KCD’S MONTHLY MISSIVES – OCTOBER 2021

Video transcription:

Does the G.B.C. Determine Reality?

By Kailäsa Candra däsa

HARIÙ OM NAMAÙ

In an excerpt from a letter to one of his governing body commissioners, dated 4-11-72, Prabhupäda asked the following question:

“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 excerpt informs us that the power node of the fabricated, so-called “ISKCON” confederation does not possess infallible status. Approaching fifty years later, we have much practical evidence of it—in effect, constituting proof—that the vitiated G.B.C. has completely lost whatever spiritual legitimacy and power it may have once possessed.

Yet, the reality in “ISKCON,”–its definition of reality, of course–continues to hold sway on the minds of many. Although your host speaker and others have been exposing that deviated cult for decades, it still falsely claims to be the gateway to eternal life in the spiritual planets for those who dedicate themselves to it.

Like many other sects in the world, when you join “ISKCON,” you learn how its power structure functions. Accordingly, you learn the philosophy that it expects all of the cult’s members must adhere to, and you obliquely become aware of its interpretation of its history. That mal-interpretation entails the different meanings of events that otherwise would logically appear to severely tarnish its claims to being absolute.

In “ISKCON,” you soon learn, without question, that the power node of that pseudo-bhakti cult is the vitiated G.B.C. You may, to some extent, criticize its institutional gurus–who are, with few exceptions, like employees of the governing body. As long as those Party Men have received the No Objection Certificate, they are favored by the G.B.C. and their position as guru is secure, provided they do not engage in egregiously deviant behavior requiring damage control.

They know this, and the G.B.C. knows it, as well. The governing body appreciates their loyalty and their helpful numbers, which entails those so-called gurus accepting the dogmatic reality that the G.B.C. pushes at any given moment of time.

Accepting that reality means accepting institutional dogma, and there is quite a bit of it in that organization. Most of it ultimately boils down to unwavering faith in the governing body. Some of its decisions can temporarily be questioned, but essential to the dogma is the belief that the governing body has an intrinsic corrective mechanism built into it. This means that, even temporarily making a wrong judgment, it allegedly will always work everything out and be right.

The G.B.C. allows mild criticism of its loyal Party Men gurus, but never of the Commission’s legitimacy; it never allows any criticism of its ultimate status within the cult. Loyal faultfinders are tolerated, on the whole, if they are otherwise of suitable behavior. This latitude on the part of the governing body cannot, however, include major personal peccadilloes, in which case the G.B.C. will protect itself as it sees fit. However, these are infrequent, because Party Men avoid them.

The G.B.C. has been engaged in fix-it-as-you-go for many decades, especially when The First Transformation cratered in the mid-Eighties. As long as it receives acceptance of that tactic, it never punishes any member for minor or superficial criticisms they may espouse.

It is established dogma in “ISKCON” that the G.B.C. is the ultimate authority, above any spiritual authority possessed—or alleged possessed—by any of its individual initiators, its dékñä-gurus who have secured the No Objection Certificate. This concept is entirely anti-Vedic and anti-Vaiñëava. The guru—and by this is meant a genuine guru—is always the final authority for his initiated disciple.

There was even a period of time when the Wikipedia description of “ISKCON” (which it posted directly online) it posted directly stated that the G.B.C. was the Successor to His Divine Grace Çréla Prabhupäda. That was so outrageous that it had to be removed, because many of the Party Men saw how deviant it was to actually state, in print, such an anti-Vedic assertion to the public. Nevertheless, that IS the underlying mentality of “ISKCON.” Logically, this particular conception combines with its dogma, and all members must remain in good standing within “ISKCON” by, at the very least, tolerating that conception in order to reach the spiritual world at the time of death . . . allegedly.

Today’s G.B.C. is NOT the ultimate authority of Prabhupäda’s branch of Lord Caitanya’s Kåñëa consciousness movement. The idea that it is is anything but the reality. Corporate ISKCON still exists, obviously, but that does not mean that the fabricated, so-called “ISKCON” confederation is anything more than a broken arrow. It is an apa-sampradäya. It is an aberration. It is an anomaly governed by severely aberrated people, and such has been the case for over four decades.

