KCD’s Monthly Podcast – November 2022

Podcast transcription:

Oppressive and Aggressive: The Zonal Äcärya Takeover

by Kailäsa Candra däsa

HARIÙ OÀ NAMAÙ

To mistake material energy for spiritual (or to mistake spiritual energy to be material) is the plight of deluded souls. This delusion of all conditioned souls situated in the lower modes extends to process, as logically it must. To mistake a material process as being conducive to spiritual advancement is certainly a manifestation of avidyä. This particular avidyä is strongly promoted in organized religions which are not under the direct and perfect guidance of THE ÄCÄRYA. The fabricated, so-called “ISKCON” confederation is one such institution.

Anti-matter means there are two things: Spirit and matter. Anti-matter means spirit. Matter is destructible, but anti-matter is not. A genuine religion or sanätana-dharma is an occult theism. It requires perfect knowledge free from all corruption or compromise. Its process for deliverance from matter must also be perfect. A genuine bhakti process must be perfectly connected to the transcendental world of anti-matter in order to produce the real result, vimukti.

The living entities belong to the category of superior energy or anti-matter, but they are now deeply entangled in matter. The very word anti-material indicates that its principle is in opposition to material qualities. Organized religion in Kali-yuga includes “ISKCON,” Neo-Mutt, and Rittvik. They disguise themselves as representing an anti-material organization and process. Superficially, they can and do pull this off to the detriment of unfortunate people who possess a poor fund of knowledge.

The Supreme Personality in that anti-material realm is the Ultimate Source and Controller Himself. The denizens of the anti-material world possess eternal life, perfect knowledge, and great bliss. In other words, they have almost all the qualifications of God. You cannot reach that realm if you adopt the faulty process of organized religion in Kali-yuga.

“ISKCON” separated itself from the anti-material realm—it lost its link—when it imposed the zonal äcärya catastrophe near the end of the Seventies. That was a material process under-girded by avidyä. It flamed out in less than a decade, because it was so outrageous. As your author has pointed out many times, that zonal äcärya imposition was The First Transformation of what then only appeared to still be Çréla Prabhupäda’s pure branch of Lord Caitanya’s Hare Kåñëa movement.

When the situation became too absurd to continue, second tier men were able to take over and replace the zonal äcärya imposition with but another transformation, which was also completely unauthorized.

Professor Blueblood, with a handful of allies, brought in The Second Transformation in the mid-Eighties. It was meant to replace the zonal äcärya system, and, as far as that objective was concerned, it was successful. Its leader acknowledged that he and the others were second tier; that admission remains commendable. That fledgling movement–due to, in no small measure, the potent position papers of its leader–soon ushered in The Second Transformation. This brought the high-flying pretenders down to the madhyam platform, allegedly.

There were more than eleven of them by that time, but not many more. Professor Blueblood’s initiative also, de facto, ostracized those of the ostentatious zonals who were implicated in scandals, mostly of the sexual variety with their own disciples. We shall return to more discussion about The Second Transformation subsequently.

Most of you–if not virtually all of you–do not remember how aggressive and oppressive the zonal äcärya takeover was back in the late Seventies. That zonal hoax was (mostly) jettisoned by 1987, and it was followed by a kinder and gentler demonstration, granted. That change dulled the memory of what the scheme actually was for most devotees.

In this article, you are receiving a reminder of it. That kinder and gentler demeanor of The Second Transformation was not at all the case when the zonals roared in. You were prone to be labeled a demon if you found any fault in them, although the imposition was chock full of faults and deviations from the order to THE ÄCÄRYA. You were, in effect (if not outright), ostracized—at least to some extent–if you criticized it.

False personality defends itself. Eleven false egos—all of whom individually adopted a false personality in order to complement their styles and powers of attraction—combined to prop up the zonal concoction. Their greatest potential threat came from sannyäsés and the temple presidents, especially if those presidents united.

One such man, the president of Bombay, entered into a like-minded alliance with three discontented and well-known leaders at the Krishna Balarama center. This semi-secret group, which disseminated some basic criticism of the high-flying styles and worship of the eleven great pretenders, was forged in the last months of 1978.

At that time, it consisted of two temple presidents, one prominent sannyäsé, and a former secretary and intellectual (Pradyumna). They rejected how the zonals were carrying out the mission. These four all had powerful reputations in the movement. They also all carried significant weight in India, and three of them were Prabhupäda favorites.

