Podcast transcription:
Contradiction Baked in the “ISKCON” Cake
by Kailäsa Candra däsa
HARIÙ OÀ NAMAÙ
“On the other hand, that literature which is full with descriptions of the transcendental glories of the name, fame, form and pastimes of the unlimited Supreme Lord is a transcendental creation meant to bring about a revolution in the impious life of a misdirected civilization. Such transcendental literatures, even though irregularly composed, are heard, sung and accepted by purified men who are thoroughly honest.”
. . . If there is a change of heart of the leaders only, certainly there will be a radical change in the atmosphere of the world.” 1
“East is East, and West is West, and never the twain shall meet.”
Rudyard Kipling
Revolution. Radical. Solutions to cult problems may be superficial or they may be radical. If they are superficial, they only serve the higher echelons of that cult pyramid. They may serve to make the cult cake more tasty, but they do not make it genuine. If solutionsare revolutionary, they must also be radical. That was wanted in the mid-Eighties.
Radical comes from the Latin “radix,” which means root. As we proceed, whether or not the solution of the mid-Eighties was radical in relation to Prabhupäda’s apparent branch of the Hare Kåñëa movement will be discussed. If and when we choose to analyze that narrative, we should not do so without strong intelligence, without reason.
As far as Vaiñëavism is concerned, it removes all contradictions. Therefore, it is radical. It gets to the root of everything. Removing contradictions related to false narratives is integral to its genuine process. This fact will tie into both the terms “revolution” and “radical” in the second “ISKCON” contradiction, which we shall delineate subsequently.
These will be recondite realizations involved, at least to some extent. Seeing the first contradiction is not too difficult, but the second one is more abstruse. Nevertheless, it is certainly a contradiction. As such, it has no place in genuine Vaiñëavism. It may not be easy to assimilate, but your host speaker will make effort in in the service of clarity in order for you to both know it and then realize it.
Before that, we should consider that a narrative about anything automatically entails discussion of its matrix and its paradigm. The paradigm is built upon its matrix. The astral body is built on the causal body. Consciousness is more subtle and powerful than thought or the intelligence of the astral body. Intelligence, although related to consciousness, is still not exactly the same thing.
Similarly, the matrix is the foundation of the many paradigms that function upon it, which utilize it as their base. There is the Eastern matrix. From one perspective it is one, yet there are varieties to it. Then again, there is the Western matrix. It is radically different from the Eastern, as Kipling pointed out in his famous aphorism.
What is one of the chief differences between the Eastern matrix and the Western matrix? It is organized religion, which is endemic to the West, versus guru and disciple being integral to the Eastern. The three Abrahamic religions, which currently predominate in the West (as we all know), are loaded with organized religions.
His Divine Grace came with the Eastern matrix. He thus came here as a genuine theistic revolutionary. Although he tried to disguise that to some extent, he really did not–at least, not completely. Did Prabhupäda bring Vedic culture here to the West? Not really. His matrix was not a Vedic matrix; it was instead a para-Vedic matrix. Para means transcendental. His movement was completely transcendental to the Vedas. It represented the cream of the Vedic teachings.
In the Eastern matrix, we find the atheistic matrix upon which Buddhist paradigms (yes, in plural) are built. There is a Shinto paradigm built upon an Eastern matrix. We could go on, but the Eastern matrix is only one generically, and that was the one Kipling wrote about. We are obliged to recognize it, as it is vastly different from the Western matrix.
To reiterate, Prabhupäda bestowed upon us the revolutionary Eastern matrix of the para-Vedic, and the specific line of this matrix was the Brahma-Madhva-Gauòéya Vaiñëava sampradäya, the guru-paramparä. He built his ISKCON paradigm upon that matrix.
Any Eastern paradigm has a cult pyramid, but, unless it degrades and is intentionally changed, that alone does not constitute organized religion. Prabhupäda did not bring us an organized religion paradigm. His particular paradigm was the Sole Äcärya model.
The spiritual science of theistic transcendentalism has its intricacies. Joe Schmoe and Rosy the Riveter are not eligible to understand them. They can only be understood via guru-paramparä, which means via a self-realized or God-realized guru or, in some cases, a disciple of such a guru who is actually following him–and not changing his message or the Absolute philosophy in any way.
