KCD’s Monthly Podcast – February 2024

Podcast transcription:

What Kind of Answers
Can You Ever Expect
From “ISKCON”?

by Kailäsa Candra däsa

HARIÙ OÀ NAMAÙ

Since the mid-Seventies, recognizing and realizing the long-running deceptions and pretensions of “ISKCON” is integral to the process of overcoming them within your higher intelligence. Due to a combination of the time factor and human mortality, some of those deviations (still a minority, however) have merged into oblivion, but most are still ongoing. Indeed, in living memory, there is a “ISKCON” narrative that requires our astute analysis, which, in order for it to be effective, must be free from the negative impact of mistaken knowledge.

That will be presented to you in this month’s podcast. There are important facts, ongoing as well as merged into the history, that you need to know. “ISKCON” promotes a simple but wrong narrative, one shot through with mistaken knowledge, but you should be far more interested in the Absolute Truth than anything it has to offer.

The “ISKCON” narrative is not conducive to liberation. The perfection of man is attainable, and it should be the goal. This goal is constantly impeded by the Supreme Lord’s mäyikä energy on every plane. Each of us has to deal with it–and from every angle, also. Our physical bodies impose an identification against and impediments to the perfection of the self. Our astral bodies do this also . . . more or less at every moment. Our causal bodies are contaminated with root universal categories meant to increase contaminated consciousness. Fate, karma, vikarma, and svabhäva (individual nature in the material universe having nothing to do with our eternal identity) are some of those causal factors.

Aside from these, there is the Western culture at large, and it is completely anti-Vedic. There are all kinds of sensual desires constantly pushed by it, along with the many ethnics which identify with it, increasing to the point of nation-states. There is Western organized religion in general, all of which has no redeeming feature—but, instead, only negative value—when it comes to achieving liberation from the cycle of birth and death. There is witchcraft, Satanism, Luciferianism, and various principalities that promote danger at every step for their occult participants.

However, worse than any or all of these binding factors, there are the many pseudo-spiritual religious organizations and smaller, pseudo-devotional cults. For a number of reasons, we emphasize exposing the latter. At this time, “ISKCON,” Neo-Mutt, and Rittvik are the worst of the lot.

The largest of these cults is “ISKCON,” of course. Nevertheless, the total number of devotees still psychologically affiliated with Prabhupäda’s branch of Lord Caitanya’s Hare Kåñëa movement—whether they are bona fide or otherwise—now outnumbers the big cult deviation. Such was not the case in previous decades, but time changes things.

As such, what is the “ISKCON” narrative? How does it rationalize all of its deviations from the orders of the Founder-Äcärya? How does it explain its myriad book changes? How does it rationalize the relatively short (but highly malefic) zonal äcärya scam of the late Seventies and early half of the Eighties? Until it was replaced soon afterwards, how does it justify the collegiate compromise, The Second Transformation?

There were book changes to the perfect purports that Prabhupäda produced while he was physically manifest. Beginning in the first half of the Eighties, how does “ISKCON” explain away that disastrous editing of Prabhupäda’s books? How does its narrative rationalize the Hinduization of the cult? How does it justify F.D.G.? What kind of revisionist narrative can accomplish this?

Not a bona fide historical narrative, you can be sure of that. There is a motto from back in the day: Simple for the simple. It has its correct application, but, when applied to the “ISKCON” narrative, it is really downgraded to Simple for the Simpletons. “ISKCON” leaders never take a lot of time to engage in apologetics, since they see that as mostly a counter-productive engagement.

They utilize simple rejoinders. If someone interested in it or on the fringe or a patron who comes to the Sunday celebrations (or who is losing his or her faith in the organization) begins to ask too many questions, “ISKCON” leaders make a quick determination as to whether or not that person is redeemable. If his or her questions are probing too deeply, bail on that individual, as he or she will no longer buy into the “ISKCON” narrative–at least, not for very long.

