On Bad Logic and Useful Idiots

February, 2020

by Kailäsa Candra däsa

Leading secretary: … sometimes you find an idiot, he can look at a column of figures and he can compute the sum in his head very easily, but he can’t even understand how to tie his shoes. And many of these scholars are like that. They’re actually idiots, but they have one talent for Sanskrit or for history, and because of that they can get along…
Prabhupäda: Çüdra. Unless he gets that post, he’ll starve. He has got some talent in some particular subject, but he must get some service.
Room Conversation, 7-9-73 in London

Military men are just dumb, stupid animals to be used as pawns . . .”
Henry Kissinger

In order to warp the cult’s sordid history by applying an anodyne, intellectual emphasis on “balance,” you become the useful idiot of the fabricated, so-called “ISKCON” confederation. The post-1977 legacy of “ISKCON” is harsh, and delineating that fact without compromise is also necessarily harsh. Applying such bad logic (in the name of balance and so-called fairness) when considering or describing its deviations is both counterproductive and a distraction.

The Vaiñëava standard of logic and balance is not the same as that of the mundane. To be really fair entails being right, and that cannot deviate from guru or çästra. Devouring the fresh garbage that “ISKCON” regularly feeds its minions is indicative of a mundane mentality that has no place in telling it like it is . . . and THE TRUTH is that reform is no longer relevant, either.

Although the Western ethic differs, to be fair for its own sake is illogical, and it is never considered a value in Kåñëa consciousness. One man’s (or one cult’s) definition of fairness is always too subjective. The old adage of life not being fair is really not the issue when it comes to striking genuine balance in a devotional presentation; the issue is whether or not that balance contains good logic. Even more importantly, it must contain the right interpretation, thus pleasing the guru-paramparä.

The argument can be made—and has been made—that, despite the unprecedented deviations and egregious discrepancies of the “new gurus” (especially those who pushed the zonal äcärya imposition), the movement has expanded since then. Let us, for argument’s sake, accept this point without quibbling about it. Those advocating a balanced presentation of that epoch (which ran out of steam in about eight years), opine that this expansion should be highlighted at or near the capstone of the “ISKCON” pyramid scheme.

Logically, however, honest advocates for such a viewpoint must also ask:

1) What was the quality of that expansion?

2) Did such expansion also include any real vertical expansion?

3) What was the overall attrition when the zonal äcärya scheme—and the re-initiation backstop applied to it at its fag end–was then abandoned?

4) Was the zonal äcärya imposition authorized by guru-paramparä?

If it is concluded that The First Transformation was not authorized by His Divine Grace, does a so-called balanced presentation of it—one which unduly accentuates, for example, an increase in congregational bodies–actually amount to anything more than a hill of beans?

A balanced approach of the pros and cons to post-1977 “ISKCON” (as if there is anything other than cons) may be well-received in scholastic circles, but it does not help us put the pieces of the “ISKCON” puzzle together in a logical way. It is particularly unhelpful when also shot through with compromise. Simply to be popular with scholars, like-minded authors, and other enablers (even if considered in the context of a quasi-Eastern ethic), why allow a cherished principle of balance to trump the much higher principles of logic and çästric truth?

On Balance and Compromise

“ Lord Caitanya wanted that the message should be distributed in every village and town of the globe. Let us do this service as far as possible in all seriousness. We can not make any compromise with anyone for cheap popularity.”
Letter to Brahmänanda, 12-21-67

Art is no compromise.”
Christian Bale

We are all responsible for our influence. In the name of balance or fairness, merely describing the history of a deviation—without making it crystal clear how and why it is a deviation—will likely earn you plaudits in certain circles. You may be reputed as unbiased by like-minded scholars, researchers, authors, and similar enablers . . . that is, allegedly unbiased. It may get you good reviews, but your influence will not serve to reveal THE TRUTH. Au contraire, reporting history in a balanced but mundane presentation will produce vikarmic reactions in the long run, although intentionally engaging in mal-interpretation is worse.

In the summer of 1985, I was Sulochan’s editor, and he very much needed one. Being with him in his van for that stretch, I got to know him. Such close association makes one privy to another’s strengths and weaknesses. He was way ahead of his time in terms of research, realizations from that research, and manipulating technology. He was highly personal but could switch gears: He could be alone for long periods of time in order to concentrate on his project. He could also read between the lines. He had many outstanding qualities, but he also had notable defects.