The material world is the perverted reflection of the spiritual world, but the warping principle gets worse. Everything that is of transcendental value also has its perverted reflection, including an Eastern matrix which is of the warped variety. The atheistic Buddhist matrix is one such example, and it has already been mentioned.
The para-Vedic matrix is the real Eastern matrix. All Vaiñëavas, irrespective of their lines, are linked to the para-Vedic matrix, which, as just mentioned, also must have a perverted reflection: That can be called the pseudo-para-Vedic matrix. If this is all too much for you, why did you take up search for the Absolute Truth in the first place? If you are a genuine seeker for realization in the spiritual science of theistic transcendentalism, you must want to understand these things.
What is the paradigm that is built upon the pseudo-para-Vedic matrix? That is an easy answer: It is sahajiyäism. Those eleven great pretenders from the late Seventies were all sahajiyäs. They were all imitators of the mahä-bhägavat, but the Sole Äcärya paradigm is not what they established (and we shall tie this in, subsequently). Instead, they created a new one: The Multi-ÄcäryaParadigm, since they all had the temerity and audacity to declare themselves Successors to Prabhupäda.
And that had intrinsic contradictions.
“Actually, a guru cannot be bad, for if someone is bad, he cannot be a guru. You cannot say ‘bad guru.’ That is a contradiction. What you have to do is simply try to understand what a genuine guru is.” 2
“ . . . an intelligent person can understand Mäyä’s tricks and see the contradictions in all her allurements.” 3
“How can I be responsible for you if you don’t obey? How can you be responsible for me? Sartre claims that you are responsible for others, but if others do not follow your instructions, how can you be considered responsible? This is all contradictory. Unless there is some standard, there must be contradiction.” 4
There are actual contradictions, and then there are apparent contradictions. Apparent contradictions appear to be so due to a poor fund of knowledge. They can and should be easily cleared up when we are sincere and serious, but they can be tricky. The principle of apparent contradictions can be misused. Those cults, and their leaders and the fanatics who follow them, misuse apparent contradictions.
Bogus cults are especially prone to do this when it comes to the opposed narratives that they push in relation to the Hare Kåñëa movement and in relation to Prabhupäda’s branch of it, especially related to the aftermath of his disappearance. Of course, even previous to his disappearance, there is an accurate narrative versus many inaccurate ones. One of the better ways that we can distinguish between the accurate and the inaccurate narratives is by spotting the contradictions in the latter.
There will also be a handful of apparent contradictions in the genuine interpretation of the Kåñëa movement’s narrative. Our presentation will not shy away from explaining them for your edification and realization. Spiritual science must have knowledge within it, and that entails some logic and reason. After all, the Vedänta-sütra is all about logic in understanding the Absolute Truth of the All-Good Supreme Personality. It is called nyäya-çästra for a reason.
Regarding that great work, it engages (in some of its sütras) in exposing and overcoming contradictions. For those of you who have read the commentary of Baladeva Vidyäbhüñaëa on Vedänta-sütra, you know this fact beyond a doubt. Indeed, constantly throughout the work, a wrong interpretation is first given by an amorphous entity called the “Pürva-pakña.” Then, the contradiction in his statement is exposed either immediately or soon thereafter.
Pürva means first. First impressions can be misleading. At least indirectly, by calling him (or it) the Pürva-pakña, a first impression is implicit to what he speaks. Often, the Pürva-pakña even sounds logical, but it isn’t. It is mistaken knowledge that conditioned souls are prone to be victimized by, and the SIDDHÄNTA given afterwards dispels it.
This format and principle of Vedänta-sütra is utilized in our presentation. We expose the contradictions implicit in the narratives pushed by “ISKCON.” The real narrative will be presented in our presentation, which will have to tackle a handful of apparent contradictions.
Wrong narratives, loaded with mistaken knowledge, are integral to Maya’s agency to destroy the Kåñëa consciousness movement. In combination with the personality of Kali, mäyika narratives have been effective in killing Prabhupäda’s branch of Caitanya’s Tree of Life. Indeed, false narratives contain a deep allurement of their own. This is because they are conducive to expanding actions that grease the skids for enjoyable, illusory entanglements.
The insincere followers of the bogus cults are not at all serious in their so-called spiritual sojourn; as such, these angry people are allured by false narratives that the deviant leader of “ISKCON” props up . . . and then they become disgusted. There must be a standard in order to discern what is accurate and what is inaccurate in relation to Prabhupäda’s Hare Kåñëa movement . . . and that standard must be free of contradictions.
