give the order of sannyäsa to some, as well. Yet, the track record of priests in organized religion was criticized and even condemned by him on more than one occasion, and the track record of his so-called sannyäsés proved to be so horrific that he abolished the order.

He said that the Western young people, searching for ultimate answers through knowledge and detachment, were no longer willing to accept the propaganda of organized religion pushed by sophisticated priests.4 He said those priests were authorizing animal slaughter by misinterpreting the Christian Bible.5 He deplored their hypocrisy, their salaries, and the intoxication integral to an ecclesiastical hierarchy of organized religion.6 He did not want his movement to end up like that, but, for the most part, it unfortunately has.

As far as the sannyäsés were concerned, the majority of them deviated even while he was still physically manifest. In doing so, they unintentionally came under the influence of Indra’s pretentious sannyäsa from a previous age.7 Indeed, four of his first sannyäsés became via media for the Great Sinister Movement,8 and his first sannyäsé, a few years previously, had given Prabhupäda a great shock by blatantly defying him.9

“These so-called sannyäsés are very much appreciated by sinful men, because they are all godless atheists and very expert in putting forward arguments and reasons to support their case. We must know, however, that they are only passing as adherents of religion and are not so in fact. Unfortunately, bewildered persons accept them as religious, and being attracted to them, they spoil their life.”
Çrémad-Bhägavatam, 4.19.24-25

Professional priests and sannyäsés were advised by His Divine Grace Çréla Bhaktisiddhänta Sarasväté Gosvämé Prabhupäda to take up sweeping in the street and living honestly rather than accepting occupational priesthood or the profession of sannyäsa (both usually making a show of the Deity) simply for the purpose of “earning” a livelihood and enjoying amenities connected to their statuses. In the final year of his manifest presence, Çréla A. C. Bhaktivedänta Prabhupäda became disgusted with the sannyäsés to such an extent that he forbade any more disciples from taking sannyäsa in his movement.10

The above-mentioned four sannyäsés channeled Gouòéya Mutt propaganda against Prabhupäda and his movement, and, by so doing, engaged in a major disservice. They bewildered devotees who admired them, and the Great Sinister Movement entered Prabhupäda’s movement, gaining a foothold.11 To frankly state what should be obvious by now, the Mutt never lost that foothold but only increased it (and the contamination accompanying its influence), especially after Çréla Prabhupäda left the scene in late 1977.

Questions and Answers

ISKCON” has no secular power, but Vedic scriptures indicate that a monarch, guided by brähmins, represents the best form of government for mankind. Could it be that sometime in the Golden Age there will be a devoted King, guided by Vaiñëava-brähmins, who rules on behalf of Prabhupäda’s branch of the Caitanya tree?

That is very unlikely during our lifetimes. The fact is that almost any current form of government, once upgraded to the Vedic format and freed from endemic atheism and all of its related corruption, can be molded into a God-conscious operation. If the people are educated in Vedic and Vaiñëava facts and truths, they will then vote into office Kåñëa conscious representatives, creating God-conscious legislative assemblies. They will similarly vote for a true Vaiñëava kñatriya with high ethics to fill the post of chief executive, be he called a president or a prime minister.

“There is one God, and there should be one state. If we can turn the majority of people to Krsna consciousness, they will vote for Krsna conscious people, and they will not be exploited. The principles that we are following individually can be introduced on a larger scale.”
Dialectical Spiritualism, Critique of Kant

Such a government, with constant feedback from the good people it governs—and with the spiritual and material benefit of its citizens integral to its administration—would be acceptable to the guru-paramparä. This is the kind of government that would be indicated for the mid-term future, particularly since monarchy, according to Prabhupäda’s purport to Bhagavad-gétä, has now been finally abolished.12

In commenting on the philosophy of Thomas Hobbes, Prabhupäda appears favorable to the idea of a group of brähmins taking on the role of Monarch or Leviathan in order to rule the world.13 At the present time, would this form of government constitute a progressive development for humanity?

If a corrupt group of so-called brähmins—such as the clique that now composes the Governing Body Commission of “ISKCON”—were to take on any such role, then the idea is not at all beneficial, but, on the contrary, extremely dangerous. It is also just about as dangerous if that corrupt governing body were to semi-secretly advise the Monarch from the other side of the curtain, i.e., to become the power behind the throne.

