KCD’s Monthly Podcast – December 2022

Podcast transcription:

No Fault/No Blame:
The Big Neo-Mutt Lie

by Kailäsa Candra däsa


“It was a bright, cold day in April, and the clocks were striking thirteen”
George Orwell, 1984

A specter is haunting the Hare Kåñëa movement: It is the specter of Neo-Mutt. It is a ghost that emerged from Gouòéya-Mutt and represents it. The two other major institutions in what appears to be the Kåñëa movement are afflicted by it. In the very late Seventies and early Eighties, Neo-Mutt, in its incipient stage, consisted of second echelon Prabhupäda initiates who crossed the river. They broke their connection to “ISKCON” in order to align themselves with—and become sannyäsés and gurus courtesy of–an old but influential Gouòéya Mutt leader in Navadvipa.

It could be argued that their radical act was the result of aggression and oppression by the high-flying zonal äcäryas against these competitor godbrothers, who were all below them in the “ISKCON” turtle tank. We discuss this later in our presentation, and there is truth to it. It is far from the sole explanation, however. That comprehensive explanation is the Neo-Mutt Ghost Protocol.

As per Orwell’s most famous novel, Gouòéya Mutt was to Prabhupäda’s bona fide branch of disciplic succession as the Orwellian clocks were to those we have known and used for centuries. This is particularly the case in one essential philosophical area, and that will be described, threadbare, as this article and its audio presentation proceeds.

There is standard Vaiñëava siddhänta. H.D.G. A. C. Bhaktivedänta Swämi Prabhupäda brought us only that version when he founded his branch of the Madhva-Gauòéya Vaiñëava sampradäya in America in the mid-Sixties. Different from (and opposed to) this siddhänta, there are versions which do not represent the true Kåñëa teachings.

Many so-called gurus came from India in the Sixties to exploit the hippie religion in America at that time. Those gurus were not part of any Vaiñëava sampradäya, obviously bringing different teachings not corresponding with Prabhupäda’s personalist version of Gaudiya Vaiñëavism. Those other concocted teachings from charismatic wild card gurus were instantly attractive to thousands of young hippies.

When an Eastern teaching is different from the siddhänta on a particular topic, it is known as an apa-siddhänta. The prefix apa means “against,” as such an unauthorized teaching is against the standard Vedic or Vaiñëava version. Another way of saying the same thing is that such a radical teaching is NOT a component of the Absolute Truth.

The wild-card gurus from India brought to the West many such ideas. Nevertheless, although not delving into superfluous tangents, we ARE going to analyze one important topic. This topic can be called THEORIES ABOUT ORIGINATION, with only one of them actually not being a theory at all. Instead, it is the actual truth of the origination of the jéva previous to its entrance into the cycle of birth and death.

The self-styled gurus from India took advantage of the hippie religion when they arrived in America. It was there for the taking. Prabhupäda also exploited the same opportunity, but he gave the real thing to those hippies, whereas the others did not.

From its beginning, the hippies had rock message music as an integral component to their philosophy, mood, ethic, and lifestyle. As the hippie religion was reaching its crescendo, one of those rock bands—The Moody Blues (which was, to some extent, influenced by Eastern teachings) gave us the following lyric accompanied by a catchy tune:

I was thinking about our fortune,
And I decided that we’re really not to blame
For the love that’s deep inside us all
Is still the same.

Sounds good, perhaps carrying a heavy message. However, it does not represent truth; instead, it represents an apa-siddhänta. The Absolute Truth is that every one of us IS really to blame for our predicament in birth and death. This is a key fact in determining the truth or falsity of so many theories about the jéva’s entrance into saàsära.

We fell from the eternal spiritual world of form by our own choice, although it is more appropriate and accurate to say that we fell by misuse of our own free will. OUR free will, NOT the Will of the Supreme Lord. This is the message that Prabhupäda brought to the West. This topic was either avoided by the so-called gurus or their impersonal conclusion rendered it blurred. Somewhat indirectly, the lyric by The Moody Blues represents the apa-siddhänta of no fall/no blame.

Always remember that, by his own affirmation, the hippies were Prabhupäda’s best customers. When they came to him, he reminded them that they were originally in the eternal world on spiritual planets with Kåñëa. As such, his magazine was called “Back to Godhead,” because real liberation means returning to where we all once were, i.e., we were all originally in that eternal world of form and activity.