“Furthermore, there are many persons who cannot understand spiritual existence at all. Being embarrassed by so many theories and by contradictions and various types of philosophical speculation, they become disgusted or angry, and foolishly they conclude that there is no supreme cause and that everything is ultimately void.” 5
They want to be cheated, and they are cheated. Simple for the simpletons. In order to understand the real narrative of what went down and why, you cannot remain a simpleton. Spiritual science has complexities, and this becomes all the more applicable since the stage of economy was removed for the Western population at large decades ago.
You could be very simple and still make tangible spiritual progress in the late Sixties and early Seventies when the ISKCON institution was functioning in the way it was supposed to work. Such has not been the case, however, for a very long time.
When you do overcome the appearances, these showbottles lose all meaning to you, because, as a theistic transcendentalist absorbed in spiritual science, you get nothing from them. If you enter and buy into any of their wheelhouses, you are negatively impacted progress in your spiritual life: It gets bollixed. You get glazed over, your prajïä goes silent, mundane intelligence begins to augment your mind’s allurement to the bogus cult, and you terminatefurther realization.
In this presentation, we are going to analyze the bogus narrative of “ISKCON.” With notable exceptions here and there, it demonstrates outward displays which can appear, to the uneducated and foolish eye, to be manifestations of devotional fervor. They are anything but:
“ . . . one will gradually become sahajiyä or one who takes spiritual advancement as something materially manifest.” 6
How can you pin any of this on Prabhupäda? You cannot. How can you claim that he is responsible for all of those deviations? That is contradictory at every level, even at the level of common sense. Common sense also informs us that lies and contradictions are not the same thing. “ISKCON” is loaded with lies in its narrative. It is supposed to be run by brähmins, who are supposed to be honest. However, if you call that a contradiction (from one perspective, it is), that is too general in order for us to really spot the deeper flaws in the “ISKCON” narrative.
A contradiction is a tell. When you spot it, you can then dig into the situation that it informs in order to discover the lies it is pushing. Let us now proceed to find those tells in the “ISKCON” narrative, but first we must discuss the value of doing so, as well as its applicability.
You will find no document produced by that deviant cult which specifies its narrative. If you approach one of its stalwarts and question him about his institution’s narrative—even if he allows you to do this—you will only receive some quick statement, often a one-liner, in which he boxes everything into a single corral. None of those leaders want to discuss the topic in general or answer those kinds of questions.
As such, to some degree, we are presenting their narrative for them, because all of its pieces of the puzzle that they created fit, but only when they are delivered to you free from wrong historical factors or mistaken knowledge. Again, we are not emphasizing their lies in this presentation, even their big lies, (such as Prabhupäda allegedly appointing eleven Successors to himself in July, 1977). We are instead pointing out two important contradictions, which then allows you to conclude that the “ISKCON” narrative is inaccurate . . . or if you prefer, that it is a false narrative of what really went down.
The first contradiction is related to the appointment of eleven rittviks in July of 1977. If that was a recognition by Prabhupäda that these were his most advanced disciples, that they were madhyams and had been for some time, then why appoint them merely as rittviks?
The common banter is the etiquette argument, the disciple is not supposed to initiate his own disciples in the presence of his spiritual master, i.e., if his spiritual master is still materially manifest. That is Vedic etiquette, but that is not a mandate if the dékñä-guru decides to override it.
Prabhupäda was fully willing to override it, and he proved that in letters to two of his leading men in 1969. In relation to the point being made here– the excerpts proving his willingness to discard the etiquette–we shall simply reproduce one of those excerpts:
“Maybe by 1975, all of my disciples will be allowed to initiate and increase the numbers of the generations. That is my program.” 7
Since that was his program, that was also his desire and plan. He wanted regular gurus. If he could have seen that any of his disciples had attained that level, he would not have appointed rittviks. If those eleven men were gurus in waiting—meaning that they were qualified to initiate, but would only act as rittviks until Prabhupäda left the scene—that contradicts what Prabhupäda clearly stated was his program.
It is a contradiction to claim that they were already qualified gurus but held back by the general etiquette. Prabhupäda did not care about the Vedic etiquette as far back as 1969 in connection to his disciples initiating new people and connecting them to the guru-paramparä.