Rittviks are also sometimes referred to as priests. Çréla Prabhupäda, beginning in 1970, created and engaged disciples as priests to assist him in ceremonials. How should we view the rittviks today, i.e., are they helpful in spreading Kåñëa consciousness?

They are harmful only. All such rittviks ceased to exist in any bona fide way on November 15, 1977, the day after His Divine Grace departed physical manifestation.

Isn’t Çréla Prabhupäda, in at least some remote way, partially responsible for the hell that has gone down in his name, particularly after he left us?

His Divine Grace Çréla Prabhupäda was cent-per-cent free from all sinful activities. As such, he could not generate any kind of negative or sinful reaction for either himself or his movement. Even though some events connected to him during the Sixties and Seventies were indicated in his sidereal horoscope—such as malefic Mars situated in the fifth house (the house of disciples)–he was never under the law of karma.

In all Vaiñëava humility, as a perfect uttama-adhikäré and following in the footsteps of all great devotees, he stated that he engaged in a misdeed.14 That quote should neither be taken literally nor accepted as some kind of actual fault. Still, the quote is a bit interesting, considered in the context of what has gone down (even while he was still with us). The result of initiated mlecchas slipping back to their own ways, much more powerfully than would have otherwise been the case (if they did not have the “ISKCON” institution to manipulate)—has been done all in the name of the father, Çréla Prabhupäda.

What Can I Do?”

“But if you all, my right-hand men, are doing things without consulting me and making such big, big changes within our society without getting my opinion and the opinion of all the G.B.C. members, then what can I do? I am so much perplexed why you all had done this.”
Letter to Rüpänuga, 8-4-72

This fighting spirit will destroy everything, but what can I do? You American and European boys are trained up in this fighting attitude.”
Letter to Bali Mardan, 9-18-72

“I made the G.B.C. to give me relief, but, if you do like this, then where is the relief? It is anxiety for me. This is the difficulty, that, as soon as one gets power, he becomes whimsical and spoils everything. What can I do?
Letter to Hansadutta, 9-12-74

Ten excerpts from Prabhupäda’s letters are reproduced in this section, and every one of them was snail mailed to ISKCON leaders (including one prominent female) during the Seventies. In most of these, His Divine Grace openly admits his inability to check the nescience that is being manifested by his “right-hand men.” There are more than ten quotes in the Folio evidencing Prabhupäda’s exasperation in this connection, and one more will be reproduced later in this article. The three that lead (above) are, in the opinion of your author, the most glaring examples of the consequences of misuse of free will. They will be reproduced (with the other seven) subsequently, and all ten will be explained, in order to clarify the ramifications and repercussions implicit in them. We shall proceed chronologically.

1) “The opportunity is always there, just as we are offering so many ways to become Kåñëa conscious, but if you don’t take the opportunity, what can I do? That is purposeful negligence of duty.“
Letter to Jagadéça, 7-9-1970

Çréla Prabhupäda would not have written this letter if such purposeful negligence of duty (by his “best men”) was not already rearing its head. Free will of the living entity—whether he be a devotee or any other kind of transcendentalist—is at the crux of this discussion. Lord Kåñëa cannot interfere with the limited free will He has granted to His jéva-tattva, what to speak of even an empowered being such as Prabhupäda, i.e., he also cannot interfere with it. That his initial disciples surrendered to him (to some extent) in the beginning of his mission is virtually certain, but they could individually misuse their free will at any time. That is how the jiva is constituted, and the opportunities to become Kåñëa conscious while in conditioned life are there, alongside the opportunities to engage in mäyikä temptations, which are particularly strong in this age, obviously.

2) “But if you all, my right-hand men, are doing things without consulting me and making such big, big changes within our society without getting my opinion and the opinion of all the G.B.C. members, then what can I do? I am so much perplexed why you all had done this.”
Letter to Rüpänuga, 8-4-72

This was the second great shock to His Divine Grace delivered by his leaders; the first one was Kirtanänanda’s disobedience and defiance in the late Sixties. On April 8, 1972, Çréla Prabhupäda suspended the G.B.C. We have commented upon this important action extensively in previous articles (currently archived and available on our websites), as well as in two of our most recent videos. This particular excerpt is in relation to the unauthorized ad hoc meeting and ensuing resolutions by eight of the G.B.C. in New York City in the late spring of 1972. It was a major and intentional misuse of free will.

Prabhupäda could not understand why they would do such a thing. The meeting was arranged without even notifying the other four commissioners (or Prabhupäda) of it being convened. Big, big changes—in the form of illicit resolutions—were passed during this meeting. Your author was directly impacted by the centralization scheme it briefly empowered, but none of those similarly impacted were aware of that.