Let me give you one example of this from personal experience. The Vaiñëava Foundation was incorporated in the late Eighties. Membership was small, but interest in our organization began to pick up, as we were one of the first Kåñëa groups on the INTERNET in the mid-Nineties. Our initial articles appeared at that time.

One female devotee in New York City became interested after reading them. Early on in our exchanges with this devotee, she revealed her history. She had accepted a Rittvik initiation from one of Prabhupäda’s disciples at his temple near Tompkins Square Park. She also described what went down for her in relation to the Schemerhorn “ISKCON” temple after she first contacted Rittvik philosophy, which raised doubts.

She had come across a card inserted into one of Prabhupäda’s smaller books at a New York book store. Those books could then be found at almost all of the used book stores in that metropolitan area. A rittvik had inserted the card into the book, so she visited that temple and heard a lecture about Rittvik. It influenced her.

However, she was still torn. She was an accomplished woman in her business field of expertise and made good money for her specialized and honed skills. She thought that the movement was one, and that “ISKCON” was that movement. Of course, by the Nineties, such had not been the case for decades, but again, that fact is somewhat tangential.

The easiest seva for her was to make donations to the cult. Previously, before she became disillusioned by it, she had been very active in the revolutionary counter-culture of the Sixties and was a member of a Marxist-Leninist group. She knew the cutthroat infighting that takes place in political cults, so, when she came across Rittvik, it did not surprise her that “ISKCON” had competition.

Arguably, she was the biggest donor to the “ISKCON” Schemerhorn branch; she was a prominent patron, and, to some extent, considered dedicated enough to be, more or less, taken for granted. Yet, the new field for obtaining knowledge about what went down and why in the Hare Kåñëa movement was available to her. Via the Rittvik temple and the INTERNET, she was prodded to ask questions.

There was a particular disciple of Prabhupäda, one who was initiated by him. He was amongst the mainstays at that New York temple, and he was in charge of fund raising. Near or at the top of his list was the name and phone number of this female devotee living on the outside. They also had direct personal interface whenever she visited the temple. You could say it was a friendly relationship, but it, of course, hinged upon her value in the form of her donations.

Periodically, he would give her a phone call and ask for the next donation for the next big project, which was always coming down the pike in one form or another. She did not (previous to a phone call that will soon be described) reveal to that fund raiser—an amped up, gung-ho, dyed in the wool “ISKCON” fanatic if there ever was one—that she had contacted the Rittvik counter-narrative, as well having read other information (much of it from The Vaishnava Foundation) on the INTERNET.

All of this cast doubt on the “ISKCON” narrative she had been spoon fed. She had not yet joined Rittvik at the time of this phone call. She thought the fund-raiser could give her necessary answers to what she considered to be questions mereiting a comprehensive, intelligent response. The last time he called her to hit her up, she was respectful and began to ask her first probing question. Did he respond with a thoughtful answer? Considering that she had donated thousands of dollars to Schemerhorn initiatives, did not she fully deserve such a response?

That is not what she received: Instead, HE IMMEDIATELY HUNG UP ON HER. He instantly, by the nature of her very first question, considered her to be no longer useful and no longer deserving of any kind of answers to whatever follow-up questions would ensue. He concluded that, almost certainly, she would not accept any “ISKCON” pabulum. Her line of work and her intelligence made it clear that she was anything but a simpleton, so SIMPLE FOR THE SIMPLETONS would not be effective.

Mr. Fund-Raiser was an ingrate to the max, but that’s how the cult often operates: You either accept its simple answers, explanations, and rationalizations (which allegedly eradicate all doubts)or you are cast into the darkness as a reprobate. If you do not simply accept, you are tossed out as an irredeemable. In the case of this particular woman, Mr. Gung-ho hung up on her as soon as it was concluded that she was over-intelligent, wanting answers to sensitive questions, and are no longer the cannon fodder “ISKCON” was and is looking for.

Let us now proceed to a concise description of the “ISKCON” narrative. To reiterate, no figure in and around that cult, no one who begins to doubt, will be subject to receiving an in-depth discussion on any or all of this. Anyone who would lose faith in “ISKCON” is compared to a broken China bowl by the upper echelons.