One of these was his advocating “the middle path.” It is emphasized in Buddhism (as most of you know), but, even there, it is not followed by all of the Buddhist sects. It was particularly contradictory that Sulochan pushed it—although the reason why is not too difficult to figure out. It was especially ironic due to the fact that ALL of his spiritual success was predicated upon those decisions he made when he DID NOT follow anything even remotely indicative of a middle path.

All of his successes—including post-mortem—came to him as a result of following a very different trajectory. This includes the indisputable fact that (and it is extreme, because almost all of us want to survive) he possessed a martyrdom complex, set himself up for being martyred, and, in the Spring of 1986, wound up being the preeminent martyr of the Western Hare Kåñëa movement.

Also, it was extreme to go on the attack against, arguably, the most powerful zonal äcärya of the day. “Bhaktipäda” was well-known for drawing hard lines himself, and, combined with his penchant for ruthlessness, there was nothing at all moderate when Sulochan decided to go hard directly at him. Is there any kind of middle way involved when you threaten your adversary with death?

Sulochan, once he was cheated out of his sons, led a life that, in most ways, cannot be considered balanced. He was mostly correct in his conclusions, and that has been proven. His actions and writings against Kértanänanda—which expanded to also include heavy criticism of the vitiated G.B.C.—created big-time losses for both. He paid the ultimate price, of course, in that battle.

Nevertheless, the point here is that, if he had taken some kind of so-called balanced approach, almost all (if not all) of the reversals that Kértanänanda and the Commish experienced (soon after his murder) would not have gone down; at least, they would not have gone down as quickly and powerfully as they did.

On another related note, Çréla Prabhupäda was initially considering The International Society for God Consciousness as a moniker for his organization. That would have been a moderate label, approved by many scholarly and religious Westerners. As we all know, he opted against such “balanced” terminology for his corporation, and went straight to one which explicitly included Kåñëa.

Only fools admire milquetoast presentations, which, in almost all cases, are also chock full of compromise. Bhakti-yoga is not spread through such an approach. That kind of “balance” is not a primary value in Kåñëa consciousness, and compromise must be thoroughly eschewed. Useful idiots gravitate toward both, but none of them escape responsibility for such anti-Vedic, anti-Vaiñëava influence.

On Splendid Dupes

“It is the duty of the sane to hear Çrémad-Bhägavatam from a self-realized soul and not be duped by professional men.”
Çrémad-Bhägavatam, 2.8.3, purport

Evil always wins through the strength of its splendid dupes.”
G. K. Chesterton

Logic is based upon valid inference. If you are one who relies upon mundane emotion and desire (which is often wrongly thought of as spiritual), this section will appear dry. Still, Vaiñëava logic affords us the best possible spiritual decisions without interference from mundane emotions. It is Vedic. It did not begin in Greece, as is the wrong belief (mistaken knowledge) of many if not most Westerners.

Many munis have struggled to unlock the intricacies of rational thought, but common sense is not very mysterious. Our articles are full of common sense, and we reference that within the paradigm of çästra, along with quotes from the Founder-Äcärya and previous äcäryas. Many Westerners—especially Americans—believe themselves to be eminently logical; however, in most cases, they envision a false appraisal of where they are actually situated. This same lacuna is most acute in quasi-spiritual cults, and “ISKCON” leads the pack there.

Yet, its first echelon leaders are not illogical men. They did not achieve their statuses and powers manipulated by their own internal emotions. Instead, they learned the black art—and logic was also applied as a supplemental—to manipulate others’ emotions. They were very successful with splendid dupes such as the kick-mees, the chelas, the fanatics and zealots, the materially attached, and those who have to be dependent upon some leader; they were not successful, however, with the devotees who never abandoned the logic advocated by Bhagavad-gita:

“According to learned scholars, there are three different sources of knowledge, which are called prasthäna-traya. According to these scholars, Vedänta ( Brahma-sütra) is one of such sources, for it presents Vedic knowledge on the basis of logic and sound arguments. In the Bhagavad-gétä, the Lord says, brahma-sütra-padaiç caiva hetumadbhir viniçcitaiù: ‘Understanding of the ultimate goal of life is ascertained in the Brahma-sütra by legitimate logic and argument concerning cause and effect.’”
Caitanya-caritämåta, Ädi 7.106, purport

You become prone to many mistakes when you consider irrationality to be the same as supra-rationality. The “ISKCON” leaders are pleased when they find followers enamored by this misconception. Yes, in the spiritual world, everything is supra-rational, far beyond the level of logic (even when bona fide) that helps us here in conditional life. However, irrationality is completely different. It is ensconced in the mode of ignorance (tamo-guëa), whereas genuine logic is an ornament of the man or the woman situated in the mode of goodness (sattva-guëa).