Although the Godhead includes the impersonal brahmajyoti, the effulgence of the Supreme Lord, the subordinate living entities, known cumulatively as jéva-tattva, did not INITIALLY originate from that part of it. Before that even, we were active in a form on spiritual planets. This was indubitably confirmed in an essay called “The Tal and Crow Addendum,” an excerpt from which is reproduced here:

“So, this dreaming condition is called non-liberated life, and this is just like a dream. Although in material calculation it is a long, long period, as soon as we come to Kåñëa consciousness, this period is considered a second. . . So, when those who get Brahma-sayujya mukti do not find transcendental bliss, they fall down to make a compromise with material bliss, for example by founding schools and hospitals. So, even Lord Brahmä is still material and wants to lord it over the material world. He may come down to become a germ, but then he may rise up to Kåñëa consciousness and go back home, back to Godhead. This is the position.

So, when I say yes, there is eternal lélä with Kåñëa, that means on the evidence of Jaya-Vijaya. Unless one develops full devotional service to Kåñëa, he goes up only to Brahma-sayujya but falls down. But after millions and millions of years of keeping oneself away from the lélä of the Lord, when one comes to Kåñëa consciousness, this period becomes insignificant, just like dreaming. Because he falls down from Brahma-sayujya, he thinks that this may be his origin, but he does not remember that before that even, he was with Kåñëa.”

This excerpt is from an essay by Prabhupäda. He recorded it in a Dictaphone, and his personal secretary then transcribed it. It was a reply to the question of jéva-tattva origination. This answer centered around the fall of Jaya and Vijaya from Vaikuëtha, a place above and beyond the impersonal Brahman. This explanation is accessible only as an essay. It was an addendum to a letter Prabhupäda dictated, in June of 1972, and sent to Madhudvéña Däsa, the G.B.C. for Australia.

Although some would opine that it is a controversial topic, your author does not agree with that. Before we venture further into it, let me first take on what can be called “the easy way out.” You cannot dodge this essential topic—or, if you prefer, essential issue—by opining that there can be two contradictory (yet both valid) opinions about it. That is a nonsensical position. It is illogical, and it is nothing but a dodge.

As most of you know, the original breakaway group—which we rightly and accurately refer to as Neo-Mutt—propped up Swämi B. R. Çrédhar of Gouòéya Mutt as their new leader and as a pure devotee representing their faction of the Hare Kåñëa movement. In effect, they de facto turned him into the Successor to Prabhupäda not long after His Divine Grace departed physical manifestation in the middle of November, 1977.

It is a long, detailed, and complicated history. It is against our interest to get into those details here, although they are ascertainable. There are accurate conclusions to be drawn from them–if you put in the research. Our presentation, on the other hand, is focused entirely on an analysis of one key component of the Neo-Mutt Ghost Protocol. Yet, common sense and spiritual integrity demands that we confront and explain a kind of dodge avoiding it in this part of our presentation. It is an explanation of that on the principle of non-contradiction.

Two diametrically opposed conclusions cannot both be right. It is possible that they can both be wrong, but they cannot both be right. When Neo-Mutt was first formulated and formed as the Mahä-maëòala in the very late Seventies and early Eighties (it is now known as “The World Vaishnava Association”), its spiritual leader was the aforementioned Swämi B. R. Çrédhar of Navadvipa.

No one disputes this historical fact.

The later emergence of what is now called “The Pure Bhakti-Yoga Society” in the district of Mathura was founded, and centered upon, a different Gouòéya Mutt leader, Swämi Näräyan. However, it was then non-existent, and its departed leader had minimal influence on Prabhupäda’s disciples during that time frame, far less than Swämi B. R. Çrédhar.

There were recent influential Gouòéya Mutt books in print back then that were different in mood, style, and substance from Prabhupäda’s. They were intoxicating for those inclined to come under their sway. They were also different in one key conclusion. Obviously, this refers to the root issue of the origination of the jéva-tattva.