Depending upon the circumstances, someone who was previously completely faithful in “ISKCON”–who was “all in” but lost some faith–will receive nothing more than platitudes and presuppositions integral to the “ISKCON” narrative. If that does not turn the trick, then they are discarded, as was the woman in New York.

The “ISKCON” narrative centers around the G.B.C.. The G.B.C. is to ISKCON as the hand is to its glove. The G.B.C. is the power node of the cult. ISKCON is the brand or the label, but the G.B.C. decides its philosophy, process, and revisionist narrative. We need a major overview of this in the context of totalism and totalitarianism.

In making any such effective analysis, you are dealing with the ecclesiastical weeds as far as the current version of “ISKCON” is concerned. This was quite predictable from the mid-Eighties onward. Since the deviation of 1978—and, frankly, even before that—the Governing Body Commission has kept a totalitarian grip, reinforcing its utter disdain for free inquiry and disputation.

It is not the post-modern definition and action of free speech in the West that is being referenced here. Such an idealistic definition of free speech can never be unfettered or countenanced in any sophisticated civilization. Yet, criticism of a cult controller body (and its beneficiaries) must always be tolerated in any legitimate spiritual institution, and that toleration must certainly be present when it comes from initiated brähmins in Prabhupäda’s branch of the Hare Kåñëa movement.

A great movement is neither meant to be a completely open society nor a completely closed one under the thralldom of totalitarianism. Ideas and the speech which expresses such free inquiry cannot (or should not) be artificially smothered. All devotees in the Kåñëa movement—especially the brahmins–have spiritual rights as a foundational principle.

However, the vitiated G.B.C. took all of that away, beginning with the imposition of the disastrous zonal äcärya imposition. Those few brähmins who explicitly repudiated its implementation were persecuted to the point of ostracism and character assassination. The institutional reaction was against the spiritual sovereignty of each of those brave individuals.

Individual spiritual rights are inalienable to the perfection of man. When fully liberated beyond all conditioning, any self-realized brähmin possesses immutable sovereignty. Even previous to that, freedom of brähminical expression must not only be tolerated by the institution, but encouraged. A Vaiñëava is not a malleable party man with a blank slate meant only to be molded by the controlling faction of an imposed culture. Selectively tailoring institutional consciousness is not the business of any genuine managing body of a spiritual organization.

Contaminated consciousness or mistaken knowledge is to be determined by guru, sädhu, and çästra . . . not by governing body edict. The vitiated G.B.C. was and remains the source of all past and current spiritual crises we continually observe and experience. They come in the form of a never-ending astral war imposed upon all devotees decades ago, especially via internecine battles between “ISKCON,” Neo-Mutt, and Rittvik.

When the vitiated governing body determines what is and isn’t harmful speech or harmful assembly, I shall give you five guesses as to who are the beneficiaries of any such judgment . . . and you won’t need four of them. To determine the right side of the prophesied History of The Golden Age, we must have knowledge. Specifically, we must know how to separate Fate from Providence. Manipulation of the politics of consciousness, engaged in by a governing body, does not produce this knowledge.

THE TECHNOCRACY will soon replace the paradigm of Western nation-states. It will be a top-down, centralized government run by experts. There is the dreadful possibility that the vitiated G.B.C. could wind up as a religious advisory body behind its curtain. We need to head this possibility off at the pass now–not at the time that the new paradigm starts to go down. Then it will be too late. A later and worse version of totalitarianism will then prove to be intractable for centuries, along with the uncountable mega-atrocities it will seed and enact.

TATTVAMASI

Such a terrible event is not inevitable. Indeed, it will not have any chance whatsoever to transpire if we can extract the (now suppressed) Golden Age from its current existential prison . . . mostly forced there by the rulers of today’s “ISKCON” regime. The vitiated G.B.C. is not the vanguard of The Golden Age; it is, instead, its suppressor. It is also the repository of a wrong narrative, which this month’s presentation is designed to, at least in part, expose.