The Bombay president penned a position paper, which, in hindsight, was rather mild in its criticism of the zonals. Instead of taking up his points of contention, however, the Zonal Empire struck back hard in the form of a blistering reply from one of its most aggressive leaders.

That was Hansadutta. He was not only still in good standing in 1978 but was considered to be the most successful of the new gurus . . . at that time. He was making more new devotees and establishing his fiery brand of Kåñëa consciousness (if you choose to label it as such) in his zone, which covered extensive territory worldwide.

Herein is discussed how he responded. In reading and assimilating this reply, remember that the key element to glean from it is how tough and seemingly impenetrable the zonal imposition was. If you failed to remember this before, be prepared to realize it now.

If you vaguely remember it for what it was, this reiteration of Hansadutta’s reply should serve to jog your memory as to how severe the imposition was and how it dealt with malcontents. It erected its all-pervasive roof over everyone—especially over initiated members—in Prabhupäda’s movement. It manhandled the movement in the form of what we now recognize to be a smash-and-grab gambit.

It was not imposed via brahminical method, and Hansadutta’s response here is anything but brahminical in both style or substance. Forthwith, we shall make intermittent comments in relation to Hansadutta’s vociferous accusations from his reply to the Bombay temple president.

“You are just causing discord by issuing your own ideas and incomplete understandings. . . . Stop criticizing others. Follow the instructions of your guru . . . and try to help the appointed initiating gurus to spread Krishna consciousness all over the world. That will be of practical benefit. Your paper is of no practical benefit.”

Here we are reminded that everyone in the movement was still under the illusion that Prabhupäda had appointed those eleven men to be initiating spiritual masters, although that actually had no validation. He made no such appointment. The Bombay president’s paper is labeled a vehicle of discord, but what was the real source of discord?

“It is bringing devotional service to a standstill rather than advancing it. . . . Keep quiet. Try to come to this platform of perfection. That is more important than issuing disruptive papers like the one you have issued. What is the value of finding fault? . . . Don’t write these papers and don’t cause disruption. Things are going on nicely without your cloud of ignorance being spread over ISKCON in the form of your essay. . . . The paper . . . is causing so much discord and confusion in ISKCON. . . .”

The totalitarian thread under-girding the zonal äcärya imposition is on full display in this excerpt. “Keep quiet.” How was there any possibility for even reform, any reform, with this being the attitude of the “new eleven heartbeats”? If the zonal scheme was so authorized, then how could a relatively insignificant position paper of a temple president—which was not well-circulated by any stretch of the imagination—cause “so much discord and confusion”? It couldn’t, unless there was something of substance it was revealing . . . or at least prodding.

He says to the Bombay man: “Try to come to this platform of perfection.” This platform? Obviously, he is referring to himself and the other ten. He is saying that he and they are perfect. He also admonishes the temple president with what appears to be a rhetorical question: “What is the value of finding fault?” Yet, Hansadutta’s diatribe consists of almost nothing but finding fault in another of the movement’s leaders, one who was almost as prominent as Hansadutta, especially in India.

“A person who is not sitting on the vyasasana should not criticize a person who is sitting on the vyasasana. . . . You have caused havoc in ISKCON. . . . The eleven initiating gurus are appreciating Shrila Prabhupada, and they are continuing to spread his glories. And you are trying to depreciate Shrila Prabhupada by depreciating the devotees who are appreciating Shrila Prabhupada and trying to make others appreciate (him).”

Somehow or other capture the gadi; then automatically, you are no longer subject to criticism. By hook and by crook (and by massive deception and force), the eleven great pretenders—including Hansadutta—secured their so-called vyäsasäns in all the temples of the world (although not at all strongly at Krishna-Balaram). Thus, they promoted themselves, artificially, as being beyond criticism.

The Bombay temple president is accused as causing havoc throughout the movement for what turned out to be, in the end, legitimate criticism of opulent worship of banal men, all of whom did not deserve any worship at all. Instead, they fully deserved to be cursed and condemned.

Hansadutta pulls out ye old transitive card: If you depreciate us, you are depreciating Prabhupäda. This is highly unethical and illogical on his part, but he was shooting from the hip throughout the reply. Hansadutta knew it well that, by that time of late 1978, the movement had been stocked with new men. Many of them were anti-intellectual, fanatical, and driven by lower emotions—all in the name of bhakti, of course.