In those books, we find these following excerpts: “Somehow or other, from the undifferentiated came the differentiated,” and “the fallen souls come from the marginal position within the brahmajyoti and not from Vaikuëöha,” and “(their) equilibrium, somehow, became disturbed.” All of this is mistaken knowledge. In essence, these quotes opined that the living entities came from the brahmajyoti, the undifferentiated, and then fell from there, somehow or other, into the world of duality.

This was and remains an all-pervading misconception held by everyone in Gouòéya Mutt. It is attributed by those devotees to Çréla Bhaktisiddhänta Sarasväté Gosvämé, the Founder-Äcärya of the Gauòéya Mutt almost a century ago. You should be very skeptical about that attribution. The aforementioned Swämi Näräyan held this misconception, without question. For what it’s worth, he directly stated this Gouòéya Mutt pre-supposition to me in late 1983 in Mathura at his temple, which I was visiting and living in at the time.

Prabhupäda held the exact opposite conception, as has been clearly brought forth in the Addendum. We have mentioned how some devotees dodge this issue. How they do so is that they opine that the fault of Swämi B. R. Çrédhar was not his teaching about origination. Many of them are agnostic about it. Instead, they opine that, according to so-called Vaiñëava etiquette, he had no right to represent a teaching that was in contradiction to what Prabhupäda taught his disciples.

In other words, there is no problem with propagating the no fall/no blame apa-siddhänta, but it should not have been taught to Prabhupäda’s disciples, because he taught them differently. Disregarding how utterly awkward and unworkable that so-called etiquette would have been for the fledgling group under Swämi Çrédhar’s guidance, such a sophisticated ploy is nothing more than a nonsensical dodge. This essential topic of origination cannot be avoided in that way.

The stark and root issue of THE ORIGINATION OF THE JIVA-TATTVA is not something that can be overlooked and disregarded on the basis of so-called Vaiñëava etiquette. The root issue of jéva origination has to be confronted and resolved, and that resolution is exactly what you are receiving in this presentation.

With this preliminary sidebar now clarified, let us proceed to grind away in order to get at the truth—and, with it, the untruth—intrinsically connected this essential topic of origination. We have already given a very strong hint about what the siddhänta of this issue is via that excerpt from “The Tal and Crow Addendum” brought forth previously.

Consider also the following excerpts: One is from a purport to Çrémad-Bhägavatam and the other from a question and answer session after a platform lecture in 1967, very early in the movement:

“Arguments may be put forward as to why we have been put under the influence of this material energy by the supreme will of the Lord. . . A living entity misuses his little independence when he wants to lord it over material nature. This misuse of independence, which is called mäyä, is always available, otherwise there would be no independence. Independence implies that one can use it properly or improperly. It is not static; it is dynamic. Therefore, misuse of independence is the cause of being influenced by mäyä.” Srimad-Bhagavatam, 3.31.15, purport

Notice the phrase: “why we have been.” Why we have been WHEN? This lifetime? Maybe, but it is more logical that the context indicates before that. Could that context be interpreted to mean originally? It most certainly could! Indeed, that is the application of the context that makes the most sense, all things considered. Here is the second excerpt:

Disciple: When the souls that were never conditioned at all . . . do they also have the independence?
Prabhupäda: Yes, but they have not misused. They know that “I am meant for Kåñëa’s service,” and they are happy in Kåñëa’s service.
Disciple: Could they ever misuse it?
Prabhupäda: Yes, they can misuse it also. That power is there.
Q & A after a Platform Lecture, 2-18-67 in San Francisco

The devotee asking this question was one of the first initiated disciples in America. As such, he may well have been asking this question for the first time of Prabhupäda, seeking clarification, not only for himself but for the rest of the fledgling ISKCON movement.

Notice that devotee’s question is phrased as: “. . . the souls that were never conditioned at all.” Who would those be? The obvious and unequivocal answer is the spirit souls in Vaikuëöha. That such was the case will be validated a bit later.

Also, in Prabhupäda’s answer, he clarifies which souls are being referred to by the clause “in Kåñëa’s service.” Indeed, this clause is stated twice in the sentence of his original letter, which answered the question. It is a fantastic stretch to say that the spiritual sparks floating in the brahmajyoti are actually engaged in service. They can be said to be so in one very, very unimportant, indirect, and minute way, viz., that each of them provides an extremely small spark of light comprising the effulgence of Godhead and nothing more than that. If you want to stretch the rubber band and say that such is “in Kåñëa’s service,” it is certainly not däsya-rasa.