The duty of a genuine G.B.C. would be godlike both in composition and results, but that is entirely inapplicable when it comes to the vitiated G.B.C. for the past many decades plus. We must endeavor to get rid of it in order for the fresh and perfect Consciousness of The Golden Age to once again resurface and flourish according to the Will of the Parameçvara. That Will is the true path of Real History, and that’s the only narrative that should hold our attracted interest.

In order for it to resurface, we must repudiate the pseudo-idealistic intolerance which masks itself as “Prabhupäda’s G.B.C..” It is no such thing. Culture must control politics, but that is not the case in “ISKCON,” and it has not been so for a very long while. The party men, space cadets, blind loyalists, fanatics, and kick-mees in “ISKCON” represent little more than an echo chamber of the first echelon manipulators who control them. The lower cult echelons lack the power to discriminate, in no small part because none of them have ever been real brähmins.

They act according to a bias response only. For them, the concept of free speech, afforded to real brähmins, is a dangerous concept. They do not want it. They do not want to hear about it. They want freedom FROM such speech. The vitiated G.B.C. is all too happy to grant them their wish in this connection. Part of how it grants them such an ignorant desire is the false narrative of revisionist history that it feeds them about the movement’s status and its past. Time to get past all of that (pun intended).

Initially, the G.B.C. engaged in some service related to curtailing the influence of four deviant leaders, who then were given sannyäsa and dispersed to different areas of America. This event is not integral to the ISKCON narrative, however, and it is little remembered.

Now, on with a concise delineation of the warped ISKCON narrative, along with its garden variety rationalizations to explain away all of its brackish water. We do so from the standpoint of how an “ISKCON” and G.B.C. loyalist views these events from the past.

The centralization scheme of early 1972 (by a quorum of the G.B.C., specifically eight of its first twelve members), was uprooted and rectified. There was no lasting damage from it, because the automatic, self-corrective empowerment of the governing body worked to produce a return to normalcy. However, our critics maintain that it left a stain.

Beginning in late 1973, the decision by the G.B.C. to approve the plainclothes pick produced a notable increase in both laxmi and book distribution for most of the temples, and, on that basis alone, it was proven to be right, especially in G.B.C. eyes.

The Direction of Management, the founding charter of the G.B.C. in 1970, was and remains of little (if any) importance. The decision by the G.B.C. not to hold scheduled votes for G.B.C. elections and re-elections (or replacements of commissioners) was also right according to the G.B.C. vision. Although this vote, mandated every three years by the Direction of Management, was in the charter itself, the G.B.C. decision not to hold that vote of all temple presidents in either 1973 or 1976 was the right decision as per the judgment of the G.B.C.. The vote would have resulted in political disturbance and intrigue only . . . allegedly.

That Prabhupäda tossed out virtually all (if not all) of the G.B.C. resolutions at the Annual Meeting in 1975 in West Bengal has no significance. He had the power to do that, and the ultimatum he gave connected to tossing them out at the time was simply meant to firm up the resolve of the G.B.C.. This is the G.B.C. view of it. It was only a test, and the G.B.C. passed that test with flying colors.

Although Prabhupäda instructed that each G.B.C. was to serve as his personal secretary for a month and then replaced by another one, that the G.B.C. only observed this for a very short time is not in the category of disobedience. In Prabhupäda’s state of obvious emaciation in 1977, it would have been precarious to have an ever-revolving door of personal servants. As such, the G.B.C. decision to allow T.K.G. to be the permanent secretary to Prabhupäda for almost all of that year was not a mistake.

Therefore, because of this governing body decision, T.K.G., on the Commission’s behalf, was given unfettered facility by the G.B.C. to make all decisions about anything and everything he wound up making in relation to Prabhupäda’s treatment.

In late May of 1977, there was that cryptic exchange between two commissioners (T.K.G. and Satsvarüpa) and Prabhupäda—comprising less than two minutes of time—with four other G.B.C. witnesses. They chose not to speak up for needed clarification. The transcript was not circulated. It had to be pried out of the archives over two years later. That was not an effort to hide anything, however.

