Video transcription:

THAT is the Difficulty

by Kailäsa Candra däsa


The true believers in powerful Eastern cults advocating liberation from saàsära—and so-called “ISKCON” certainly qualifies as that—are convinced that remaining in the good graces of, and linked to, their institution and its governing body is sine quo non for any chance at ultimate deliverance. They believe that any preaching which is not approved by their institution (and its governing body) not only cannot be considered a vehicle for liberation but is, instead, leading that wayward former devotee to the path of perdition.

Such a fanatical mentality of the true believers is not a rare trait, as it is found in every category of cult throughout the world. It is found in a prominent analogical Western cult, found throughout the three Abrahamic religions, found in institutions led by charismatic, wild-card gurus, and found also in counter-cultural organizations.

They may not call it saàsära, they may not call it mukti, they may not call it a guru-paramparä, but this idea, combined with the emotion attached to it, is all-pervading in occult societies. It is even found in some prosaic organizations. The allure of fanaticism, the mentality of the true believer going all in, is the default of Kali-yuga.

The cult of “ISKCON” is a deviation from the guru-paramparä, which it falsely claims to represent. Yet, it is worse than that. It is an oligarchy that, in some ways, follows the path of many previous infamous cults in the West. Its power node is the G.B.C., and the G.B.C. mystique is dependent upon its own hierarchy, ritual, and dogma. How it operates has been recognized previously.

One such example is Adolph Hitler. He picked up on the method and commented as expressed in Mein Kampf:

“There is one dangerous element, and that is the element I have copied from them. They form a sort of priestly nobility. They have developed an esoteric doctrine–not merely formulated, but imparted through the medium of symbols and mysterious rites in degrees of initiation: The hierarchical organization and the initiation through symbolic rites . . . by working on the imagination through the magic of symbols.”

Çréla Prabhupäda hoped that his G.B.C. men would all become qualified as genuine gurus; this is well established. That is not the issue. The issue is whether or not they were able to actually please him enough, so that he empowered them. History has proven, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that they did not please him to any significant extent. Indeed, they quite often displeased him. Thus, when 1978 rolled around, they remained just as unqualified to be genuine initiating spiritual masters as they were before.

Some background concerning the G.B.C. is required, consisting of relevant facts about Çréla Prabhupäda, the G.B.C. formulated and formed previously by Siddhänta Sarasväté, and some major events in the history of the governing body of “ISKCON.” Prabhupäda’s godbrothers never recognized him as the Successor, and they believed the term Prabhupäda was reserved for Siddhänta Sarasväté. As such, they considered Prabhupäda to be an offender. Prabhupäda was a mahäbhägavat, fully God-realized, and a çaktyäveçavatär. This is far, far above the status of a regular guru.

Returning to the topic of the G.B.C. and some background history directly or indirectly connected to it, Prabhupäda rejected many of his godbrothers when they imitated Äcärya against their Founder’s orders (the order of Siddhänta Sarasväté) and fought in the courts over the properties, thus defeating the Mission.

In particular, this refers to Ananta Väsudeva and Kuïja-Bäbu, the latter eventually taking the title of Bhakti-viläsa Tértha. Prabhupäda called the Gouòéya Mutt asära or useless in one of his purports due to the vitriolic–and at times violent–split between the above-mentioned factions headed by Ananta Väsudeva and Kuïja-Bäbu.

The following is from the purport to Caitanya-caritämåta, Ädi 12.8, which substantiates this fact:

“One party strictly followed the instructions of Bhaktisiddhänta Sarasvaté Öhäkura, but another group created their own concoction about executing his desires. Bhaktisiddhänta Sarasvaté Öhäkura, at the time of his departure, requested all his disciples to form a governing body and conduct missionary activities cooperatively. . . they split into two factions . . . Consequently, both factions were asära, or useless . . .”