Prabhupäda: You become authorized. I am waiting for that. You become all äcärya. I retire completely, but the training must be complete.
Leading Secretary: The process of purification must be there.
Prabhupäda: Oh, yes, must be there. Caitanya Mahäprabhu wants that. Ämära äjïäya guru haïä: ‘You become guru.’ But be qualified. Little thing, strictly follower.
Leading Secretary: Not rubber stamp.
Prabhupäda: Then you’ll not be effective. You can cheat, but it will not be effective. 8
This conversation with T.K.G. was only a few days more than a month earlier than that all-important meeting at Raman Reti. When Prabhupäda says, “Little thing, strictly follower,” he is not referring to an uttama-adhikäré. The mahä-bhägavat is a Successor to the guru, and that is not a little thing; on the contrary, it is a very, very big thing!
Prabhupäda was obviously referring to the madhyam-adhikäré, especially since the madhyam is just that, strictly following. The madhyam is qualified to be a regular guru, but none of Prabhupäda’s disciples were qualified in April of 1977.
And all of sudden they were a month later? All of a sudden they were when Prabhupäda appointed eleven rittviks in July, 1977?
TATTVAMASI
Those rittviks weren’t gurus at any level. They weren’t madhyams. They could only be appointed as rittviks, which means that they could conduct the initiation fire sacrifice on behalf of Prabhupäda, the actual guru. They were all doing that at different times before, and the rittvik process was rejuvenated again in July of 1977.
If they were gurus, Prabhupäda would not have appointed them as rittviks. It is a major contradiction, a major tell. The historical revisionism of the “ISKCON” narrative, promoting the mistaken knowledge that the eleven were already gurus by mid-1977, is thus made very dubious. His actual program was to have regular gurus initiating their own disciples while he was still physically present.
We all know what followed after Prabhupäda left the scene. Then, there was basically a four-month interim wherein the only major change was Kértanänanda jumping the gun at Moundsville and taking uttama worship from everyone of his inmates there, including godbrothers and godsisters. Some of the G.B.C.s huddled in Atlanta about it but decided it best to confront everything at Mäyäpur in the Spring.
What came out of that was, of course, The First Transformation, the zonal acarya debacle. Were there contradictions in it? Sure. However, they could all be rationalized to some degree, as they were less blatant. After all, when the G.B.C. swallowed all that Swami B. R. Çrédhar baited them with, they had a powerful fallback position to allegedly legitimatize all that they were doing, including the creation of those guru zones.
The schism between “ISKCON” and Goudéya Mutt (read, represented by Swami B. R. Çrédhar) had a major irony in it, obviously. However, was it also a contradiction? Not really. Even if you think that it may have been so, it was not a blatant one. After all, ‘ISKCON’ leaders finally realized that he misled them in so many ways and was hurting their movement, so they had every right to split from him and jettison Jayatértha.
Compromise and contradiction informed “ISKCON” since the late Seventies until now. For those devotees who are not part of it, who see it, and who preach against it, non-contradiction and confrontation inform each and every one of them, including their groups.
The next blatant and important contradiction to spot and understand is what turned out to be intrinsic to The Second Transformation. This had its seed begin to sprout in late 1984, but it was not until the following three years that it grew, developed momentum, and then overcame the zonal äcärya scam, replacing that First Transformation. Its history is fairly well documented, but the major contradiction intrinsic to it is little understood. You will understand it now, however.
We find this entry from Doktorski’s second book, Eleven Naked Emperors, in relation to Ravéndra Svarüpa (William Deadwyler III) claiming that he was leading a revolution against the pretender mahä-bhägavats:
“Ravéndra Svarupa considered his election to the G.B.C. as a ‘punishment’ he deserved because during his campaign to eliminate the zonal-acharya system . . . Ravéndra recalled, ’I had wanted to return to my services of writing and scholarship with the Bhaktivedanta Institute and the Bhaktivedanta Book Trust, but I fell unwittingly under the sway of a fairly well-established law: If you lead a successful revolution, you are condemned to become part of the government. There is no doubt that in the activities of reform I had to criticize many devotees who—deviations and shortcomings notwithstanding—harboured an inviolable seed of devotion to Prabhupäda and Krishna. Having to serve on the G.B.C. was only a fitting punishment for my offence.’” 9
Keep his statement about himself in mind, because it is integral to the second contradiction that is going to be elucidated, viz., what was said to be going down—and what actually went down—in relation to The Collegiate Compromise.