On the macro level, Prabhupäda’s real branch—which is hanging by a thread—was institutionally murdered by the eleven great pretenders in the last week of March, 1978. Since then, the cult that hijacked it—the “ISKCON” confederation—has been nothing more than an abhäsa-dharma. It is a semblance of the real thing, without spiritual or devotional legitimacy. Institutional ISKCON has institutional gurus, who are its fiat currency for initiation. The initiations provided by them are not at all sanctioned by the guru-paramparä, but “ISKCON” superficially appears to represent something bona fide.

Its dogma justifies all that went down since the late Seventies, although the institution’s leaders prefer that this be forgotten and kept out of sight. “ISKCON” continues to take advantage of the Final Will in order to claim ultimate authority. In “ISKCON,” the vitiated G.B.C. determines reality, and it has names for all of its dogmatic beliefs.

When a deviated bhakti cult—or, if you prefer, a deviated religious or theistic branch of a greater line—when it deviates, it becomes infused with cult dogma. Automatically. Quickly. Whatever rights the rank-and-file devotees had before that—such as being able to study and understand the philosophy on their own—are modified or withdrawn according to the new dogma in the ascendant.

A new dogma, the product of an institutional transformation, gives way to the next dogma, which replaces it. As such, the rights of the devotees still clinging to the cult change accordingly, as do the prohibitions enjoined for them. As do the demands, such as fully accepting the G.B.C. version in all things, because it is the ultimate authority, allegedly.

There is a hierarchy in “ISKCON” with musical chairs relative to what rung of the hierarchy a specific member has temporarily secured. Complete fealty to the G.B.C. is the pre-requisite for attaining any of the three higher echelons in that apa-sampradäya, and everyone in it knows this. However, there is more to it than that.

The rights of those below the third echelon in “ISKCON” are very minimal, if they even exist. Their fealty is demanded, but, with few exceptional cases, little is expected of them except loyalty. When the dogma is redefined, the rights connected to the echelons controlled by the top rungs are also redefined. It is a slippery slope. This is because the dogma is determined—including the changed dogma or the changed process or the changed demands—by those who ultimately now hold the reins of power at the top of the turtle tank.

It doesn’t stop there, however. When the Society as a whole is redefined by another transformation (often the result of damage control when the previous one fails to meet the existential standard), the legal power—the power of the new laws and mandates established by the next transformation—slides down but another slippery slope.

Once a bhakti cult deviates, everything in it—except, to a certain extent, the Deity worship rituals—is, at the very least, tinkered with–if not outright changed. The power node of the Society is said to be absolute, because the Society itself—in this case, so-called ISKCON—must be absolute. Absolute dedication to it (and viewing it as absolute) is always integral to whatever dogma emerges or re-emerges.

Once the pseudo-bhakti cult deviates, those holding the reins of power will determine its reality. Its history is what they say it is. The philosophy is what they say it is. The process is what they say it is. Any guru in it is what they say he is, what they call him. “ISKCON” is a kind of oligarchical tyranny, and that has been the case for decades. Everything except loyalty to the institution and its power node proves ultimately arbitrary.

Contradictions be damned! The G.B.C. determines Reality. If you do not accept its version of reality, then you can only be in illusion. Then you must be re-indoctrinated. If that doesn’t work, then shunned and ostracized. This is the tyranny of “ISKCON.”

Let us review the various forms of its dogma over the years, with particular emphasis on the contradictions inherent in them as it changed course under the impetus of existential survival . . . but first, a related point: An irredentist agenda in “ISKCON” will not work. Neo-Mutt and Rittvik, both splinter groups from The Mother Ship, will not realign with it. Their differences and divergences have become too stark. The Third Transformation shuts the door to that possibility.

As such, expansion by “ISKCON”–all of which is has been, and will continue to be, horizontal—cannot rely upon the tactic of bringing offshoots from its original deviation back into the fold. “ISKCON” is relying now upon a two-fold strategy: Its Interfaith Initiative combined with becoming attractive to The Technocracy.

It does not advertise either of these tactics, as that would minimize the potential effectiveness of them; indeed, these efforts within the institution are mostly subterranean and out of sight, and the reason for that is not too difficult to discern.

The Technocracy is moving toward eventual replacement of the world current control by today’s powers-that-be, which is mostly based upon wealth and realpolitik. The Technocracy consists of technical wizards possessing material insight about the future situation. When everything collapses that was dependent upon this current New World Order (beginning late in the previous century), it must have a workable paradigm to both overcome and replace it.