Almost all of the leading men of Gouòéya Mutt and Gouòéya Mission—if not actually all of them–rejected Prabhupäda when he made Westerners his initiated disciples and assumed the title. His Divine Grace did not receive it from his own men. As mentioned, although his godbrothers gave him the deserved title of Bhaktivedänta, they did not recognize him as Prabhupäda.

A faction of them imitated Äcärya, but Prabhupäda WAS Äcärya. He became a Founder-Äcärya of a new branch of Lord Caitanya’s tree of Devotional Service, a branch that is currently hanging by a thread. In no small part, it is in that precarious position due to the deviations of the power node of “ISKCON,” the vitiated G.B.C.

Siddhänta Sarasväté formed his managing body and named it in a rather unique way. At that time, in the first half of the Twentieth Century, the centralized railroad conglomerate in India was the most well-known organization on the sub-continent. It was managed by the Governing Body Commission. Siddhänta Sarasväté, Prabhupäda’s spiritual master, simply adopted that same name.

His commission consisted of thirteen original members, all very influential and well-known throughout Gouòéya Mutt. Their relationship with the presidents of the individual centers (throughout India) is not exactly clear, but it does not have to be. Our Prabhupäda named his advisory body the Governing Body Commission by adopting the same label; it was as simple as that.

The Gouòéya Mutt governing board cracked very early on in its brief history. Shortly after Çréla Bhakti-siddhänta Sarasväté left physical manifestation on the first day of 1937, the issue of how his movement was to be spiritually guided came to the fore. There were two obvious factions in that G.B.C.: One led by Ananta Väsudeva, and the other led by Kuïja-Bäbu. It was proposed that Ananta Väsudeva be made the new Äcärya of the Gouòéya Mutt, in effect replacing Siddhänta Sarasväté in the exalted position.

This was resisted by the other faction. A vote was taken. The faction in favor of Ananta Väsudeva prevailed 8-5. By the way, Swami B. R. Çrédhar, a member of that commission, voted in favor of the proposal and was part of that Ananta Väsudeva faction. The five members led by Kuïja-Bäbu broke away and took control of the Mäyäpur temple next to the birthplace of Lord Caitanya Mahäprabhu.

The Ananta Väsudeva faction, on the other hand, took control of the opulent Calcutta center, which included the printing press. These factions, in due course, went to court and, for the most part, became bitter enemies. Prabhupäda remained aloof, and he refers to this split when he wrote (in the purport to Caitanya-caritämåta, Ädi 12.8, previously cited) that the Mission was defeated, and the Gouòéya Mutt was rendered asära or useless by that schism centering around which so-called Äcärya would be the supreme leader.

He particularly mentions that both camps selected Äcäryas to allegedly head the Mission, but that was not according to the order of Siddhänta Sarasväté. This fact was in that same purport cited previously in our presentation. In other words, by selecting two Äcäryas, the factions deviated and disobeyed the order of the previous Äcärya, thus both becoming asära.

The “ISKCON” G.B.C. mystique has elements in common with that previous governing body of Siddhänta Sarasväté, but there are also notable differences. Just because Prabhupäda, following in his spiritual master’s footsteps, adopted the same label for his advisory board does not mean that it was meant to operate as a governing unit (despite “governing” being included in its title).

That title has just been explained: For the railroads of India in the Twentieth Century, it meant one thing. However, its historical context being adopted by Prabhupäda had nothing to do with it becoming a domineering governor of his movement. Pay no attention to narratives that try to wrench out anything different from this.

Prabhupäda’s primary intention for his G.B.C. was just the opposite of any mandate for it to govern. He wanted the G.B.C. man to function as adviser to the temple presidents in their respective zones, to encourage the presidents, and, when he saw some area needing improvement, to advise them to make that improvement.

The G.B.C. men were to become the chief conduits of Prabhupäda and thus relay his latest instructions, directions, intentions, and ideas. Among other benefits, this would then free him from having to answer many daily letters from his temple presidents, which had been the case during the previous years.