The enablers of the so-called “ISKCON” confederation are not in the mode of goodness, although, superficially, they may appear to be sattvic. When the winds of change shift—as they have three times in “ISKCON” thus far–only those with a strong, logical foundation remained moored in genuine Kåñëa consciousness. If you were already outside of the “ISKCON” ever-vacillating paradigm, you are in a better position to have remained uninfluenced by any of its transformations.

Those in the opposite condition are prone to downplay the importance of genuine logic, or, even worse, have already become “ISKCON” enablers themselves. Such splendid dupes will not gain access into the heavenly planets at the time of death, what to speak of the spiritual world.

On Interpretation

“So in this way–misinterpretation, mal-interpretation–people are gliding down to abominable condition of this material life. So, our Kåñëa consciousness movement is a protest against all this nonsense, and therefore, sometimes we are unpopular.”
Platform Lecture, in Indore, India, 12-13-70

Common sense is as rare as genius.”
Emerson

There are three considerations here: Interpretation, Wrong Interpretation, and Mal-interpretation. It takes some common sense in order to distinguish them from one another. When there is a need for interpretation of a meaning in scripture or a meaning of a statement from the spiritual master, then interpret we must. We must interpret it in context, and we must interpret it in a logical way, one which does not contradict çästra or previous statements from the guru.

People in the lower modes, when it comes to such interpretation, invariably engage in misinterpretation. Unintentionally making the wrong interpretation is bad enough, but intentional mal-interpretation is very grievous. For example, let us take those eleven appointed rittviks from 1977. It was nothing more than a rejuvenation of a previous system of initiation from recent years. Their appointment, however, was subject to all three kinds of interpretation just listed.

If you interpreted their appointment as a continuation of the previous system (for the vast majority of disciples from 1970), that would be the correct interpretation, i.e., a warranted interpretation. If you interpret that the one new feature inserted into their 1977 appointment was no big thing, that would also be an example of correct interpretation. Such interpretations were both logical and necessary.

What was that new wrinkle? Unlike the initial rittvik system, Çréla Prabhupäda, in 1977, informed his newly-appointed rittviks that they did not need previous approval from him (for the initiation of a prospective new initiate) prior to performing the initiation ceremony. How this was interpreted and misinterpreted—both at that time and after Prabhupäda departed physical manifestation—had a corollary effect on how the pretender mahäbhägavats were later viewed.

Prabhupäda rarely refused to grant an initiation recommendation once it had been sent to him. As such, due to his illness in the summer of 1977 (which culminated in his untimely departure a mere four months later), he did not want to invest any time or energy making such an approval. This is the logical interpretation, and it is the right one. The new feature was no big deal, and it was never meant to be interpreted as a big deal. It streamlined the initiation process after an increasing backlog of newcomers (desiring initiation) kept building from previous months.

Now, on to the misinterpretation: Call it the transitive theory. The eleven rittviks named in July, 1977 were, allegedly, meant to automatically be dékñä-gurus upon the Founder-Äcärya’s disappearance, i.e., the rittvik status automatically transferred (transitive) to that of dékñä-guru after Prabhupäda’s departure.

Let us ponder some factors here. First, those who believed this transitive idea (and still believe it, as many of them do) considered that this was the only way that Prabhupäda could appoint dékñä-gurus. Why? Well, he had to covertly appoint his future initiating äcäryas due to the envy that would otherwise be stirred up to impede them if he named them directly before he left us.

If this reads like a convenient and self-serving rationalization to you, you are not alone. Nor was this idea (misinterpretation of what the rittviks allegedly were) pushed by any devotees—at least, not on any widespread basis—during the remainder of 1977, especially before mid-November. Your author knew of no devotee, prominent or otherwise, who was advocating this idea at that time.