Prabhupäda calls these G.B.C. leaders here his “right-hand men.” This was a foreboding reference, because the “good hands” people would, a mere six years later, devastate his movement in the debacle known as the zonal-äcärya scam. Could Prabhupäda have foreseen this development? Again, the answer to this question hinges upon the relation of free will (and its misuse) and destiny, which is a two-sided coin. In accordance to Providence (spiritual destiny), what went down in 1972 and 1978 would not have transpired.

Material destiny had other plans for the movement, and, misusing their individual and collective free will, the rascals walked right into the trap—to the detriment of everyone. Ultimately, there was nothing that Prabhupäda could have done to have stopped it, but he made every effort—in the form of implicit and explicit warnings–to prevent it. Those efforts proved unsuccessful, but that’s not on Prabhupäda!

3) “This fighting spirit will destroy everything, but what can I do? You American and European boys are trained up in this fighting attitude.”
Letter to Bali Mardan, 9-18-72

The war continues, and it will continue for some time—perhaps for a very, very long time. If that turns out to be the case, the atrocities that will be committed in the name of Prabhupäda and “ISKCON” will dwarf the horrors of the Gothic Era (read, The Inquisition). Fanatics will, in that future case, be at the fore of ultra-diabolical acts, and, as such, “ISKCON” fanatics should be confronted now, before they get traction. Your author and his associates will continue to fight the good fight against the fabricated, so-called “ISKCON” confabulation, i.e., this means that we shall continue to dovetail in the service of the Lord the fighting spirit that is intrinsic to the American character.

One note to the fanatics: You like to cherry-pick a quote here and there from Prabhupäda that appears to guarantee the success of your movement or the greatness of some particular leader you highly esteem. Alright, because you do not accept that all such quotes were encouragements only–and you thus misinterpret them to be hard-and-fast prophesies and guarantees—then, what about the above-mentioned quote?

We have underlined the word will in many places in this article. You are nursing a big-time contradiction if you misinterpret your dearly-held excerpts in a fanatical, literal, unable-to-be-reversed way, but, at the same time, you do not acknowledge that Prabhupäda herein explicitly states that the fighting in his movement W-I-L-L destroy everything. And he has explicitly stated the same thing, in many similar ways, in other quotes. He does not say that the fighting spirit of his leaders may destroy his movement; he says that it will destroy it.

4) “We had got some indication from Karändhara Prabhu that there was some misunderstanding and things were not going too well between you both big leaders. That is why I was little concerned, because such things should never be allowed to fructify within our Society, that will spoil everything.”
Letter to Bali Mardan, 3-5-72

The pipe dream of the “ISKCON” triumphalists undergirds many misconceptions held by those third-echelon fanatics. It could, combined with secular power in an indeterminate, long-term future, create an unfathomably hellish situation. That fanaticism must be turned against itself now, and those fanatics should be resisted with unbending determination at this time. These fanatics include nasty rittviks, who run everyone and anyone (who disagrees with them) through the grease of character assassination.

We still have a few years left to reverse the seeds of what will otherwise culminate in worldwide depravity, after unprecedented atrocities first set the stage for radioactive barbarism. Wicked secular kings, combined with “ISKCON” priests, equals hell on earth, and “ISKCON” corporate dominion is the harbinger of that hell.

5) “So, I have given you the guiding principles; it is not that I must be consulted with every small detail. That is the business of the in-charge, but, if no one is there who can manage in the right way, what can I do?
Letter to Bhänutänya, 11-18-72

Why would he express this doubt, especially in written form, if there was not some legitimacy to mismanagement already formulating? At the very least, the distinct possibility that his leading secretaries were not managing his movement rightly by 1972–or would wind up mismanaging it (in a number of ways) in the future–is indicated. Also, he had spent his initial years training them, so he was supposed to start all over and re-train them? At his advanced age, when he simply wanted to retire from management and concentrate on translations and purports? Was he then going to re-train those who did not take the training initially or was he going to train up a new set of managers?

Neither.

He was not going to train or re-train anybody. That is why he said that there was nothing more that he could do. He did not want to be consulted about details that are the essence of management, as he was not meant for that anymore. It was now their movement to manage in the right way or to mismanage. We all know which option they chose.