They were readily prone to equate the eleven pretenders with Prabhupäda, because almost none of them had direct experience of Prabhupäda. Also, the vast majority of them never understood the exalted status of an uttama-adhikäré. As such, appreciating Hansadutta was equated to loving Prabhupäda, and the new rank-and-file were exposed to that programming–with most of them buying fully into it.

“So those few people are his initiating gurus, and you are not one of them. You are trying to drag them down into the mud. Therefore, you are not appreciating Shrila Prabhupada, because you are trying to minimize the glories of his devotees. . . . If anyone is trying to usurp Shrila Prabhupada’s position it is Giriraja Swami and not anyone else. As a matter of fact, he has done so by issuing such a paper.”

By “those few people,” he is referring to the eleven pretenders, of course. He puts the Bombay temple president in the institutional straight jacket of stratification: “There are eleven very special men, who are non-different from Prabhupäda . . . and then there are the rest, including the Bombay president. That man has no right to issue his position paper.” Hansadutta stretches the rubber band of illogical discourse to a snapping point when he exclaims that, by writing this paper, the Bombay president is trying to usurp the whole movement!

Thus, we conclude this section related to Hansadutta’s wild responses to reform suggestions from an established leader in India. His paper contained basic suggestions, nothing more. That president’s paper did not delve into any root issues. It still accepted the illusion that Prabhupäda appointed those men as dékñä-gurus, although he never did any such thing.

By his uncontrolled response, Hansadutta left himself wide open for doubt about his actual status in devotional life. By such an unfounded and accusatory display of negative emotion, any objective reader of his diatribe would be forced to question how he could be considered an advanced devotee, what to speak of an initiating spiritual master . . . and what to speak of being one of Prabhupäda’s successors!

Remember, back in the day, during the incipient moments of the zonal äcärya takeover, all eleven were believed to be successors to Prabhupäda. They took the same worship. They imitated his titles. They controlled all of the devotees in their zones . . . that is, once they drove out (either directly or indirectly) those that did not knuckle under.

Secondly and more importantly, reflecting back to that sordid time in the Hare Kåñëa movement, Hansadutta’s reply is a stark reminder of the psychological vice grip those eleven men had on almost everyone connected to the organization. It also is a harsh reminder of how they dealt with malcontents, who they ran through the grease. Doing that by emoting about what was allegedly their motives—combined with vilification and character assassination (and, in some cases, G.B.C. authorized ostracism)–the eleven pretenders paved the way for their own upheaval, scattering, and eventual termination.

Hansadutta led the way in this regard. He also wound up being the first of the new gurus to be institutionally chastised by the vitiated G.B.C., a step forced upon them due to necessity for damage control relative to Hansadutta’s extreme statements and outrageous actions.

Do not think for a moment that being a Gauòéya Vaiñëava whistleblower from back in the day was anywhere near as easy as it is now. On the contrary, it was exceedingly difficult, and made more so when the whistle was blown loudly, effectively, and accurately.

Hansadutta’s diatribe was blatant, but it was not at all outside the range of the “ISKCON” norm. All eleven of those men thought the same way, similar to how he did. They were more careful, that’s all. Yet, this particular response from Hansadutta to one of his peers—a company man through and through—is nothing more than a grain of rice from the “ISKCON” rice bowl. The root causes have not been eradicated, and the cause remains still buried in today’s current effect.

Now, let us return to The Second Transformation. It was not bona fide, i.e., it was only a SUPERFICIAL improvement. Even that improvement waned in the second half of the Eighties. It had to fade, because of all the previously initiated—improperly initiated—devotees who were only willing to cooperate with it to a limited extent.

The Second Transformation ushered in pressure on those Seventies newcomers (those that were not initiated by Prabhupäda) to get re-initiated by one of the former “mahä-bhägavats”–the ones it approved as continuing to remain dékñä-gurus. They had to reject that opulent worship from the past decade in order to achieve the new sanction.

Of course, there was another powerful factor: Some of those leaders of The Second Transformation (such as the good Professor) were able to become recognized themselves, by the vitiated G.B.C., as dékñä-gurus. After all, those second tier men controlled the governing body no later than the Spring of 1987; as such, manipulating it in order to rubber stamp themselves as gurus was eventually achieved. Actually, some of them achieved it as early as the Spring of 1986. The self-motivation of those fellows should be obvious in this connection.