There was no deception involved in not revealing it, and calling it the appointment tape (when there were no appointments contained in it) was not a fault, either. All of those commissioners (numbering six) knew what Prabhupäda’s mood and intention were, and that remains good enough. The G.B.C. was empowered to rightly interpret the exchange.

There was no malefic intention in not allowing that transcript of it to finally surface to the devotees at large beginning in mid-1980, over two years after it transpired. That the exchange was dovetailed into the appointment of eleven rittviks less than two months later was what Prabhupäda intended, and this can be known with certainty, because the G.B.C. said so, and its conclusion should be accepted.

That the G.B.C. believed Prabhupäda would deliver on his statement–made by him during that meeting in late May, 1977–that he would appoint gurus was a given. That he only appointed rittviks was his subterfuge or choice. He did not officially appoint them as actual gurus not because they were not already spiritual masters, but for his own reasons. He never made explicitly clear what was behind his decision not to appoint them as gurus, but the G.B.C. knows why.

The decision by the G.B.C. not to widely circulate the letter (written by T.K.G. in July of 1977 re-establishing the rittvik system of initiation after many months of no initiations whatsoever) was, at worst, an oversight. The eleven men named as rittviks in that T.K.G. letter, which Prabhupäda merely signed on a line called “authorized,” was not clearly understood or even discussed by the overwhelming majority of Prabhupäda’s initiated disciples, including his brähmins. Yet, this should not be blown out of proportion. It was neither important nor mandatory that the letter become well known and analyzed. The reinvigorated movement then functioned again with new disciples of Prabhupäda being initiated, and that’s the only thing that mattered at that time.

The decision not to take Prabhupäda out on parikrama, although he specifically requested it (read, ordered it), was not in the category of disobedience. It was the G.B.C. decision through its emissary, T.K.G., who was empowered to make it. Similarly, the decision not inform all of Prabhupäda’s initiated disciples to come to him immediately in late 1977—a decision also made by T.K.G. and engineered in America through the commissioner for Southern California—was also acceptable to the G.B.C. initial decision to circumvent previous orders. Prabhupada’s express orders to have his disciples come to him must be trumped by the pick.

The Christmas collection would have been severely impacted if the vast majority or all of Prabhupäda’s disciples were informed of his end-of-life order, and thus they never were at the time. Instead, the order was changed to having only two leading disciples travel to Våndävan from each zone in America and Europe, although that was not fully carried out, either. It really didn’t matter at all, because the G.B.C. decision to override the order was right. The money flow was very good in late 1977.

After Prabhupäda departed physical manifestation in mid-November, that the aforementioned letter (naming eleven rittviks) was merged into a so-called appointment of eleven dékñä-gurus is a pre-suppostion, granted. However, it is one that the G.B.C. approved. All leading men considered that Prabhupäda had appointed the eleven to be eventual initiators while, so merging the July, 1977 T.K.G. letter with a later dékñä-guru appointment was nothing more than a recognition of Prabhupäda’s intention.

That the G.B.C. did not interfere with Kértanänanda (when he began taking uttama-adhikäré worship from his godbrothers and godsisters at the Moundsville compound in late December, 1977) was also the right decision. To believe that he should not have been confronted, although his action was independent of governing body edict, was the right decision for an already dejected movement reeling after Prabhupäda left it. If there had been a G.B.C. confrontation with Kértanänanda (a confrontation which wound up only being delayed for a little over seven years), it would have created conflagration for the ISKCON movement in 1978.

That the G.B.C. decided to send representatives to consult with Swämi B.R. Çrédhar in Navadvipa during the period of the 1978 Annual G.B.C. conclave was also the right decision. The G.B.C. itself approved it as a resolution with only one commissioner objecting, so that alone proves that it was what Prabhupäda and Lord Caitanya wanted.