After all, by the early Seventies, the movement was growing at an astounding pace, so there were more presidents at more ever-expanding centers and thus more letters. Prabhupäda wanted to be free from the management. As such, he delegated much of those previous responsibilities to his G.B.C. men, as per the design of that Commission upon its creation.

It was not meant to be an overlord.

However, that is exactly what it became just four months after His Divine Grace left the scene in mid-November, 1977. Indeed, one of the eleven pretender mahäbhägavats pushed hard to implement cult passports, in which a devotee had to receive a stamp of approval on his or her passport from the current temple president, governing body commissioner or sannyäsé (whose party he was on) in order to relocate from one temple to the next.

That resolution was not implemented, but the mere fact that it was even proposed is ample evidence of just how important it was for the zonal imposition to secure complete control of the devotees at large serving in the temples. The real workers were the rank-and-file, but most of them did not see—at least in the beginning years—how insidious was the greed, anger, strife, and bickering integral to the G.B.C. takeover. Consider this excerpt from a letter to one of his first G.B.C. appointees, dated 9-9-72:

“ . . . you say that amongst the elder disciples there are still symptoms of greed, anger, strife, bickering, etc., but you are one of them. You are one of the old students, so you fall in that group. So the fighting is among that group, but not amongst the real workers.”

There is a bit of irony in this particular excerpt, but to discuss that would be tangential; as such, we shall leave it be, but those who know the history know what I am referring to here. To reiterate, the G.B.C. was not meant for becoming some kind of supreme controller. Consider this lengthy and important excerpt from a letter to the temple president of Bombay, dated 8-12-71:

G.B.C. does not mean to control a center. G.B.C. means to see that the activities of a center go on nicely. I do not know why Tamäl is exercising his absolute authority. That is not the business of G.B.C. The president, treasurer and secretary are responsible for managing the center. G.B.C. is to see that things are going nicely but not to exert absolute authority. That is not in the power of G.B.C. Tamäl should not do like that.

The G.B.C. men cannot impose anything on the men of a center without consulting all of the G.B.C. members first. A G.B.C. member cannot go beyond the jurisdiction of his power. We are in the experimental stage, but in the next meeting of the G.B.C. members, they should form a constitution how the G.B.C. members manage the whole affair. . . it is a fact that the local president is not under the control of the G.B.C.”

The governing body was never meant to become an institutional Leviathan. Yet, due to the overlording propensity intrinsic to the conditioned soul—who is not really engaging in buddhi-yoga,—the imitation G.B.C. becomes the astral egregor. Its gross body consists of individuals who, perhaps unwittingly (at least, some of them), are trying to turn the manifest governing body into a monster.

This excerpt proves that idea of G.B.C. as the controller—and every and all actions connected to implementing it–to be wrong and against the directive and interests of the Founder. Nevertheless, it was already gaining traction before Prabhupäda departed.

The fanatics should be differentiated from the rank-and-file in his movement, the real workers. The fanatics became easily invultuated by the group think of an emerging G.B.C. Leviathan. It was the seed of the weed that eventually would strangle his movement after he left us, when he could no longer check deviations.

Let us return to a threadbare analysis of that letter to the Bombay president. The very first sentence establishes that the G.B.C. was never meant to be the controller of the movement. That idea of it being a controller is not part of its original protocol; it was never Prabhupäda’s intention, and this is made clear.

The second sentence establishes what the G.B.C. was meant to do: Its man in each zone was meant to be an overseer, to see that everything in any of the temples in his zone was going on nicely.

The third sentence, indirectly, establishes that the G.B.C. is not the final authority. This is made specifically clear in its original charter, known as the Direction of Management. It is made even more clear here, although it is referring to T.K.G. It would automatically do so, because, at that time, T.K.G. was the G.B.C. for Bombay. The complaint that elicited Prabhupäda’s response in this letter to his Bombay president was a complaint from that president against that particular G.B.C. man, T.K.G.