A religious component to this new paradigm is a must. People in general tend to turn to their conceptions (read, misconceptions) of God or a Supreme Controller when times gets desperate, and that time is approaching. It is obvious to most devotees that “ISKCON” is going the route of an organized religion, which was NOT Bhaktivedänta Swämi Prabhupäda’s vision. Indeed, organized religion was specifically condemned by Bhaktisiddhänta Sarasväté Prabhupäda, but that means nothing in the current scheme of things in “ISKCON.”

We inferred nominalism previously. It must now be directly considered as applied to the current situation of the Hare Kåñëa movement, particularly in the Western countries. Prabhupäda was the Guru of the Americans by his own rightful designation. That was not merely a title, as he possessed all of the qualities, purity, and power necessary to be a jagad-guru. The guru-paramparä perfectly represents Reality, and it does not ignore relative reality. The nominalism employed by the fabricated, so-called “ISKCON” confederation does neither.

Does the G.B.C. determine Reality? They are called “gurus” in the deviated cult. Does this make them gurus? It is only a name. They are gurus according to nominalism, and, since they are called gurus there, those outside of “ISKCON” also call them gurus. Gurus in name only. Initiating gurus in name only.

Most of the gurus of “ISKCON” are rent-äcäryas, especially since a significant percentage of them are seen to have fallen down, but, in point of fact, they are all fallen. The guru must be a very perfect man. Those rent-äcäryas are not and never were. The guru cannot have any anarthas. He must possess strong faith. The rent-äcäryas are chock full of institutional anarthas, and that is why “ISKCON” (and its initiating spiritual “masters”) is nothing more than an institutional delusion.

Thus, the power node of the fabricated, so-called “ISKCON” confederation determines the status of people in its organization according to names bestowed upon them, but that is neither the Vedic nor the Vaiñëava system. The vitiated G.B.C. sets its controls to the heart of compromise and corruption, confident that most people will acquiesce when it says this is this and that is that. It compromised when it declared that assigned rittviks were appointed initiating spiritual masters. This led to endemic cult corruption in due course of time.

It compromised after that high-flying pretender mahäbhägavat scheme cratered by designating those of them still loyal to the Commish as remaining initiating gurus–but now madhyams rather than uttama-adhikärés, viz., The Second Transformation.

When the coffers were shriveling, it compromised with all kinds of Hindoo concoctions (such as car püjä and Hindoo wedding ceremonies in front of open Deities) when it amalgamated that hodge-podge. They provided needed revenue, and thus The Third Transformation came down the pike not long after the turn of the century. More corruption.

When the dragon ladies finally broke through, the governing body compromised with F.D.G., which is cent-per-cent against Vaiñëava tradition and strictures related to females becoming institutional dékñä-gurus, as much as it is against them taking sannyäsa.

“ISKCON” is now entertaining a compromise with Rittvik, which is itself a Vedic and Vaiñëava heresy. Notice a forthcoming statement by a prominent leader of the cult. He is one of its important Party Men, who has received the No Objection Certificate and thus is called a dékñä-guru. He is also on the Governing Body Commission and is quite influential. Here is the relevant excerpt from him:

“There are so many different types of Catholics out there. And the Vatican—I’m not saying that they’re perfect—but they managed to keep so many different people all under the same umbrella. Prabhupäda called that unity in diversity. So, we haven’t managed to do that.

First of all, because we are just a young movement. We’ve only been in existence like for sixty years, and the Catholic Church didn’t diversify until it was like four or five hundred years until after Christ passed away. But, ultimately, that’s the future of ISKCON.

That you have diverse groups that are clearly designated as being different from one reason or another. My feeling is, ultimately, ISKCON has to be able to absorb the rittviks as a diverse group. You have to be able to do that if you want to grow. If you try to make every fit a square peg in a round hole, and so forth, it doesn’t work.”

In the plan of “ISKCON,” how does floating this irredentist idea as a trial balloon fit into its overall strategy? It is almost certainly a loose, fix-it-as-you-go tactic—and it will fail–but we can see the pattern: Keep expanding horizontally, while engaging the Interfaith Initiative.

He compares his organization to the Catholic Church. In and of itself, that is ominous. He makes this comparison on the basis that the Catholic Church employed a successful tactic. That is arguable, of course, but it is only applicable on the material plane if it was successful.