It is not the çänta-rasa of the buffer region, either.

The living entity has independence in properly or improperly using or misusing free will. If its origin was the brahmajyoti, how and why can the initial misuse of independence actuate? That spark must initially be thrown into the material world by a force more powerful. If the Supreme Person originally made the jéva nothing more than an impersonal spark in the brahmajyoti, how is it that such a spark’s “equilibrium somehow became disturbed?”

How could such an initial falldown be the jéva’s fault or responsibility? It was simply floating there, as originally created to do . . . allegedly. Can its descent be some kind of fault based upon free will? How illogical such an assertion is! More importantly, how utterly arbitrary and unfair that would have been. As we have stated numerous times for decades, anyone advocating no fall/no blame must ultimately believe–at least, subconsciously—that evil is supreme. This is one of the reasons why such an apa-siddhänta is also covert Mäyäväda.


Is this origination issue really all that controversial? If you want more evidence, here are two more excerpts. Consider this quote from a room conversation on 9-19-73: “So, there is chance of falling down even from the personal association of God.”

Here’s one from a letter to a leading secretary, dated 4-25-70:

“The souls are endowed with minute independence as part of their nature. And this minute independence may be utilized rightly or wrongly at any time, so there is always a chance of falling down by misuse of one’s independence.”

In the first excerpt, notice the phrase: “personal association of God.” Personal is in diametric opposition to impersonal. Floating as a spiritual spark in the brahmajyoti is an impersonal condition; no sane transcendentalist disputes that. Falling down from there could not mean falling from the personal association of God.

As a side note, it is a misconception that the Supreme Lord is not personally present in the buffer region of Vaikuëöha, but it is a correct conception that He is NOT personally present in the impersonal Brahman, because it’s His effulgence.

In the excerpt from that 1970 letter, notice the phrase: “. . . minute independence may be utilized rightly or wrongly at any time.” Are you actually prepared to limit any time only in the material sojourn? Minute independence is part of the jéva-tattva’s eternal nature both here and there. The jévas in the spiritual world of form and activity are not without minute independence at any time.

In this excerpt, Prabhupäda was responding to a letter sent to him by a leading secretary. Check your premise more carefully if you think that his answer was limited to the material sojourn. It could not be so limited, because that secretary’s question was not about jéva falldown while in the material atmosphere of saàsära.

In point of fact, his question was just the opposite, viz., it was about the initial falldown from the personal region of Godhead. Prabhupäda summarizes his disciple’s question in the reply he gave his disciple, and part of that summary—which we have not directly quoted here–contains the following phrase: “. . . if someone has a relationship with Lord Kåñëa . . .” Prabhupäda’s summary also established that the relationship referred to must be on a spiritual planet.

You may wrongly believe that knowledge about the origination of jéva-tattva, especially as detailed in the “Tal and Crow Addendum,” was everywhere shared and made readily available to all the members of the movement during the Seventies and early Eighties. That would be a major misconception, as it was not. In point of fact, that essay was kept secret and hardly anyone knew about it.

That was the situation until just before the major schism with Swämi B. R. Çrédhar and “ISKCON.” With that schism looming, all of a sudden the “Tal and Crow Addendum” was propagated. It was promulgated in a B.B.T. Report (called “Nectar of the Month”) in January, 1982, entitled: THE ORIGIN OF THE JIVA: BRAHMAJYOTI OR KRISHNA LILA?

If you think its emergence at that time, just short of a decade after the Addendum was first created, was some kind of coincidence, guess again!“ISKCON” was partly responsible in laying the groundwork for Neo-Mutt gaining traction. We shall discuss this subsequently. Almost entirely, that was due to the vitiated G.B.C. lapping up all of the bad advice from Swämi B. R. Çrédhar, especially in the Spring of 1978.

He was turning against the cult even before 1981. “ISKCON” would split from him in the Spring of 1982, and the writing was on the wall in the first month of that year. The high-flying zonals were still receiving uttama-adhikäré worship at that time—up to and including much of 1986, as it turned out. Their basis for such narcissistic, unauthorized, and undeserved worship had been Swämi B. R. Çrédhar’s statement that the disciple had to look upon his spiritual master as a jagad-guru.