Next, the excerpt establishes that the G.B.C. is not actually involved at all in the management of any center, what to speak of governing any of them. Again, that the word “governing” is in the title of the G.B.C. is simply because it was in the title of Siddhänta Sarasväté’s G.B.C., who took it from India’s railroad conglomerate.

Next in this loaded excerpt, it is established, beyond doubt, that the G.B.C. does not have absolute authority. How could it? It did not consist of pure devotees on the absolute plane. Prabhupäda was the only one who had absolute authority as the uttama-adhikäré. Indeed, Prabhupäda specifically states in this excerpt that it is not within the power of the G.B.C.—what to speak of any G.B.C. man—to exert absolute authority over any center in his zone.

Next, we find that if a G.B.C. wants to impose something on a temple president, it requires a convocation with the whole G.B.C. in order to do so. Obviously, if everything was done fairly and on the up and up, the temple president would not only be allowed, but encouraged, to make his counter presentation to that conclave.

To impose something on a temple president means that he is against what a specific G.B.C. is attempting to impose on his center. One G.B.C. man cannot do it according to this letter’s excerpt; the whole G.B.C. body is required, by vote, to concur. The follow-up is that a G.B.C. man cannot go beyond the jurisdiction of his power, which is obviously limited. That overall G.B.C. power is limited is thus reinforced very clearly in the letter.

Arguably, the most shocking statement in the excerpt is that the G.B.C. in the Seventies was nothing more than an attempt, that it was in the experimental stage. Remember, in April of 1972, Prabhupäda suspended its activities. That act indicated logically that Prabhupäda could suspend and disband it completely at any time—and many of us now wish that he had chosen to do so.

The whole excerpt is summed up in the following way: “it is a fact that the local president is not under the control of the G.B.C.”


Let us proceed to four other excerpts from letters by His Divine Grace to his temple presidents at various centers or to commissioners during the Seventies, when the G.B.C. was still functioning under his supervision. One note about all four of these excerpts: Although the theme in each of them is similar, there is one sentence in every one of these excerpts which is exactly the same. Hopefully, you will hear and recognize it as your host speaker reads each excerpt.

We shall have more to say about it in subsequent commentary, so let us now proceed to each of the four excerpts in chronological order. In a letter to his temple president at the major center of Great Britain, dated January 1st, 1974, Prabhupäda commented:

“However, at the Bhaktivedänta Manor, as anywhere, the local president is in charge. That is Mukunda. The reason why there is difficulty and competitive spirit is that everyone wants to be supreme. That is the difficulty.”

Do not think that the competitive spirit was not present in the governing body. It most definitely was. The controversy (indirectly being referred to here) stemmed from a German G.B.C. man pushing his own candidate for the post of temple president, despite the fact that the other candidate was qualified, of English birth, and was backed by the majority of the temple members.

Cutthroat competition is not transcendental competition. The competition referred to here in Prabhupäda’s comment indicates strongly that the non-transcendental variety was in the ascendant at Bhaktivedänta Manor during that particular crisis. However, the excerpt is also important in that it supplements what was made clear in that excerpt to the Bombay president: The local president—and not the G.B.C.—was supposed to be in charge of his center.

In a letter to a governing body commissioner, dated 12-16-74, the actual status of the G.B.C. men was discussed—and not in a favorable light:

“But the difficulty is that our G.B.C. men are falling victim to mäyä. Today I trust this G.B.C., and tomorrow he will fall down. That is the difficulty. . . Unless this problem is solved, whatever we may resolve, it will not be very useful. We shall discuss this at our meeting. If the G.B.C. men can ever manage properly, then I shall get some time for writing my books.”

Certainly well short of a vote of confidence, was it not? Also, one of the chief reasons that the G.B.C. was created in the first place—if not the chief reason—was to provide Prabhupäda a great deal of extra time away from management issues that he would otherwise be forced to deal with daily. It didn’t play out that way, however.