The Second Transformation recognized the initiations of newcomers by some of the pretender mahä-bhägavats, as aforementioned. Those gurus who adhered to the new transformation were considered to still be bona fide spiritual masters. In effect, that meant that the commission recognized their improper initiations as still legitimate. This was both unethical and illogical. It was an audacious compromise and certainly represented horrific institutional meddling.

The Second Transformation was ushered in through G.B.C. imprimatur. It made all kinds of compromises. It replaced äcärya tyranny with collective collegiate tyranny— äcärya here referring to each of the eleven in their individual sectors as formerly popes of their zones. The fact is that the collegiate camel, with bureaucracy, got its nose under the “ISKCON” tent via a second tier rebellion of the mid-Eighties. In effect, it replaced one cheating concoction with but another one.

TATTVAMASI

What Professor Blueblood and his peers (who then became first echelon via the transformation) imposed was an institutional compromise that did nothing to ACTUALLY uproot the zonal äcärya catastrophe. The Second Transformation and its leader should not be glorified. Instead, he should be seen for what he did and discredited. Although, in 1984, his reform started out with some potential to become something of value, in the end, it was nothing more than a replacement deviation.

Due to its compromises, it was a whitewash; the guru-paramparä cannot allow any compromise concerning guru and initiated disciples. As such, The Second Transformation continued to break the law of disciplic succession, but (mostly) in a different way. How could the sahajiyäs of the previous transformation be recognized as genuine dékñä-gurus? They were imposters. This is now acknowledged by many of you. How could all of their improper initiations still be recognized as legitimate? The answer ‘ISKCON” had for that was its institutionalism in the mid-Eighties, led by Professor Blueblood.

“ISKCON” was meant to be a society governed by Vaiñëava laws, which are the cream of Vedic laws. Such laws cannot be broken by whimsical concoctions full of institutional compromise. However, it is a mistake to believe that the era of the zonals was itself free from institutionalism. It was not, as it could have only gained its foothold via G.B.C. imprimatur. However, it was not completely dependent upon bureaucracy, because the wild-card gurus in their zones—once they achieved that original G.B.C. mandate—often rebelled against G.B.C. resolutions, what to speak of ever accepting advice from the Commish.

The Second Transformation appeared to return “ISKCON” to a society of laws, but there was a problem: Its new laws were mostly concoctions by the vitiated G.B.C. Although not completely, the mid-Eighties Commish compromised with too many of the bogus gurus and their bogus initiations conducted during the previous era—which, to reiterate, it rubber-stamped in the first place in 1978. A Vaiñëava society governed by generic Vaiñëava laws and tradition must be completely honest, ethical, and transparent. It must also follow the edicts and strictures inculcated by its Founder-Äcärya. The Second Transformation came nowhere close to meeting that standard.

For what reason do Vaiñëavas aspire to achieve (and then maintain) a society based upon spiritual and devotional law? The reason is to establish real ethics and actual justice. Can “ISKCON” actually boast that it is a pure and shining example of genuine Vaiñëava theocracy? At the outset of The Second Transformation, did it institute authorized and reasonable resolutions and laws for the benefit of its members and the Vaiñëava community at large? These are rhetorical questions, obviously.

There was no justice to be found in “ISKCON” if it did not—and it did not. Is was both tyrannical and capricious in what it implemented when that suited its purposes. Since the zonal catastrophe of the late Seventies, is there anything that is ACTUALLY fair to be found in “ISKCON”?

“ISKCON” is not a culture that promotes real Vaiñëava meritocracy nor is it an institution that is based upon what is supposed to be its founding principles from the mid-Sixties. It is certainly not a sublime institution, although superficially it may appear to be. Ultimately, there is no äçrama or spiritual security to be had in it. It is, instead, a wounded institution with no basis of reality for any of the colorful ceremonies it conducts. It has irreversibly changed the law of disciplic succession via bureaucratic, institutional meddling.

Let us now segue to a different analysis central to this month’s theme. The format of the Vedänta-sütra is somewhat complicated, but, in order to simplify it for this presentation, let us first consider the topic. The Vedänta-sütra is divided into topics, known as adhikäraëas. There are many sütras in each topic. Those sütras are then followed with a commentary by THE ÄCÄRYA; in the case of the Gauòéya presentation, that would be the Govinda Bhäsya of Baladeva Vidyäbhüñaëa.

The sütra is preceded by a doubt. The doubt presents two conflicting opinions: One right and the other wrong. This binary is then picked up by the pürva-pakña, who expands upon it, pushing the wrong conclusion. The sütra is then presented, which is the siddhänta. There are exceptions to this format in the book, but they are somewhat infrequent; it would be going off on a tangent to explain any of those.