For most devotees who bought into it, it was an ex-post-facto misinterpretation–but not ex-post-facto for all. T.K.G. had it in mind from the beginning of the appointment of the rittviks. Indeed, the letter announcing their appointment was not even dictated by Prabhupäda. It was devised and typed up by T.K.G., and Prabhupäda’s signature was merely placed on a line labeled “approved.”

Secondly, it was obviously a self-serving rationalization. However, here we move into another category: Mal-interpretation. Once Prabhupäda departed, the question became how initiations were to continue. Prabhupäda had enjoined “regular guru, that’s all” in May, 1977. He indicated that he would name some gurus (and, if he had done so, they were meant to be regular gurus, viz., gurus under the restrictions of vidhi-sädhana bhakti), but he was still free to change his mind.

If he had named some (he didn’t) such non-liberated äcäryas would not be his successors, because his Successor could only be a fully liberated devotee, the Äcärya in the true sense of the term. None of this was understood by the rank-and-file; none of this was even relayed to them. Everyone was instead fed mis-information, and that was intentional, not accidental.

It was based upon the MAL-INTERPRATION that the appointment of rittviks (in July of 1977) could be converted into an appointment of initiating gurus, which it most definitely was not. Worse than that, however, it was converted by further mal-interpretation to be the appointment of eleven SUCCESSOR spiritual masters, who now possessed an alleged monopoly on initiating new disciples into the line of Prabhupäda’s branch of the Caitanya sampradäya.

It was further buttressed by Swämi B. R. Çrédhar in early 1978, when contingents of leading sannyasis, secretaries, and Party Men from ISKCON (not yet converted into “ISKCON” at that time) went to see him in Navadvipa. He stated that “rittvik-äcärya, then it becomes as good as äcärya.” This meant that the transitive concoction was validated by a senior godbrother of His Divine Grace. And, according to the Navadvipa mahant, they were also OBLIGED to imitate uttama-adhikäré, as well: “Mat-guru si jagat-guru,” meaning that the new disciple must view his new guru as a mahäbhägavat (Successor), against the injunction enunciated by Prabhupäda the previous May (“regular guru, that’s all”).

Of course, the eleven (former rittviks) bought into it hook, line, and sinker. The trap was now set. As an added feature to this deplorable concoction, Swami B.R. Çrédhar strongly urged them to create their own initiating zones—to become zonal äcäryas–which they did during the annual conclave that March.

Use common sense and, if you have none, then consult with others.”
Letter to Vidyä, 10-25-76

This is the common sense understanding of what went down in 1977-78. If you have common sense, then you assimilate it immediately, without doubt. The die was cast, and the conversion of ISKCON into “ISKCON” consummated. It held for two years, in no small part due to the mal-interpretation that the appointment of rittviks in 1977 was the appointment of successor Äcäryas; this was cemented by G.B.C. imprimatur in the Spring of 1978. Perhaps some of you are unable to understand this. If that is the case, Prabhupäda, in the above excerpt, presents your best option.

On Philosophical and Mental Speculation

“Generally, the spiritual master comes from the group of such eternal associates of the Lord, but anyone who follows the principles of such ever-liberated persons is as good as one in the above mentioned group. The gurus from nature’s study are accepted as such on the principle that an elevated person in Krishna consciousness does not accept anyone as disciple, but he accepts everyone as expansion of his guru.”
Letter to Janärdana, 4-26-68

“I could have wished for nothing better than a real, live guru, someone possessing superior knowledge and ability, who would have disentangled me from the involuntary creations of my imagination.”
Carl Jung

Some say that even the concept of the living guru is offensive, because it allegedly implies that there is also such a thing as a “dead guru.” When a spiritual master on the highest plane, the Äcärya, leaves physical manifestation, he is not to be considered dead like what is left behind when human beings are forced from their material bodies. Yet, guru also applies to the madhyam-adhikäré, who is referenced in the excerpt from the letter to Janärdana. Please note that Prabhupäda used the term “physical spiritual master” more than once in his preaching:

“Kåñëa is the first spiritual master, and when we become more interested, then we have to go to a physical spiritual master.”
Platform Lecture, 8-14-66 in New York