That the G.B.C., when asked by Swämi B.R. Çrédhar as to what was the basis of its eleven designated men being dékñä-gurus, offered him the reply that it was because Prabhupäda previously appointed them as rittvik-äcäryas. To which the Swämi replied: “Rittvik-äcärya, then it becomes as good as äcärya.” That the G.B.C. accepted this Bengali bromide was within the wheelhouse of its scope and purview to make such a judgment, and this was already T.K.G.’s plan, anyway.

That the G.B.C. then created exclusive zones for each of its initiating gurus (according to the advice of Swämi B.R. Çrédhar) was in the category of an unprecedented decision against the çiñöäcara of guru-paramparä. Nevertheless, since the G.B.C. made that decision, it was authorized and bona fide for the duration it lasted—after which it was jettisoned as not actually bona fide—also according to G.B.C. edict.

That the G.B.C. also agreed with Swämi B.R. Çrédhar’s slogan “mat guru si jagat-guru” and not only authorized, but demanded, that all of its eleven appointed initiating spiritual masters be seen and worshiped as mahä-bhägavats was right for its time. This despite everyone, in due course, devotees coming to the realization that none of them were uttama-adhikärés. The decision to have them worshiped as such by all members of the ISKCON movement also meant acquiescing to Kértanänanda’s earlier unilateral action. As such, not confronting him in late 1977 and early 1978 had major ramifications and repercussions, but all of that was G.B.C. sanctioned. Therefore, no problem.

That the G.B.C. accepted Swämi B.R. Çrédhar’s tropes “just put on the uniform, and then you become the soldier,” along with “It is to deceive the disciple” as the way to conduct the transition was acceptable to the governing body. The G.B.C. agreed with such deceptions, which it considered to be transcendentally authorized.

By implementing those ideas, the pretensions became bona fide throughout the movement. It did not matter if a guru was pretending to be on a level in which he was not, because, if the G.B.C. approved such deception—which it did—then any pretension or deception in sync with that approval was transcendental and pure.

That the G.B.C. chastised two of its zonal äcäryas in late 1979 and 1980, removing them from being any longer initiating spiritual masters for the cult, was within its power. That it could justify this corrective action to the devotees in general—and the new initiates of those two gurus, in particular—by rationalizing that those two men had become “spiritually sick” should be recognized as an ingenious innovation.

That the G.B.C. soon afterwards reversed this and gave them their zones and initiating status back (because one of them threatened to reveal the subterfuge behind merging the rittvik appointment with the appointment of actual gurus) was the right tactical move. The overall strategy was to keep ISKCON viable and not allow it to crater.

As such, acquiescing to those two men and reversing their chastisement was the right tactic at the right time. Since the G.B.C. did this, it is not in the category of a contradiction. While the period of chastisement was in effect, they were no longer gurus. Whatever the reason, once that punishment period was terminated, they were gurus again.

That the G.B.C. insisted, from 1978 to 1982, that there could only be eleven initiating spiritual masters in the ISKCON movement was its rightful decision to make. That the monopolistic zonal äcärya concoction thus had to be terminated when it expanded its number of gurus was not a contradiction. Labeling the zonal concoction something unwanted and eliminating it simply proved that the G.B.C. had, integral to its creation and ontological status, a self-corrective power.

Beginning with the Lichtenstein Gétä in 1983, what about the massive book changes? One of my godbrothers counted 741 unnecessary changes to translations and purports in that new version. Were all of those corrections of obvious mistakes? Of course not.

There were obvious mistakes—and some cases, egregious ones—noticeable in the 1972 MacMillan version, which was Prabhupäda’s second Bhagavad-gétä As It Is. However, those were not in the hundreds; perhaps, not more than twenty or thirty.

The changes from Macmillan to Lichtenstein eleven years later—and after Prabhupäda had left physical manifestation six years previously—cannot easily be dismissed for what they were and remain. How does the G.B.C. explain all of this?

The G.B.C. can and does claim that it had nothing to do with it, because that Lichtenstein edition was authorized by the B.B.T., which is separate from ISKCON. The G.B.C. is also separate from the B.B.T. The massive changes are not the fault of ISKCON nor of its controlling node.