“ISKCON” is certainly an organized religion, yet, in the excerpt, the sannyäsé still calls it a movement. Those days are long gone. Every sane and serious transcendentalist interested in Prabhupäda’s branch of the Hare Kåñëa movement of Kåñëa consciousness—such interest including all of the splinter groups, both big and small—recognizes what is an organized religion, and “ISKCON” fits the bill.

TATTVAMASI

“ISKCON” does not want to be seen as an insular bhakti-cult when it engages its Interfaith Initiative with the three chief Abrahamic religions. It wants to project that it is Hindu, also. The Hinduization of “ISKCON” is still active (but waning to some degree), and it is meant to show the powers-that-be in world religion that it has numbers, influence, and backing–and will have more in the future.

In Great Britain, it even calls itself Hindu; at least, it has advertised itself as such at the Bhaktivendänta Manor. It calls itself many things, and determining reality according to what you call it leads us to segue now to a concise description of nominalism.

Nominalism terms things to be what it calls them, and, in almost all cases, they are not what they are thus termed or how they are described. Nominalism believes that reality is determined via agreed upon the symbolism of leading minds: The symbol is the reality. This became the chief motto of the Renaissance: “Man is the measure of all things.”

Before and during that lateral historical octave (and previous to the second decade of the Sixteenth Century), there was the Gothic period of Christianity, wherein only the Catholic Church was the religious authority in Western Europe. This corresponded to what became known as Scholasticism. During the initial period of Scholasticism, the universals were considered real, with the Latin term res signifying them.

In course of time, primarily due to the speculative influences of Duns Scotus (parenthetically, the scholar who postulated that the mind is superior to intelligence) and William of Occam (parenthetically, famous for what became known as Occam’s Razor), there was the emergence of nominalism and its subsequent replacement of universals.

This opposed the belief that universals were real. Instead, nominalism postulated that they were imaginary. In other words, the ontology of things was determined by what leading scholars agreed to call them, what they were considered to be by religious speculators.

This eventually corresponded to the emergence of symbolism as the primary means of determining reality, with Platonic Ideas then having no relevance to such scholarly reasoning and its suppositions.

When you tag something, when you name it, does that automatically mean that the tag you assign to the thing determines the nature, substance, quality, or even the reality of the thing? If, in naming something, you also attribute to it qualities and substance that (in universal reality) it does not possess, does that actually convert it?

The thing has an ontological existence separate from how it is thus named; it does not automatically possesses the qualities, nature, and substance ascribed to it nominally. This is an in-depth topic and getting deep into it would be counter-productive to our aims in this presentation.

We know that the Universal Form is real, although temporary, having no permanent position in the spiritual world. It is a material creation, but it is nevertheless powerful, important, and real while the universe exists. This is all relevant to “ISKCON” at this time and for the past four decades plus. “ISKCON” is infused with nominalism. Let us apply the analogy of Darwinian philosophy in order to illustrate it.

Consider the following three statements, with the first excerpt being Hayagréva’s explanation to Prabhupäda of Darwin’s philosophy. That is followed by two excerpts by His Divine Grace Çréla Prabhupäda in his critique of Darwin from Dialectical Spiritualism:

“Darwin rejects the platonic eidos. Eidos is the Greek for idea, type or essence. There is no human eidos, human type or essence. There are no fixed species. This is in contradistinction to the Platonic idea that the species exist in essence or, as Kåñëa says in Bhagavad-gétä, béjam, ‘I am the seed of all existences.’ Darwin would not recognize any béjam, or seed, particular type for any species. Rather, he sees shifting, evolving physical forms constantly changing.”

In other words, Darwin speculated that the forms of man do not constitute a set number of species (or universals), but, instead, are constantly shifting and evolving physical forms that have no fixed being due to natural selection affecting them. Now, on to Prabhupäda’s review:

“Scientists admit that they do not know where things are coming from, but when they see them, they suddenly claim to have invented them. But that is not invention. These things are already there.”

“There are differences . . . in body types. Scientists will say that human beings are all of one species, but when they speak of species, they mean something different. The Vedas, for instance, would consider the Negroes and Aryans to belong to different species.”

As a side note, these last two quotes are not included in the database of Prabhupäda’s critique of Darwin. We have encountered this censorship by omission before. An important quote by Prabhupäda about the Talmudists was deleted from his review of Aristotle, and Prabhupäda’s critique of Machiavelli was entirely excluded from the Vedabase.

Now, back to our analysis of these three above-mentioned excerpts.