“Actually, He is the spiritual master, caitya-guru. So in order to help us, He comes out as physical spiritual master. And, therefore, säkñäd-dhari . . .”
Platform Lecture, 5-28-74 in Rome

“And the physical spiritual master is God’s mercy. If God sees that you are sincere, He will give you a spiritual master who can give you protection. He will help you from within and without, without in the physical form of spiritual master, and within as the spiritual master within the heart.”
Room Conversation with Desmond O’Grady, 5-23-74

Mental speculations abound in relation to the concept of guru. This has been proven over the last forty years. Is the guru only an uttama-adhikäré? Many believe that to be the truth, but it is not. It is, instead, an example of mental speculation:

“A person who is liberated acharya and guru cannot commit any mistake, but there are persons who are less qualified or not liberated, but still can act as guru and acharya by strictly following the disciplic succession.”
Letter to Janärdan, 4-26-68

The uttama-adhikäré (mahäbhägavat) is certainly liberated. He is the Äcärya in the true sense of the term. No sane devotee believes otherwise. Nevertheless, here in this excerpt from the letter to Janärdana—as well as in the excerpt from the same letter quoted at the beginning of this section—it is conclusively stated that there is a standard below the highest level, one in which a disciple can act as guru.

That, of course, would be the madhyam-adhikäré, the devotee at the intermediate stage. Is he a perfect man? He must be. To believe otherwise is to engage in mental speculation, a serious sin. The dumbing down of madhyam, on the other hand, has proceeded at a mind-boggling pace, particularly in “ISKCON.” To accept such deviants as madhyam-adhikäré gurus is mental speculation. Virtually everyone in “ISKCON” is entangled in mental speculation in so many ways.

Guru must be a very perfect man. He is God’s mercy, even if he is not the Äcärya in the true sense of the term:

“Now, to take such guidance means the spiritual master should also be a very perfect man. Otherwise, how can he guide?”
Platform Lecture on 3-2-66 in New York

If there is some philosophical speculation required to realize this, it is not very much—and it is not a deviation. Putting two and two together sometimes involves logic and a bit of philosophical speculation, but that is not deviation.

On the contrary, it is required. The rittviks are cent-per-cent engaged in mental speculation with their concoction that a non-manifest guru gives initiation. He does not. If you are qualified, then a physical spiritual master will be sent to you. If not, you can accept the most recent non-manifest Äcärya in the line as çikñä-guru. You are strongly urged to do so, but you cannot claim that he is your dékçä-guru.

The system of initiation ceremonies on behalf of Çréla Prabhupäda (conducted by rittviks representing him) ended in mid-November, 1977. Any speculation that goes against this stark fact is mental speculation. How the non-manifest guru helps you (as çikñä-guru) involves philosophical speculation in the beginning, and that is helpful. It is authorized. It will also assist you in potentially contacting a genuine guru on the manifest plane, i.e., a perfect man who can then be your dékçä-guru–if you recognize him for what he is, surrender to him, and please him.

Philosophical speculation lets us know (and eventually realize) that the madhyam-adhikäré must also be a perfect man— a preliminary stage of perfection, but perfection nevertheless. How could it be otherwise? To preach that the madhyam is not perfect is to push nescience in defiance of the Äcärya’s clear statement.

Carl Jung wanted a guru on the physical plane, but he did not successfully seek him out—at least, not strongly enough. He came up empty, because he also did not find a non-manifest çikñä-guru, either. That guru is available to everyone at this time, and you all know who he is. Jung was a great Western thinker, but such men, at least occasionally, engage in mental speculation, because Western philosophy is based upon mental speculation . . . but that is not the Vedic way.

ISKCON” is loaded with mental speculation. The rittviks have a system actually BASED upon mental speculation. As far as Neo-Mutt is concerned, we don’t give rat spit about it. Prabhupäda unequivocally stated that Gouòéya Mutt was useless, and he even went so far as to include this statement in his books. As such, speculation going against his clear warning (which fully applies to Neo-Mutt, also) is in the category of mental speculation. Followers of Neo-Mutt wild cards are just as deviated as the enablers and useful idiots of either “ISKCON” or Rittvik.