By mid-1975, about two years before he decided to depart physical manifestation, politics within the G.B.C. continued unabated. Indeed, it was increasing to the point that Prabhupäda was concerned that his G.B.C. would follow the same path as the asära Gouòéya Mutt. This is confirmed in an excerpt from a letter to one of his governing body commissioners, dated 9-30-75;

“Why is there this politics? This is not good. If politics come, then the preaching will be stopped. That is the difficulty. As soon as politics come, everything is spoiled. In the Gauòéya Math, the politics is still going on. My guru mahäräja left in 1936, and now it is 1976, so after 40 years, the litigation is still going on. Do not come to this.”

Internecine politics did not abate in the next two years, and then it exploded in the years subsequent to Prabhupäda’s departure. Please note his clear statement in the excerpt: “As soon as politics come, everything is spoiled.” Everything WAS spoiled, and the new, unauthorized G.B.C. protocols entered in the Eighties, although they were exerting malefic influence previously.

A couple of months later, in November of the same year, Prabhupäda wrote the following excerpt to a different G.B.C. man:

“ . . . if you disturb me, then my mind will be disturbed. I want that what I have established may go on nicely, but I see that some of the devotees are reviving their old ‘good’ qualities. That is the difficulty. If the old habits come back, then everything is finished.

By the end of 1975, things were moving retrograde as far as the G.B.C. was concerned. It was already becoming the vitiated G.B.C. to a limited extent, foreshadowing what it would become in early 1978 with the imposition of the disastrous zonal äcärya scheme.

Did you notice the one chief common thread in each of these four important excerpts? It was literally spelled out in the exact same way: “That is the difficulty.” So, although what was discussed in each excerpt was certainly related to some extent, was everything exactly the same that Prabhupäda was objecting to? In one sense, no.

However, in another sense, it was.

What was being discussed in each of the four excerpts—what was EXACTLY alike in each of them–was one thing alone: The G.B.C. Either the G.B.C. was being criticized directly or the letter was written to a G.B.C. man. As such, it is only logical to conclude that, when Prabhupäda stated: “That is the difficulty,” the reference was to:


Call it now the vitiated G.B.C.

What WAS the difficulty?

That was the difficulty.

And that REMAINS the difficulty!

The unstated (or sometimes semi-stated) protocols are the codes underlying the power node of the fabricated, so-called “ISKCON” confederation. These codes are conducive to maintaining its facade of spiritual authority. It also maintains its mysterium via its codes.

Secrecy has always been what the G.B.C. was about: From their self-serving perspective, they were the special men who directed and direct the movement in a special way that must remain a mystery. Thus, they are wrongly considered authorities.

However, neither the G.B.C. egregor nor any of the individuals constituting its body on the material plane have even a shred of spiritual or devotional authority. What they have instead is POWER. And misuse of that power via their previous opportunity to guide the institution in the right way has caused all kinds of difficulties.

The astral smell of the vitiated G.B.C. is most unpleasant. Here is but one example of the Commish’s penchant for secrecy:

“ . . . the whole thing appeared to be giving all power to Atreya Åñi. I cannot understand why, instead of one G.B.C. man, a person outside the Commission was given so much power, and there was to be immediate action without divulging the matter to the devotees. And I am surprised that none of the G.B.C. members detected the defects in the procedure. It was detected only when it came to me. What will happen when I am not here: Shall everything be spoiled by G.B.C.?”

This well-known excerpt from a letter to Hansadutta (who was one of the ringleaders of the early 1972 centralization scheme via an ad hoc G.B.C. meeting in New York), never came to light during the Seventies. Like so many letters with similar information, it was kept away from the devotees and shrouded in secrecy.

Indeed, hardly any of the devotees in the movement even knew that Prabhupäda suspended the G.B.C. (and transferred all the power back to the temple presidents) in April of 1972 as a result of that N. Y. G.B.C. centralization scheme.