6) “You have committed a very grave error. I am depending on you leaders for the future of our Society, yet there is all this interest in illicit sex life. This is causing me heartache, worrying how things will go on. What can I do? I have given you all instructions, why you cannot follow them?”
Letter to Kaliyä Kåñëa, 3-31-73

There is little need to provide any lengthy explanation here, and the particulars of this devotee’s error would be diversionary. That other leaders made errors far more grave than his is more than obvious now. The last sentence of this letter sums up the pivotal issue of free will, either used properly–or misused. Interest in profit, adoration, distinction, and power is interest in subtle sex life, which is just as illicit and, in most cases, causes far more damage.

“It comes as a shock to me that you have stepped down from your duties as president of our Hong Kong center. Your move is not satisfactory to me, but what can I do?
Letter to Bhürijana, 5-3-74

His leaders often made such arbitrary decisions, even while he was still here.

“I made the G.B.C. to give me relief, but, if you do like this, then where is the relief? It is anxiety for me. This is the difficulty, that, as soon as one gets power, he becomes whimsical and spoils everything. What can I do?
Letter to Hansadutta, 9-12-74

Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely—at least, in most cases. There can be no doubt that Prabhupäda’s anxiety was warranted, because his (former) movement has now been thoroughly spoiled and converted into a perverted reflection of what it once was.

“The total expenditure for the opening ceremony was about 60,000 rupees or more, and I was feeling your absence. Your husband was present, but his business was different. Anyway, what can I do?” Letter to Yamunä, 5-11-75

Your author happens to know many details—most of them not at all pretty—concerning the incident referred to here and other things directly or indirectly related to it. Technically, the fellow (a “sannyäsé” at that time) referenced in this excerpt was not her husband but her former husband. Due to respect for the great lady–who has recently left us and hopefully went back to Godhead, and who was, without question, the greatest female vocalist in the Hare Kåñëa movement–we shall not present any of those details here. Suffice it to say, as clearly indicated in this excerpt, that Prabhupäda could no longer control the fellow.

“It is my 80th birthday. That is correct. You do not know this? One of the G.B.C. articles says 79th birthday. Big G.B.C. man, so many editors, and it is not detected? You are all müdhas. What can I do?
Letter to Rädhä Vallabha, 8-21-75

There are three points here for consideration. First, he references the G.B.C. He directly (without naming him) references the commissioner at Culver City, but, indirectly, by extension, it is not at all illogical that he could be referring to all of them. The second point is that Prabhupäda pulls no punches by stating that everyone referenced in the excerpt is a müdha, a rascal-fool. Third, they are beyond rectification (“what can I do?”), i.e., he can no longer reform their characters or uplift the whole lot of them. Over time, that has been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt.

“ . . . but, if Tamäl Kåñëa flies 10,000 miles to lodge some complaint against Jayatértha, what can I do? If you all leaders cannot work together, then how can you expect the others to cooperate with you?”
Letter to Rämeçvara, 9-15-75

The big guns were doing their own thing, spending any amount in order fulfill their desires. Not infrequently, they were also at each others’ throats, and it got worse after they secured their “äcärya” zones in 1978. There was a silver lining in that, however, because it was such infighting which precipitated their rejection by most of Prabhupäda’s disciples.

Most of us had no desire to cooperate with any of them, as indicated by Prabhupäda in this excerpt. As far as your author was concerned, there was no way that I was going to worship any of those men, although that was de facto mandated for everyone in the spring of 1978. And anybody who was brought to an “ISKCON” temple by a Prabhupäda initiate would be implicated in that new man’s victimization by one of the “new gurus.” Your author was never implicated whatsoever in such activity.

The Pricks of Maya

“Unfortunately, if my disciples do not take my guidance, what can I do? By bad association it so happens, so I remain silent. I see the pricks of mäyä.”
Letter to Kåñëa däs, 9-9-72

Imitation devotees, who wish to advertise themselves as elevated Vaiñëavas and who therefore imitate the previous äcäryas but do not follow them in principle, are condemned in the words of Çrémad-Bhägavatam (2.3.24) as stone-hearted. . . (those) whose hearts have not changed are to be known as stone-hearted devotees of the lowest grade.”
Caitanya-caritämåta, Ädi-lélä, 2.117, purport

Men will never be free until the last king
is strangled with the entrails of the last priest.”
Denis Diderot,
Dictionnaire raisonné des sciences, des arts et des métiers