In summation, the guru is always a perfect man, whether or not he is the liberated Äcärya or a guru from Nature’s Study. Any and all philosophical speculation which assists in establishing this truth is acceptable. Caitya-guru will send you a bona fide guru when you are qualified to contact and accept him. The useful idiots of “ISKCON” or Rittvik all promote bogus gurus and false systems of initiations; none of them possess the necessary qualification for coming into contact with a physical spiritual master. They are all mental speculators. You are strongly urged to avoid their association, which is also chock full of bad logic.

On Purpose-Driven History

“Practically speaking, history tells us that human life is becoming more and more degraded in respect of good qualities. Even there may be some temporary advancement of technology, where is the question of being higher than previously? In Vedic literature, we find description of all kinds of wonderful machines, like great airplanes which moved as fast as the mind on the principle of sound vibration. Where is that science now?”
Letter to Upendra, 12-8-71

If history repeats itself and the unexpected always happens,
how incapable must Man be of learning from experience?
George Bernard Shaw

Degrading history also changes and repeats simultaneously. This is verified in an excerpt from a Prabhupäda letter to his famed husband and wife team:

“ . . . it can be accepted, to a certain extent, to understand that history is changing and repeating at the same time.”
Letter to Dayänanda and Nandaräëé, 8-24-68

Many, if not most, devotees—especially, those inmates inside the walls of “ISKCON”–believe that Prabhupäda’s branch of Lord Caitanya’s Kåñëa movement will save the world. There is tangential evidence for this, but, at the same time, it cannot be applied to what superficially appears to be his movement.

“ . . . (the) time will come and history will give evidence that this movement saved the human society from being fallen into barbarianism.”
Letter to Jayaçré, 11-13-68

The current “ISKCON” movement is not being referenced here, although there will be those who dispute that fact. The world is degrading. The Western world, particularly in the cities, is cratering. It has not descended into barbarianism yet, but there are already some signs of that. The phenomenal increase in communication technology—in a sense, a post-modern miracle—lends apparent credence to a contrary perspective, but Prabhupäda disputes it. Having faith in what he says, we should not believe Western techno-progress is all that it is cracked up to be.

Yes, the advent of the INTERNET has facilitated getting THE TRUTH out to the people, and some of them are catching on. Our particular organization is most grateful for the INTERNET and other post-modern technologies. Yet, environmental, social, nuclear, and economic disaster looms almost everywhere for a variety of reasons. The Vaishnava Foundation wants to save the world from having to experience cataclysm. However, if “ISKCON” continues to be considered (wrongly) as representing that savior, the current negative situation, drifting downwards, will only be exacerbated:

Lord Caitanya wants that this movement be spread to every nook and corner of the earth . . . I wish that it will be noted down in history that this Krishna consciousness movement is responsible for saving the world. Practically, our movement is the only hope for saving the world from complete disaster.”
Letter to Sucandra, 1-1-72

Our Kåñëa consciousness movement means Lord Caitanya’s Kåñëa movement. Prabhupäda created an important branch of it, but does ISKCON even exist anymore? This question may be justly raised. Nevertheless, we should take it for a fact that “ISKCON” is NOT that great hope for saving the world from disaster. If it is believed to be so, that only delays the actual Kåñëa movement being effectively spread soon enough to overcome impending barbarianism. This is a harsh fact, but it is not speculative. You are being warned. There is enough historical evidence for you to accept this reality NOW and, just as importantly, to realize it:

“You should know this already, that there are two classes of men, devotees and demons. The whole history is that the peaceful devotees are disturbed by the demons, but that the devotees are always victorious by the grace of Kåñëa.”
Letter to Makhanläl, 6-22-73

As validation, indirectly alluded to by Siddhänta Sarasväté, the real history of the world can only be seen through this prism of the divine versus the demoniac:

Atheism has been, on the whole, the prevailing creed of this world. It has, however, been always compelled to masquerade in the garb of religion.”
Bhaktisiddhänta Sarasväté, as quoted in Çré Krishna Caitanya

Sometimes, facts can be unpalatable. Many of those discussed in this article went down over the last forty-plus years. We are concerned about our history at this time on our planet, because, for THE ETERNAL to once again re-merge (as it did in the Sixties and Seventies), THE TRUTH first must again prevail. As such, The Vaishnava Foundation only presents purpose-driven history.