The individual G.B.C. men were also secretive about what was communicated to them in letters received by them from His Divine Grace. Copies of all of those letters were kept in a locked vault at the Los Angeles temple. When a whistle-blower, in the mid-Eighties, was able to access them (via his friend, who smuggled them out), Sulochan—eventually assassinated by an “ISKCON” leader as most of you know—was threatened, in very egregious language, if he did not immediately return those letters . . . or, worse yet, if he made what was written in them public to the devotees at large.

Yet, once he did just that, it turned out there was no mystery. There was no confidential knowledge in those letters. There were no confidential plans or predictions or prophecies in them. There was nothing in them that merited any secrecy whatsoever.

The reason the leaders of “ISKCON” in general—and the governing body commissioner of SoCal in particular—kept the letters secret was simple and easy to understand: They revealed how displeased Prabhupäda was with his leaders. The letters are loaded with his expressions of his displeasure with them, their decisions, and their misuse of the power and authority which he had given them.

The letters, sometimes in striking detail, also reveal how displeased he often was with the Governing Body Commission, the source of so much difficulty. Prabhupäda’s letters proved that the G.B.C. men were not nearly as special as they thought that they were. However, as time went on in the Seventies, the G.B.C. egregor started to gain power on its own, more and more. Meant originally as an advisory board, it gradually transformed into something else.

There was always a power bloc within it which controlled it, and there was always one individual G.B.C. who was at the nucleus of that power bloc. In other words, instead of working on becoming an advanced Vaiñëava via heavy tapasya and seva, a handful of men instead concentrated on controlling the G.B.C., becoming Lord of the Rings, culminating in Lord of the Ultimate Ring.

There was always internecine struggles going on between and amongst some of the cult’s leaders throughout the Seventies, but control of the G.B.C. was, figuratively speaking, comparable to carrying a gun to a knife fight in into those battles.

At this time, the luster of the G.B.C.—which was always nothing more than dull shine from a gold-plated alloy—is diminishing considerably. Your host speaker is partially responsible for that development. Yet, “ISKCON” knew that bureaucracy could only be a place-holder in order to buffer the perpetrator. The root issues all stem from the G.B.C. and its concocted protocols (read, codes), and those are being exposed at an increasing pace now.

The G.B.C. wings it via fix-it-as-you-go and its buffers of bureaucracy. Via that and other Machiavellian tactics, it floats above the turmoil it creates, which constantly rains down upon the devotees at large still caught in its factory. It remains almost unseen as the source of every major problem. It floats semi-visible, because almost no one dares to pull away the veil, look up, and see it for what it is.

The center cannot hold if it is dependent upon bureaucracy. Here’s what Prabhupäda had to say about bureaucracy in his movement, which was, at that time, only the nose of the camel in his tent. From a letter to Karändhar, dated 12-22-72:

“Krishna consciousness movement is for training men to be independently thoughtful and competent in all types of departments of knowledge and action, not for making bureaucracy. Once there is bureaucracy, the whole thing will be spoiled.”

We all know that “ISKCON” is chock full of Hinduization and bureaucracy, because it had to take shelter of something that could keep its momentum moving, especially when it was exposed decades ago. Through acquiescing to the Hindoo hodge-podge and resorting to bureaucracy, it has temporarily been able to keep up some kind of revenue flow and horizontal expansion.

Perhaps some of you know of this book: Matthew Brady’s Illustrated History of the Civil War. It contains over seven hundred photographs, many of them stunningly graphic, illustrating what went on just previous to the outbreak, during the war and then in the aftermath. It is a very old book, and it was commissioned by the U. S. government. As such, it is inimical to the Southern Confederacy.