Always remember that Humpty was pushed. The major deviations that are now intractably embedded in what only superficially appears to be Çréla Prabhupäda’s movement did not reach that stage accidentally. They were insinuated into ISKCON by its ambitious leaders for their own nefarious purposes, i.e., ISKCON was converted into “ISKCON,” and it is very difficult to convert yogurt back into milk. The potency is now dumbed down:

“This movement is very, very old and standard. It is never changed. As soon as you change it, then the potency of the movement is lost.
Room Conversation, 10-8-75

Reform efforts will only enable the deviants. None dare call it a conspiracy, but we do call it just that. It was neither subconscious nor accidental: You cannot sit on an opulent, well-decorated, elevated seat, accept uttama-adhikäré worship from your own godbrothers and godsisters (with the busty godsisters in the forefront) and not know that what you and your comrades are perpetrating is a colossal hoax.

It’s not on Prabhupäda! He never authorized any of it. He said, “Regular guru, that’s all.” Just as importantly, he did not recognize anybody as even a regular guru—and he certainly did not appoint a Successor Äcärya. What he actually authorized has now been reversed (and that cavalierly dismissed as “we tried something, but it didn’t work”). In other words, the true history does not at all mean—and should not be misinterpreted to mean–that the new guru escapade was innocent. It most certainly was not. They went way too far, and they couldn’t pull it off. There was mass mutiny brewing early on, and they had to back down and back off. It was reversed by force, not by good intentions, i.e., they were not good men then, and most of them are not good men now, either.

They were de-facto monarchs of their own zones (for a brief time), but, in the matter of acquiring international secular power, the current warped version would rejoice to see a pliable King emerge, amenable to them just as Constantine accepted “Christianity.” If anything like that were to go down, we must be able to foresee the ultra-intrusive, cyberspace oppression that would accompany it, viz., “ISKCON” tech-geeks would be in their element, particularly when prying into the laptops and servers of their critics.

The current priests (propping up the first echelon) are just as complicit as the big guns were and are. Those “priests,” with their pukka profiles and honed skills, assisted the zonal äcäryas in the beginning, assisted the Second Transformation in the mid-Eighties, and now help to keep the Third Transformation viable in the eyes of the congregation. All of them push organized religion, which, objectively speaking, has an extremely sordid history.

You cannot pin it on Prabhupäda. That’s what they want you to do. Instead, start to see through the “ISKCON” sham and pin the tail on the actual donkeys. They want you to throw out the baby with the bathwater, and it is certain that hundreds, if not thousands, of Western (and even Indian) devotees have done just that over the past forty years. It is time to take a stand, call a spade a spade, and resist the corporate dominion and dogma, which irrationally keeps propping up the greatest show-bottle on earth.

Time to pop the boil, but, before we can do that, we must realize that His Divine Grace is not responsible for the collective misuse of free will perpetrated by many disloyal, deviant leaders. They have dishonored him by failing to manage his movement according to his directions. He indicated early on where they and their movement were heading.

. . . And it has come to pass.

OM TAT SAT

ENDNOTES

1 There was a kind of semi-Enlightenment in what is now Germany. However, during the Age of Reason, there was, far more importantly, the Scottish Enlightenment. John Locke can be included as part of that; in America, the political formulations of both Locke and Montesquieu heavily influenced the American paradigm. The French and Scottish Enlightenment thinkers shared the same pulse and basic values, but they differed in approach, emphasis, and process. The French Enlightenment, due in no small part to the negative, counter-propaganda of Rousseau, turned egalitarian to an unrealistic degree, and it was idealistic, instinctive, unnecessarily violent, and awkwardly implemented. The Scottish Enlightenment, on the other hand, was empirical, reasonable, measured, practical, and far more oriented towards liberty.

Since the majority of America’s revolutionary leaders had genealogical roots in Great Britain, they were more influenced by the Scottish Enlightenment, although aware of what the philosophers were advocating in continental Europe. The leaders of America were mostly Masons and Deists, although Patrick Henry (and quite possibly, Franklin) were atheists. In other words, the American effort combined both major Enlightenment influences. Lafayette made a key military contribution to the American cause, and Franklin and Jefferson had strong diplomatic ties to France during its revolutionary ferment. That was previous to the Napoleonic dictatorship, of course, whereupon Bonaparte declared himself emperor, and tens of thousands of people were thus murdered during a decade and one-half of continuous warfare, until he was exiled a second time.