The disciple Hayagréva’s quote (which presented Darwin’s basic evolutionary philosophy) indicates that Darwin was a follower of nominalism. He rejected the Platonic Ideas and the universals. Although the Vedic and Vaiñëava philosophy clarifies Plato’s Eidos to a significant degree (without using any of his terminology), Western Christianity, during the period known as Scholasticism, cited Aristotelian and Platonic philosophy extensively.

The fact is that there are 400,000 species of man in the universe. Man or Mankind is the genera. The species are the races. All of this emanates from the Universal Form. These include the demigods, who look, to a significant extent, like men and women on Earth; actually, it would be more accurate to say that humans on this planet look somewhat like the demigods. The races are neither evolutionary nor shifting.

Prabhupäda’s second quote substantiates this. There are many different races of dark-skinned humans, and, over and above that, there are many other races that naturally gravitate toward Aryan culture, and, as such and in that sense, can be considered Aryan. Neither are American Indians nor South Americans nor Europeans nor Africans all of one species. The species is the race, although it is obvious that, particularly in America, human society is constituted entirely of mixed species.

None of the original species can be invented just because some intellectuals came up with a concocted system of so-called reality based upon nominalism. Nominalism is anti-Vedic, and these excerpts from the critique of Darwin prove that beyond doubt.

Yet, in the latter period of Scholasticism, nominalism took hold and overcame the ontological method of determining reality via fixed universals. This led to the Renaissance, which took it further. The Enlightenment figures were all nominalists, also. As far as the modern and post-modern epochs are concerned, nominalism and symbolism is accepted by virtually everyone to determine reality.

When you are in a deviated cult like “ISKCON,” it is the natural tendency to believe whatever is the conventional wisdom propagated by it at the time. This, more often than not, means to accept what is false as true and what is imagined as real.

Time changes things, especially when nominalism is in the ascendant. Çästric authority—and that includes the authority of the Founder-Äcärya—is replaced by cult authority and human reason as the source of legitimacy for the institution. The tradition thus gets changed.

Even in the late Seventies and Eighties when “ISKCON” deviated in a very big way—the zonal äcärya epoch—there was not even a thought that female members would or could be accepted as institutional gurus. Now they can receive the No Objection Certificate, and it at least one of them has. Not many years after Rittvik emerged—once it was seen to have gained traction—the G.B.C. called it “a dangerous deviation” in its annual resolutions. Now, one of the leading men of “ISKCON” is calling for Rittvik to be blended into his cult and receive legitimacy.

A morbid form of narcissism entered into “ISKCON” in the late Seventies, and, despite superficial changes, it has not left. Those high-flying gurus of the pretender mahäbhägavat era were seeped in mega-narcissism. It takes an over-inflated sense of self to enact major changes to the standard guru-paramparä, to rubber-stamp and replace it with institutional authority. A humble devotee would never attempt such a thing.

Does the G.B.C. determine reality? Within “ISKCON,” it most certainly does, but that does not mean that the real line of universal authority, coming through the higher demigods, accepts that so-called reality.

Let us return to Prabhupäda’s warning:

“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.?”

That is exactly what has gone down! It shows, well in advance of 1978, that the G.B.C. had a propensity to concoct its own procedures. Such concoctions were never part of Prabhupäda’s plan for how his movement was to be carried out. And let us always remember that Prabhupäda’s plan for his branch of the Caitanya tree was always cent-per-cent in harmony with The Great Plan.

The following excerpt is from a Back to Godhead article written by Prabhupäda in mid-1943, entitled “Theosophy Ends in Vaishnavism”:

“These devotional activities are real activities towards the end of The Great Plan, and they never disturb the adjustment of The Great Plan, whereas all other activities, may (they) be good or bad, are simply disturbing to The Great Plan.”

Understanding Reality consists of engagements in authorized, real activities approved by the Äcärya in the true sense of the term. A pseudo-reality, on the other hand, consists of engagements in unproven doctrines administered by ecclesiastical authorities, along with processes that embellish those dogmas. The gullible members of “ISKCON” have been given, for many decades, a set of beliefs and processes–intrinsic to theological dogma–that they must accept without question.

They have been force fed rationalizations and excuses, constituting further entanglement in pseudo-reality, such as: “It didn’t work, so we simply abandoned it” or “it was just the product of over-exuberant young boys” or “the governing body approved it, so it was right until they decided it was wrong” or “the governing body has an automatic, self-corrective mechanism, so everything will work out in the end” or “it was an emergency, so we adopted it as a kind of upa-dharma.”