The first chapter more or less begins with a legal proposal, in the form of a Senate bill in the U. S. Congress, to annex both Nebraska and Kansas. This included how such a proposed annexation was to be handled concerning whether those territories would be free or slave States once admitted to the Union. In Chapter One of this analysis of the American Civil War, in the fourth and fifth paragraphs, we find the following entry:

“The bill provided . . . to the inhabitants of those Territories to decide for themselves whether slavery should or should not exist within their domain. That proposed nullification the Missouri Compromise produced rancorous controversies in and out of Congress, and the people of the free-labor States became violently excited. After long and bitter discussion in both Houses of Congress, the bill became a law . . . In the light of historic events, it is clear today that men, who afterward appeared as leaders in the war against our government, were then concocting and executing schemes for the extension of the domains of the slave system. It must expand or suffocate.”

This same principle applies to “ISKCON”: It must expand or crater. If there is one thing that its leaders are expert in, it is in sweeping the root issues from 1978 under the rug and kicking the can down the road. They do so by adopting fix-it-as-you-go measures in order to create the thin-ice reality that their movement must be legitimate, because its numbers are still expanding.

They all know that The Third Transformation, the Hinduization of “ISKCON,” is bogus, but it buys them more time until people catch on. They all know that the bureaucratic flim-flam that they have concocted will eventually be seen for what it is and rejected, but it, at this time, buys them time to formulate The Fourth Transformation in order to divert attention away from the realization that “ISKCON” is an operation built on sand.

It is our duty to confront them and not let them continue to get away with their deviations. To confront them means to confront the vitiated G.B.C. To confront the vitiated G.B.C. means to confront its unauthorized protocols. In confrontation, you will realize how illusory all of those codes are, and their operation will collapse.

When the protocols collapse, the vitiated G.B.C. will begin to collapse, and then the “ISKCON” Show-bottle Company will go into debt, into receivership, will cease to expand, and, in due course, crater. That is sorely wanted. However, first you must look through the pouring rain of deviation and see the floating G.B.C. for just what it is:

The colossal hoax known as the fabricated, so-called “ISKCON” confederation is a pseudo-spiritual scam. It is controlled by a power node known as the vitiated G.B.C. which is loaded with concocted protocols meant for complete control. It is also loaded with bureaucracy and centralization, all counter to the wishes of the Founder-Äcärya of the real Hare Kåñëa branch in the West.

What was Prabhupäda’s conclusion about the governing body and its members’ qualification to spiritually lead his movement? For the crystal clear answer, consider this excerpt from a letter to one of his senior men, dated 11-10-75:

“Now has the G.B.C. become more than guru mahäräja? As if simply G.B.C. is meant for looking after pounds, shilling, pence. The G.B.C. does not look after spiritual life. That is a defect. All of our students will have to become guru, but they are not qualified.

This is the difficulty.”



1 Meesala Gopikrishna { 12.01.21 at 12:15 }

The latest missive, “THAT is the Difficulty” by Kailasa Candra Dasa succinctly explains and exposes how Srila Prabhupada’s G.B.C ombudsman group which was only meant for taking complaints and investigating the wrong doings of “ISKCON” was soon converted into a mega G.B.C Oligarchy Tyranny giving the impression that without it the movement would not function and that they are the absolute authority.

2 Luigi Del Vecchio { 12.02.21 at 08:23 }

Jaya Jayashri Caitanya, Jaya Nityananda!
Here in Italy Several years ago I attended a festival at the end of the Christmas Marathon at the temple they call Madhu-lager and the so-called guru and gbc head of Italy and president of the temple promised that if the following year the loot would double he and the his pimp would dress up as Mataji … This describes where the so called ISKCon is headed

3 bhakta joseph { 12.12.21 at 15:20 }

The vitiated GBC power node for the fabricated so-called “iskcon” show bottle company is being confronted big time in this new video by Kailasa Prabhu. He succinctly points out the deviations for others to understand and disseminate. Thank you Kailasa Candra dasa for the accurate history of these deviant groups.

Leave a Comment