The siddhänta and its purport dispels the binary of the doubt and the wrong idea of the pürva-pakña. Due to the sütra’s concise, cryptic nature, it requires a commentary in order to ascertain and understand the siddhänta. In other words, both the sütra and its purport dismantle the wrong idea expounded by the pürva-pakña, along with rationalizations that accompany such a wrong idea.

We shall now follow a similar format, applying it to the “ISKCON” conclusions related to their pre-suppositions. In presenting the siddhäntas, it is to be known that any and all references to THE ÄCÄRYA are indeed only references to A. C. Bhaktivedänta Swämi Prabhupäda. In this application of the Vedänta-sütra format, the pürva-pakña is what “ISKCON” loyalists and fanatics believe, even if unexpressed.

“ISKCON” will argue that its hive mind, represented by the group think of its governing body, is not only an acceptable way to carry on the guru-paramparä, but the best way to continue it. “ISKCON” will argue that its “best men” were selected for membership in the G.B.C. and tasked with continuing the sampradäya in any resourceful way they believed would work. The institutionalists will thus argue that the G.B.C. has absolute authority and is the final arbiter at all times. It could use the following excerpt from the critique of Thomas Hobbes in Dialectical Spiritualism:

Leading Secretary: Hobbes felt that the Leviathan, or ruler, need not obey the law. Now according to the Vedic conception, is the king or the monarch above the law?

Prabhupäda: No. The king is also under the law.

Leading Secretary: He also said that this 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. . . either singular or plural, if all of them or single (must actually be) representative of God abiding by the laws.

As such, “ISKCON” loyalists will cavil that, at all times in all circumstances, simply follow the G.B.C. Even if it is wrong, it is still right, since it has been granted an automatic, self-corrective mechanism. The pürva-pakña argues that the G.B.C. must be followed. He will argue that loyalty to it is absolutely necessary in order remain linked to His Divine Grace Çréla Prabhupäda and the Gauòéya guru-paramparä.

This is the argument of the pürva-pakña. However, the siddhänta is: The G.B.C. is not to be followed due to its many deviations since the late Seventies from the orders of THE ÄCÄRYA, due to the transformations of THE ÄCÄRYA’s movement it has approved and allowed to transpire, and due to the negative impacts of those changes.

There remains no solid evidence whatsoever that there was ever any sanction from THE ÄCÄRYA when the vitiated G.B.C. gave its imprimatur to the eleven great pretenders. As we all know now, they had only been approved as rittviks less than a year previous to the zonal imposition. This fact was hidden from the rank-and-file for many years. When the G.B.C. converted rittviks to dékñä-gurus (and then recognized them as qualified to accept uttama-adhikäré worship), it proved to be an international imposition that was nothing short of catastrophic.

Nowhere is to be found any order from THE ÄCÄRYA to follow the governing body at all times in all circumstances. In point of fact, THE ÄCÄRYA suspended the G.B.C. in the Spring of 1972 and transferred all of its power back to the temple presidents. As soon as the G.B.C. allowed (and voted in) eleven former rittviks to be uttama-adhikäré dékñä-gurus, it flagrantly disobeyed the order of THE ÄCÄRYA, as per this section from the all-important room conversation at Krishna-Balaram in May, 1977:

Prabhupäda: They’re his disciple.

Leading Secretary (1): They’re his disciple.

Prabhupäda: Who is initiating. His grand disciple.

Leading Secretary (2): Yes.

Leading Secretary (1): That’s clear.

Leading Secretary (2): Then we have a question concerning . . .

Prabhupäda: When I order, “You become guru,” he becomes regular guru. That’s all. He becomes disciple of my disciple. That’s it.

It was the duty of the G.B.C. men, all of whom were in attendance at that meeting, to ask for clarification as to the term “regular guru.” It was introduced for the first time, but the concept was not at all new. This request for clarification was not done by any of the commissioners.

Was it even noticed that this term had the adjective “regular” attached to it? What did that mean? The dictionary says that it means under regulation. An uttama-adhikäré is not under any regulation, as he has transcended that status even in a stage before he became mahä-bhägavat.

This inquiry should have been made, unless they understood what the term meant. Just previously, two of them said everything was clear. That so-called clarity is highly questionable, because none of them acted as regular gurus when the zonal äcärya imposition was implemented.