Many of you have had plenty of experience about where “ISKCON” is at. Even if such is not the case, you do not have to have such degrading experiences in order to learn the lessons from them. Overcome the deviation by linking up with ETERNAL HISTORY through the guru-paramparä, represented by His Divine Grace Çréla Prabhupäda. It is a disciplic succession entirely purpose-driven, one which transcends the limited scope of mal-interpretation of historical settings.

OÀ TAT SAT

7 comments

1 Meesala Gopikrishna { 02.02.20 at 00:20 }

This article by Kailasa Candra Dasa–“Bad Logic and Useful Idiots”–delineates what the perverted ISKCON is all about. The article explicitly reveals how the Institution created a large number of concocted successor “ISKCON” Gurus descending from the Eleven Maha-bhagavat Guru Hoax. By carefully analyzing this article, devotee readers can infer or conclude that there would have been NO NECESSITY FOR THE USE OF USEFUL IDIOTS if the Institution after Srila Prabhupada’s demise genuinely and honestly made at least one or two “Regular or Madhyam Adhikari Gurus” as per Srila Prabhupada’s instructions, but alas that is not the case and the actual bona fide Krishna Conscious process is getting postponed.

2 Torben Nielsen { 02.02.20 at 18:25 }

Srila Prabhupada says Krishna will send a manifest guru to the sincere. Are there other factors than sincerity playing in? To what extent can a non-officially-initiated person make spiritual progress? 11 years passed between Srila Prabhupada accepted Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati as his chosen spiritual master till he was officially initiated in 1933. What difference did the official initiation do? ys Bhakta Torben

3 Kailasa Candra dasa { 02.03.20 at 09:47 }

The level of sincerity required for such a special physical manifestation at this time is very high, much higher than most devotees believe it to be (for rather obvious reasons). There was a stage of economy while Prabhupada was physically present—especially granted by him to the Western world while his movement was still bona fide. This made it much, much easier to secure genuine initiation. Now, it is much, much harder, for two reasons: The Successor no longer being physically manifest, and because the “ISKCON” movement and its splinter groups work against the sincerity and seriousness of almost everyone. This question and answer is necessarily truncated due to the format. In and of itself, it could be a topic of a long article. The devotee who is relying upon Book Bhagavat and Prabhupada as shiksha-guru can make spiritual progress, no doubt. The extent that he or she can make such progress is subjective, mostly. However, the very same factors getting in the way of attracting a manifest, bona fide physical master are at also at play. Again, a truncated answer due to format. We cannot be certain as to the ultra-importance of that first formal initiation received by Prabhupada in 1933. Actually, for me to answer this question, before even that there would have to be my answer to the following question, viz., was Prabhupada fully God-realized from childhood or did he become so during the later stages of his life? This is a controversial topic, obviously. Besides that, my answer, if I gave one here, would be inappropriate, since the Q&A would be proposed and posted on an INTERNET website. The negative reactions that would generate in answering it here (according to my realization—if I did so) would be deserved, because this touchy topic is meant to be discussed only amongst genuine devotees.

4 Torben Nielsen { 02.03.20 at 12:51 }

“There was a stage of economy while Prabhupada was physically present—especially granted by him to the Western world while his movement was still bona fide. This made it much, much easier to secure genuine initiation. ”

Meaning Srila Prabhupada was very generous/liberal in giving initiation?

5 Torben Nielsen { 02.03.20 at 13:08 }

Certainly many Prabhupada disciples provenly did not, for whatever reason, utilize their initiation from Srila Prabhupada to any greater capacity Which would indicate that official initiation in itself is no guarantee for advancement. And all the politics throughout the years certainly has not advanced a climate for sincere pursuit of such.

Nice answer, thank you.

6 Mark Goodwin { 02.03.20 at 16:53 }

Prabhupada initiated a devotee in Portland, Oregon who used to be a biker. That is a really rough crowd, often quite diabolical. When Prabhupada initated him, he said to him: “You do not deserve to be initiated.” This is an example of the stage of economy mentioned previously in my first answer to your original queries.

7 Raj { 02.24.20 at 14:57 }

A hallmark of Kailasa Candra prabhus presentation has been making things crystal clear. “You become prone to many mistakes when you consider irrationality to be the same as supra-rationailty…However, irrationality is completely different. It is ensconced in the mode of ignorance…”

Leave a Comment