In the early Eighties, he was allowing second echelon ISKCON men to join him, and Neo-Mutt was gaining traction. As such, a way had to be found to combat him without totally abandoning what he had earlier proposed and what “ISKCON” had thus implemented “after consultation with higher authorities.” The major apa-siddhänta of No Fall was an obvious weapon, and they pulled it up and dusted it off from out of the vault. Again, that was the “Tal and Crow Addendum.”

To reiterate, that Addendum was not made publicly previously, because the “ISKCON” leaders did not want to even slightly taint the legitimacy and prominence they had bestowed upon Swämi B. R. Çrédhar. He was very useful to them . . . in the late Seventies. Please also note that this man had NO INFLUENCE WHATSOEVER in Prabhupäda’s branch of Caitanya’s movement previous to 1978. The rank-and-file of Prabhupäda’s movement had never even heard of him. Then, all of a sudden, he and his cliches, bromides, and tropes became the equivalent of sacred script.

That was, obviously, because the eleven rittviks were able to use his so-called great status, as well as his bad advice, to their advantage in setting themselves up to be worshiped as the sum total of all demigods. Just as importantly, he lent credence to the pre-supposition that the rittviks were to become dékñä-gurus after the disappearance of Prabhupäda: “Rittvik äcärya, then it becomes as good as äcärya.”

Neo-Mutt Ghost Protocol rationalizes Prabhupäda’s preaching to suit its own mood and style. In this presentation, we are not discussing mood and style as a topic point, however. Instead, we are emphasizing TEACHING–one particular teaching, obviously.

Rationalization on the part of Neo-Mutt being bona fide certainly extends to this teaching in a big way. They warp it! Neo-Mutt has its explanations, but chiefly utilizes TWO of them in order to rationalize Prabhupäda’s clear affirmation about the PERSONAL ORIGINATION of the jéva-tattva beyond impersonal Brahman.

Consider this clear teaching by Prabhupäda from a platform lecture delivered on 10-7-75:

“We have come from the spiritual world into this material world. We have forgotten our Father. So, we have to revive this relationship with our Father or God or Kåñëa.” Platform Lecture, 10-7-75

Neo-Mutt rationalizes this, of course. It can state that the spiritual world includes the impersonal Brahman, which is true. It can then claim that, in the impersonal Brahman, the living entity remembered God. What God? Ostensibly created as a mere and insignificant spark, how was such PERSONAL remembrance possible?

Neo-Mutt can say, however, once having fallen from the brahmajyoti, the jéva forgot God. Forgot what? Forgot the effulgence? Neo-Mutt preaches that the material sojourn offers the jéva the opportunity to return to a higher platform than impersonal Brahman, to attain a personal relationship with the Supreme Lord in a spiritual planet. This explanation is close to the truth, but not close enough!

Close only counts in horseshoes, darts, and hand grenades. Rationalizing about Prabhupäda’s preaching does not coincide with what his above-mentioned statement communicates. In the platform lecture, THE ÄCÄRYA says, “revive THIS relationship.” As such, Neo-Mutt fails, because reviving THIS relationship cannot mean, logically, reviving the so-called relationship that a jéva has to God when it is in brahmajyoti.

That is the sum and substance of the first rationalization.

The other Neo-Mutt rationalization is anti-historical. It also is extremely insidious–and does tremendous damage in that way. It rationalizes that Prabhupäda preached personal origination to his Western disciples, because they were all indoctrinated in Christian or Talmudic religious teachings, along with similar social settings. Both of these emphasize God as a person in heaven—a place which is not at all understood rightly–and some kind of personal relationship with Him there. Heaven, however, is not eternal, but such is the nature of such foggy anti-Vedic dogma.

According to this Neo-Mutt rationalization, Prabhupäda had to change the real teaching. Allegedly, he had to advocate a return to an original personal relationship with God in Vaikuntha (not heaven), because Westerners would only accept that, as they were taught something similar.

It is a queer and ridiculous rationalization. It is also, somewhat indirectly, offensive to THE ÄCÄRYA. A genuine guru cannot change a Vaiñëava teaching in the name of preaching. That is forbidden. The process can be modified to some extent by THE ÄCÄRYA, and certainly Prabhupäda did that. However, the siddhänta CANNOT be modified.