What about The Second Transformation of the collegiate compromise? It was mostly ushered in by Ravéndra Svarüpa and his like-minded comrades. It brought some gurus down, but not all of them. The uttama worship was abandoned, with one exception. All remaining gurus—including the former great pretenders—were then considered madhyams, as long as they remained in the good graces of the G.B.C.. All of their disciples were still considered genuinely initiated.

The disciples of the gurus ostracized were not, however. Was the “re-initiation” mandate that the initiates of the other high-flying gurus were forced to accept actually authorized? Or was it an awkward formulation?

The G.B.C. said it was right and that it would work.

Either way, it did not last long. When some new people wound up accepting three or even four “re-initiations” from so-called authorized gurus, it was a time for a change. Once the Rittvik concoction powerfully surfaced in the early Nineties, the “re-initiation” jig was up.

The G.B.C. adapted accordingly, which it was presumed it would do. The new people had been jerked around by a carousel of musical chairs and initiations, but with Rittvik, they could simply opt out and claim they were initiated by Prabhupäda. As such, the G.B.C. tactically allowed the re-initiation scheme to merge into oblivion. It was right in doing so.

Things had become too institutionalized during The Second Transformation. The new people needed charismatic, pretender uttamas, to amp them up! The G.B.C. was responsible for ushering Stage Two in and jeopardizing the revenue flow in the process of its formation and implementation. Did it rationalize that error and correct it?

Yes, it did. Replacing the collegiate compromise, the G.B.C. approved the Hindoo Hodgepodge which then, as The Third Transformation, replaced the previous one when it proved unworkable? Thus, the G.B.C. is responsible for Hindoo marriage ceremonies held in front of open ISKCON Deities for years running. It is responsible for Indian dance troops in the temple rooms. Were you not entertained?

Did it continue to attempt toexpand its Hindoo congregation—and the money they brought with them—via absurd events like car pooja? Sure. Did Hindoos then start to actually become temple presidents at some Western centers. Was the Bhaktivedänta Manor, in order to attract its new congregation and win the crowd, advertised as a Hindoo festival? There is no question that the G.B.C. allowed all of this to go down.

How is any of it rationalized? How is F.D.G. justified? There can be no doubt whatsoever that the G.B.C., fighting the right wing of the ISKCON Bird of Prey, formulated, formed, legitimized, and implemented F.D.G. There may only be one such feminist rep now, but there will be more in the very near future. Such a “liberal” initiation process is meant to win and expand the congregation. Is there value in such numbers?

The G.B.C. says that there is, and it has a sweeping explanation which covers everything: The ultimate managing authority! It emphasizes the adjective to the max. It dismisses the adverb. Whatever the G.B.C. decides, it is bona fide at that moment in time, whether eventually reversed or not. Any G.B.C. decision represents ultimate spiritual authority on every and all planes, and this is its sweeping explanation.

You must stay loyal to the G.B.C. because, even when it deviates, it does not. The whole saga is nothing but a test. It has a self-corrective mechanism integral to it. This is the sum and substance of the G.B.C. its rationalization, revisionist narrative, and concocted process.

Have we listed all of the deviations engineered by the vitiated G.B.C. for the last four decades? Probably not, but, even if we have not, we have touched upon many of them. Can they be individually justified? Argumentum ad absurdum allows for that to a certain extent, as does their black art of slow-walking the whole thing in order to keep kicking the can down the road. The G.B.C. has mastered that sorcery.

The colossal hoax known as the fabricated, so-called “ISKCON” congregation is a pseudo-spiritual scam. No one will ever be able to confront an “ISKCON” representative—be he an institutional guru, a G.B.C., sannyäsé, a temple president, or a combination of any of these—and question any of these points, while expecting cogent and comprehensive answers to even one of them. The “ISKCON” narrative is what it is, although it can vary according to who spouts it from what angle of vision at a given moment–and to which person is asking its rep the questions. At this point, what else could you possibly expect from “ISKCON?”

SAD EVA SAUMYA