2 “So now your responsibility has become very great. Practically, it is in your hands now to manage things so I can translate and write books.”
Letter to Locänänanda, 12-8-71

3 “ . . . I think from now on the G.B.C. men may be consulted in all such matters of temple management and affairs. I have given them everything, so they shall be able to answer all questions, and, if they cannot answer from their experience, then I have given answer in my books—and still if they cannot answer, they may ask me. . . if all day and night I am reading and answering and signing letters, then I cannot utilize this, the fag end of my life, to give you so many nice literatures . . . So, if the G.B.C. which I have appointed for this task will kindly now assist me in this way, by handling very expertly and with all good consideration all matters of managing, I shall devote my full time to giving you further nice books.”
Letter to Kirtika, 2-16-72

4 “. . . people are gradually deviating from their religious beliefs on account of stereotype presentation of the Bible by sophisticated priests. Modern youths are educated in advance, so they are no more interested in repetition of the same static mottos.”
Letter to Çyämasundara, 6-3-69

5 “‘Thou shalt not kill’ is now being misinterpreted by Christian priests. Now they say ‘Thou shall not murder.” This means trying to save themselves from the crime of animal killing.”
Letter to Räyäräma, 10-22-71

6 “Hypocritical, simply hypocritical. All these priests and cardinals and popes, they’re all hypocritical. Getting high, highly salaried, high salaries, and drinking wine.”
Morning walk, 6-6-74

7 “At the present moment, however, many so-called sannyäsés or mendicants have no understanding of God consciousness. Such sannyäsa was introduced by Indra because of his jealousy of Mahäräja Påthu, and what he introduced is again appearing in the age of Kali. Practically none of the sannyäsés in this age are bona fide.”
Çrémad-Bhägavatam, 4.19.23, purport

8 “I do not know what is the sequence of this inquiry, but it is clear that there is a great clique and the so-called sannyäsés are the via media of spreading contamination in our Society. It is a very sorry plight.
Letter to Hayagréva, 9-14-70

9 “I cannot understand why he (Kirtanänanda) played with me like this. If he had no desire to go to London, he would have plainly told me like that. It has certainly given me a great shock.
Letter to Hayagréva, 9-27-67

10 “This should be strictly outlawed: No more sannyäsés. And those sannyäsés who have fallen, you get them married. . . No more this show-bottle cheating. It is very ludicrous.”
Room conversation, 1-7-77, Bombay

11 “I have heard that Brahmananda (one of the four so-called sannyäsés) is preaching about me that I am Kåñëa, that I am Supersoul, that I have withdrawn my mercy from the disciples, that I have left the Society and so on. I do not know how far they are correct, but I have written him a letter that he may not do something which may harm the interest of the Society. You are also one of the members of the G.B.C., so you can think over very deeply how to save the situation. It is a fact, however, that the great sinister movement is within our Society. . . so all of you may try to save the Society from this dangerous position.”
Letter to Hansadutta, 9-2-70

12 “In this age, however, with the corruption of the principles of religion, monarchy decayed and is now finally abolished.”
Bhagavad-gétä, 10.27, purport

13 Hayagréva: He (Hobbes) also said that this (King or Leviathan) could be not only an individual but a group of individuals.
Prabhupäda: Yes. Group of individuals can remain, provided they are all devotees. But if the group of individuals, if they are all rogues and rascals, they cannot be representative of God. But either singular or plural, if all of them or single actually representative of God abiding by the laws . . . if we manufacture in our own ways, without reference to the God’s program, it will be useless and failure.
Dialectical Spiritualism, Critique of Thomas Hobbes

14 “If the spiritual master is attacked by some disease, it is due to the sinful activities of others. ‘Don’t make many disciples.’ But we do it, because we are preaching. Never mind—let us suffer—still, we shall accept them. Therefore, your question was—when I suffer is it due to my past misdeeds? Was it not? That is my misdeed—that I accepted some disciples who are nonsense. That is my misdeed.”
Perfect Questions, Perfect Answers, Chapter Six

5 comments

1 Torben Nielsen { 06.01.17 at 15:51 }

Why did Srila Prabhupada accept so many (nonsense) disciples?
Many of the corporate “ISKCON” gurus, former and present, also takes/took on a lot of disciples. What is the difference?

2 Bhakta Srihari Vijayaraghavan { 06.08.17 at 08:45 }

As a kirtananandi uttama adhikari Acarya following in the footsteps of his predecessor Sampradaya Acaryas (like Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakura) & as the guru for the West in general and America in particular, His Divine Grace A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Srila Prabhupada did indeed accept many disciples & engaged them in various Krishna conscious (KC) activities.