Any so-called disciple who believes that Prabhupäda did this—which would have to have meant preaching an apa-siddhänta for circumstantial reasons in order to recruit Western followers—would ultimately not be able to place his or her faith in him. At least subconsciously, no one would be able to trust Prabhupäda if it became known that he did that, and, let me emphasize emphatically, he did NOT do that.

However, there is another factor. Prabhupäda’s initial disciples may have mostly been raised, as youngsters and adolescents, in Christian or Talmudic families. However, when they came to him, they had all abandoned that ritual, belief system, dogma for many years. The vast majority of Prabhupäda’s first and second waves of disciples were hippies, not a theistic bunch. Indeed, many were dedicated atheists.

Their lifestyles were not conducive to being attracted to any kind of disciplined, theistic formula centered around a Supreme Person. Those hippies who joined Prabhupäda did not require him to preach to them that they were all originally with a Supreme Lord in a personal relationship higher than being spirit sparks in the brahmajyoti.

The impersonal idea also contains a lack of responsibility. The teachings brought by the other gurus was that you merge into the white light and become God. This is also atheism. If you were originally only in that light, how can you be responsible for having left it? As such, subordination or responsibility was not a theme intrinsic to that presentation.

There is irony here. There was and is—in some of those impersonal cults—a heavy-duty and forceful emphasis on blind obedience to the guru, since he had, allegedly, become brahma realized and, therefore, God.

In fact, most hippies were inclined toward impersonalism. If Prabhupäda had changed the teaching to an emphasis on the impersonal Brahman—and, again, he did not—but if he had done so, that almost certainly would have INCREASED his recruiting. Indeed, because he stuck to the actual siddhänta, it is almost certain that fewer people in the West came to him from the hippie religion then otherwise would have.

The origination siddhänta of eternal servitude did not harmonize with most hippies: It was not the kind of occult transcendence that most of them were looking for or expected from their gurus of choice. Indeed, the other so-called gurus would have been more attractive to them, and such undeniably turned out to be the case in America.

The hippies were influenced by the message music of their rock bands (which always had defiant themes), a touch of Renaissance humanism, some early Nineteenth Century Romanticism, along with impersonal teachings from the East and Western antiquity. Previous to Scholasticism, Western philosophy was impersonal, and that applied to Neo-Platonism. However, sometimes personalism entered even there, such as this excerpt from the Neo-Platonic writings of Plotinus:

“Let us flee then to the beloved Fatherland. Here is sound council. . . The Fatherland for us is there whence we have come. There is the Father.”

IF we were ORIGINALLY just floating in the brahmajyoti—created in that way as an infinitesimal small spark floating in the effulgence of Ultimate Source—why were we plunged into the material atmosphere of birth and death from that state? IF that was our original state of being, IF we never had or could have experienced anything other than the impersonal and IF we had never experienced any kind of happiness within the spiritual realm of form and activity—what would be the impetus to fall down from the basic änanda that was and is present in Brahman?

How could we want personal relationship if we had never experienced any kind of it? What about the arbitrariness of such an alleged falldown? The impersonal origination apa-siddhänta does not account for that in any logical or fair way, does it?

In other words, some kind of Supreme Controller (according to both Gouòéya Mutt and Neo-Mutt) created each of us as an infinitesimal, ultra-small spark floating in a realm of impersonal änanda with other sparks, and then plucked us out of there. He then tossed us into the realm of pain, the realm of evil . . . BUT WHY? An impersonal spirit spark with no previous personal experience cannot possibly be responsible for that.

Also, how is it possible not to be affected by (at least subconsciously) the idea and feeling that Evil is Supreme? No fall. No blame. Yet, WHY be plunged into a very bad place where evil predominates at virtually every level? And where it does not, still there is death.

On the subject of responsibility, who and/or what was responsible for second echelon men in Prabhupäda’s movement ditching ISKCON in order to join Swämi B. R. Çrédhar and form Neo-Mutt? Who and/or what is responsible for all of those upstarts abandoning one of Prabhupäda’s most important teachings? After he departed physical manifestation, who and/or what is responsible for that first crack?