This last one is based upon the institutional dictum of justification by crisis. However, there was no crisis in the Spring of 1978. The movement’s rank-and-file was adjusting well after Prabhupäda’s disappearance at the end of the previous year. The movement was still growing. Devotees were not leaving in any significant numbers. The malefic threat of the deprogrammers had been de-fanged. The zonal imposition was not at all necessary from any perspective, even if there had been some kind of institutional crisis, which, again, there was not.

The eleven great pretenders abrogated the authority unto themselves to prop up their concoction, knowing full well that there were no institutional mechanisms in ISKCON to hold them politically accountable. They controlled the G.B.C., and it was the power node. They were confident that, whatever they did, the right end would ultimately emerge even if that was the result to wrong methods.

However, and now mostly in hindsight, they excuse the colossal hoax of the zonal äcärya epoch on the grounds that it prevented a political crisis in the movement at the time. It did no such thing. On the contrary, it created a new one in the form of self-appointed saviors believing that they had the responsibility to withhold the truth. They withheld it from the dedicated members of the institution, the rank-and-file devotees, the real workers, who they conveniently believed were never to be trusted.

The actual truth was that they knew they were neither self-realized nor God-realized, but they thought they could pull it off. However, Prabhupäda would never have wanted such a lack of transparency in the decision-making of the governing body, even in the name of preventing a crisis, which, again, was not even present.

Yet, those eleven men were not elected and were thus politically unaccountable. They were supposed to have been elected, however, in 1973 according the charter governing the G.B.C. That election, by the temple presidents, was never held.

They were supposed to have been elected again—if still even eligible—in 1976 according to the Direction of Management, the charter governing the governing body. Again, no election was held.

Not only not held, but the presidents were never even notified of their fiduciary responsibility to hold elections for who should comprise the governing body. In effect, this meant that those commissioners did not have legitimate power, because all of it was based upon their own conception of how it was attained—a pseudo-reality—rather than how it was actually to be attained according to their governing charter created upon the unincorporated G.B.C. formation in the summer of 1970.

That all of this has been known for some time by many, especially those outside the wheelhouse of “ISKCON,” has created inevitable distrust. Those men in 1978 should have foreseen this counter-productive development. Instead, “Look out, kid, they keep it all hid.” The zonal äcärya formation and implementation was all arranged in stealth, just like the unauthorized centralization scheme of 1972, which Prabhupäda later concluded almost killed his movement.

The G.B.C., since the summer of 1973, has not been grounded in real and true principle. It is an extra-legal concoction and a kind of paternalistic subterfuge. All of this pseudo-reality cannot be set aside as merely some kind of “mistake.” They ignored their governing charter, and they ignored Prabhupäda’s stricture of “regular guru, that’s all.” It must also always be noted that Prabhupäda did not officially recognize anyone in his movement as having even reached the stage of regular guru.

In point of fact, in point of reality, all that the pretenders and their accomplice governing body commissioners have done for the past forty-three years is contradict everything that was supposed to have governed how they were to run the movement according to The Great Plan.

It’s all been a massive deviation, a massive institutional delusion. Yet, for those still entangled in it, the root issues—and all of the deviations connected to those root issues—have been kept out of sight. However, for the rest of us who are exposing it, we knew within ourselves that things were just not right in “ISKCON.”

Still frame of “ISKCON” Wikipedia with background lyrics

The colossal hoax known as the fabricated, so-called “ISKCON” confederation is a pseudo-spiritual scam. It cannot help you in spiritual life. On the contrary, it most definitely can harm your natural progress. It has what it calls initiating spiritual masters, but all of them are gurus in name only. It has NO spiritual or devotional authority, and such as been the case for many decades. Its big guns are described by His Divine Grace Çréla Prabhupäda in his purport of the twelfth verse of ÇréÉçopaniñad:

“These rogues are the most dangerous elements in human society. Because there is no religious government, they escape punishment . . . They cannot, however, escape the law of the Supreme, who has clearly declared . . . that envious demons in the garb of religious propagandists shall be thrown into the darkest regions of hell. Çré Éçopaniñad confirms that these pseudo-religionists are heading toward the most obnoxious place in the universe after the completion of their spiritual master business, which they conduct simply for sense gratification.”

SAD EVA SAUMYA