The 11 pretender maha-bhagavatas, who all caused the first transformation, joined his movement in the early years and rendered various services. Rather than devotionally qualifying (“regular guru, that’s all … but by my order”), but by the misuse of their individual free will (by accepting such slogans as “ritvik acarya then it becomes as good as an acarya,” “put on the uniform to become a soldier” & “mat guru sei jagat guru”), shortly after the disappearance of Srila Prabhupada, those pretenders totally ruined his movement by imitating him (admittedly, their ambitious plans were well under way even during the years of Srila Prabhupada’s manifest presence). As the title of this article eloquently states it, most definitely “It is not on Prabhupada.” Just like the learned (Ananta Vasudeva dasa) and capable (Tirtha dasa) men previously derailed Srila Bhaktisiddhanta’s movement, history repeated somewhat similarly in Srila Prabhupada’s movement too. Indeed, personal ambition has always been the poison.

Sure, in bhajanandhi mood, Srila Prabhupada could have accepted only a selected handful of disciples and trained them to reach advanced stages of KC. But, as history shows, His Divine Grace chose to form an international movement, establishing ashrams and temples all over the world to spread KC by kirtana process (by book distribution, public/university lectures, hari nama sankirtana, ratha-yatra and prasadam distribution etc.). He thus gave the highest KC opportunity/choice for all of his disciples to be engaged in (and also for the spiritual benefit of those who came in contact through them). But ever since his disappearance, some 150 odd men and women derailing his movement — by misusing their free will to achieve their personal so-called enjoyment — cannot be pinned on the Acarya. Free will is there all to it (and, of course, the consequences of properly using or misusing it).

As for the number of disciples, it certainly isn’t a numbers game. Numbers are irrelevant; what’s relevant is eligibility (adhikara). Palena parciyate. Srila Prabhupada, as a perfect devotee representing guru-parampara (of all the 31 predecessor Acaryas listed in the introduction to Bhagavad-gita As It Is) gave real/genuine bhakti-lata-bija to all his initiated disciples. That eternal bija can help every one of his genuinely initiated disciple develop their full potential of devotional service at one’s one phase culminating in love of Godhead (guru-krsna-prasade paya bhakti-lata-bija; je prasade pure sarva asa). On the other hand, what was, is and will be, planted by “ISKCON” gurus, former, present and future, on their chelas are these following two deviant bijas (not to be confused with bhakti-lata-bija): 1. “ISKCON” bija 2. bogus-guru-bija. Being unauthorised by the guru-parampara (i.e., opposing guru, sadhu & sastra), neither one of these deviant bijas can devotionally help a devotee; rather, these bijas are totally detrimental to their unfortunate victims in KC engagement and progress. That’s the difference: One is transcendental, while the others, i.e., cheap imitations, are worldly.

3 Nitai das { 06.10.17 at 12:20 }

Blisstering boom bam bom! you da man kailash prabhu obeisances to you from all sides

4 Meena dd { 07.01.17 at 17:38 }

The ritvik system of initiation is working very nicely under the direction of Madhu pandit in Bangalore and now also a preaching effort under the direction of Sundar gopal in Singapore. They are not the nasty, foul-mouthed name calling variety. But rather show perfect gentlemanly behavior befitting a bhramana and speak only referenced to Srila Prabupada’s books and instructions. Logically it makes sense that if there is to be an institution there is no room for many “gurus” within it’s structure. Certainly a GBC would have no business instructing an actual guru. But there is room for those who would take up that service, guru, to do so outside the institution.

5 Kailasa Candra dasa { 07.08.17 at 17:21 }

Each of us is responsible for his or her influence. I am disappointed to see that you have aligned yourself with the hard ritvik. Does this mean that you are condemning any future gurus for the next 9500 years in our line? If so, where do you get this authority from Prabhupad’s purports and letters? By now you should be aware that the ritviks throughout the world are not at all united. So, you are deciding to become an enemy of soft ritvik? If so, are you prepared to make propaganda against their apasiddhanta?

You have now decided to take a plunge into the sea of heart break known as hard ritvik. Hopefully you are wearing a life preserver, and if the Piper brings you to reason and you are able to swim to the shore of actual logic and intelligence, please contact us again. We shall at that time help to bring you back to your senses.

Leave a Comment