Is the Navadvipa mahant responsible? Certainly, but far from fully. Are each and every one of those men, who jumped the gun to become guru in another line and crossed the river, responsible? Without a doubt, but, again, not fully. Is “ISKCON” and the vitiated G.B.C. responsible?

Without a doubt! “ISKCON” and the vitiated G.B.C. are responsible for the no fall/no blame apa-siddhänta camel getting its nose under the movement’s tent. That negative development had terrible repercussions then, and those still reverberate today.

If the G.B.C. had remained faithful to Prabhupäda’s directives and desires, those repercussions would not have transpired . . . certainly not to anywhere near the extent that they did. A handful of disgruntled second echelon men might have linked up with Gouòéya Mutt. Still, they would have been very few, and they would have never gained any significant traction. Can’t put the toothpaste back into the tube now, however.

The rank-and-file knew nothing of Swämi B. R. Çrédhar until the late Seventies. He had no influence in the movement, and virtually no influence with the movement’s leaders, either. After Prabhupäda left the scene, it was various “ISKCON” leaders–with no resistance (but, instead, with encouragement) from the vitiated G.B.C.–who pushed Swämi B. R. Çrédhar out from obscurity into the movement’s limelight.

It was “ISKCON” which allowed his bad advice on how to carry on—as well as his impersonal origination apa-siddhänta—to gain the prominence that it did. That set the stage for second echelon BETRAYAL in a bigger way, as it has now metastasized into the gaudy World Vaishnava Association and all the fanfare it represents and promotes.

The colossal hoax known as the fabricated, so-called “ISKCON” confederation is a pseudo-spiritual scam. It has transformed itself three times since early 1978. Post-1977, if you were loyal to it, that band you were in soon started playing different tunes. With today’s Hindoo hodgepodge and F.D.G., it is playing yet but another one.

To wrongly believe you can find transcendental stability and substance by joining Neo-Mutt will entail the same experience. Both “ISKCON” and Neo-Mutt are concoctions, and both have been heavily influenced by Gouòéya Mutt. Prabhupäda called Gouòéya Mutt asära or useless. His conclusion about it being so is specifically enshrined in his books.

However, you can’t tell what is what—or even what time it really is—if you are caught in the vortex of either of these two sahajiyä entities. Very soon, each of their clocks, along with their latest tunes, will be striking a baker’s dozen. Things will soon be so radically changed in them that everything will be beyond recognition—if it isn’t even already.


1 comment

1 Meesala Gopikrishna { 12.01.22 at 09:49 }

The latest missive No Fault/No Blame: The Big Neo-Mutt Lie by Kailasa Candra Dasa gives a vivid history by explaining in detail how “ISKCON” is indirectly responsible for NO FALL THEORY to rear its head due to Swami BR Sridhar’s influence though strongly opposing the NO FALL THEORY at various times and NEO-MUTT fully propagating it by completely coming under the sway of Swami BR Sridhar. First Kailasa Candra Dasa makes it very clear to the readers and listeners of this missive that originally Srila Prabhupada taught the correct Vaishnava Siddhanta to his atheistic hippie disciples who were not subservient to any form of God-Head, but accepted Srila Prabhupada’s Vaishnava teachings that originally the Spirit Soul or Jiva had a Spiritual form and a transcendental personal servitude to Krishna or Vishnu in Vaikunta Planets. Later in the missive Kailasa Candra Dasa goes into detail on how “ISKCON” bought into the RITTVIK THEORY of Swami BR Sridhar to be rubber stamped by him as bona fide Acharyas (Ritvik acharya as good as acharya). NEO-MUTT propagated (and continues to do so) VAISHNAVA HERESY that Srila Prabhupada modified the Vaishnava Philosophy to suit the mindset of Christian and Jewish disciples who believed God to be present as a Person in Heaven, but in the missive Kailasa Candra Dasa strongly refutes that the majority of Srila Prabhupada’s disciples were all atheistic hippies who had no belief in God or Gods. Finally Kailasa Candra Dasa concludes that Srila Prabhupada’s bona fide movement broke into three factions, “ISKCON”, Neo-Mutt and Rittvik, being heavily afflicted and haunted by Gaudiya Mutt’s deviant Philosophy.

Leave a Comment