Their imitation of THE ÄCÄRYA was a major deviation. It was not at all sanctioned. Prabhupäda only generically sanctioned the CONCEPT of regular guru to continue his branch of the line. He did not appoint any regular gurus. He appointed only rittviks, who are not initiating spiritual masters. There is no official record of Prabhupäda appointing or recognizing, specifically by name, any regular spiritual masters.

The vitiated G.B.C. appointed its own gurus, and it then allowed them to be worshiped as anything but regular gurus. It approved initiating zones for them. It allowed them to accept imitation Prabhupäda names. It allowed them to accept pranäm mantras signifying undeserved glorification. It allowed them to take the same opulent worship that Prabhupäda took from his disciples and followers. It allowed them to accept worship from their own godbrothers and godsisters in front of open, installed Deities in virtually all of the movement’s temple rooms.

All of those outrageous actions were sanctioned by the vitiated G.B.C. All of them constitute major deviations from the order of THE ÄCÄRYA, and the vitiated G.B.C. bears responsibility. The impositions transformed the movement in almost every way. It became an entirely different movement, with but a few exceptions . . . and even those faded in time.

Added to this, there has been a plethora of negative impacts. The world has been flooded with improperly initiated people. They push all kinds of nescience on behalf of their organization. They all believe their materially infected movement is actually anti-material or spiritual.

They are all unable to accept the spiritual knowledge and historical accuracy being transmitted in our presentations. As such, they ignore or dismiss or criticize them . . . if they even know about them. The negative impacts of The First Transformation and The Second Transformation have turned into force multipliers, and the warping of what only superficially appears to be the Hare Kåñëa movement continues unabated.

This is because the movement—or rather, its facsimile—has become dishonest, unethical, corrupt, and compromised by material energies such as feminism; it thus slides down a slippery slope. It can only produce more compromise over time. That is because of the vitiated G.B.C.’s neglect to analyze and apply THE ÄCÄRYA’s actual order for over four decades running. As such, the conclusion or the siddhänta is that this G.B.C., since that time in 1978, must be fully rejected.

The G.B.C. is the hand within the “ISKCON” glove, but that glove was really nasty during The First Transformation. We should not forget that. We should not forget how oppressively and aggressively the zonal äcärya takeover was implemented. We should not forget how severely it dealt with those who criticized it.

It was a deceptive glove covering the hand of the vitiated G.B.C. inside it, a hand that was (and remains) thoroughly implicated in all the nescience that has gone down in the name of the anti-material world—which it certainly does not represent. If you are reading this article, it is presumed that you will either read (or listen to) it to its end. As such, you have also now been reminded about the truth of that catastrophic zonal era.

The cause remains in the effect today, as that cause was never uprooted. That cause is the massive deviation of the G.B.C. from Prabhupäda’s explicit and implicit orders and desires for his movement. The vitiated G.B.C. is doing its own thing, and it has been doing so for a very long time. It is far, far beyond the stage of being reformed. The “ISKCON” glove itself may superficially be cleaner now than it was back in the late Seventies, but that does not mean it is actually clean. More importantly, that certainly does not mean that the hand within it is clean.

How many deviations are you prepared to overlook and ignore? What about F.D.G.? It is a massive deviation, proof positive that “ISKCON” is still acting upon its worn tendency to do its own thing in order to become popular with faithless feminists.

The colossal hoax known as the fabricated, so-called “ISKCON” confederation is a pseudo-spiritual scam. It has been able to proliferate (to some limited extent) only because of the general ignorance of the mass of innocent devotees, those unable to see past its superficial displays of so-called devotion. Such innocence is not ranked high on the scale of important qualities for a theistic transcendentalist, but the “ISKCON” leaders are past masters of invoking false humility to exploit it.

Humility is not the same thing as humiliation. Perhaps you should consider a return to square one. Consider remembering—or, if you are too young for that and were not a part of it, analyzing–just how oppressive it was at that time, and analyze how aggressive the cult’s leaders were when they implemented the zonal äcärya hoax. That may wake you up.

If you have made it to the end of either this article or podcast, thank you. Recognize, since you have done so, that you are no longer an innocent. That change of status is a wanted spiritual development for you. Please note also that it is accompanied by the responsibility to stop contributing to (and remaining on board) a leaking boat called “ISKCON” as it drifts down the river to nowhere. . . Think about these things.

SAD EVA SAUMYA