When someone uses the term “revolution,” what is being conveyed? There are some common meanings connected to it, and then there are incidental ones. One common theme is LIBERATION. Another one is a revolution back to an original position. Another one is that a revolution removes the elites of the system it replaces. A revolutionary in the spiritual context, as far as a devotee of Prabhupäda is concerned, is not someone who is merely advocating reform. That is a milquetoast disqualification, and a real cult revolution is much deeper than that.
It is a contradiction if a self-declared revolutionary, when alleging that he is leading a revolution, winds up doing something very different (and quite advantageous to him) from what revolution actually stands for, especially in the context of a spiritual movement.
A revolution was promised by Ravéndra in the mid-Eighties. Did it pan out? Or was it heavily (read, totally) compromised by turning out to be nothing more than a changing of the deck chairs on the Titanic? Because what he ushered in—previously waving the banner of revolution in his position papers—was nothing more than a veneer of a reformation, not a revolution. It replaced one concoction, the zonal one, with another concoction, an oligarchical regency, that’s all.
Contradiction means rascal. The stage of uprooting the zonal äcäryas, a stage strongly desired by most of Prabhupäda’s disciples after experiencing what the zonals wrought for over eight years—demanded something much greater than what The Second Transformation brought in. That change compromised with the zonals, those who fully cooperated with it. “ISKCON” could only survive during the mid-Eighties as long as its internal contradictions were not recognized.
The new cult would be tested soon afterwards, but that was after all the presidents of the centers climbed onboard the reform and accepted the new boss and the new G.B.C., which was really not very new at all. That was after the so-called chief revolutionary, Professor Blueblood, was voted on to the allegedly improved G.B.C. and also voted in as a dékñä-guru, an institutional guru, recognized as such by the governing body. He came in with a fervor which quickly petered out, but he was the big winner when the Bolsheviks conquered the Mensheviks.
The cult presidents were part of the momentum which overcame, in about two years time, outrageous glorification of the zonal äcäryas. The original eleven were not accepted anymore by the mid-Eighties, and a handful of new gurus had been added during the early Eighties, also. All of them took uttama-adhikäré worship.
However, the temple presidents were forming an alliance, especially in North America (sans Moundsville), and it was called NATPA: The North American Temple Presidents Association. Professor Blueblood was the temple president at Philadelphia, and he was leading the charge on behalf of NATPA. It wanted the high-flying gurus to be busted down, and he was at the vanguard of it.
What was being advertised by this insurrection as its casus-belli? What was being advertised was a revolution. Ravéndra called himself a revolutionary. Herein lies the essence of the contradiction. Prabhupäda was against all contradictions, and there are many statements and purports by him validating this fact; we have already produced some. Prabhupäda was also just as adamantly opposed to compromise. Here are but a few examples proving that:
“My guru mahäräja never compromised in his preaching, nor will I nor should any of my students.” 10
“Many times I have been told by other so-called holy men that I should not expect that foreigners will be able to avoid these sinful activities. But I have never compromised in any way and, as a result of our sticking strictly to our principles, our position is unique.” 11
“(Siddhänta Sarasväté) was so learned—so we should be like that as far as possible. No compromise . . . he never compromised. Some godbrothers complained that this preaching was chopping technique and it would not be successful. . . but we have seen they fell down.” 12
If The Second Transformation was actually a revolution, then it would not have any contradiction to what it advertised and what its results were. It would also not have made any compromises in carrying out its mission. In such a process of root rectification of the movement, in removing all vestiges of the previous transformation, it would have attacked the roots of the bogus gurus and their improperly initiated disciples. This would have been mandatory action for any revolutionary.
The movement had a bona fide guru-disciple process previous to its going off the rails in the Spring of 1978. Something akin to that process would have to have been reinstated movement-wide. That would have to have involved removing all of the gurus which were implicated in the bogus process. It would have to have included de-legitimizing all of the bogus initiations. There could be no compromise in this . . . if it was actually a revolution led by a revolutionary leader.
The First Transformation of the zonal äcärya debacle had to be thoroughly uprooted. Was it? Was covert fear of creating a new schism impelling the contradictions and compromises that The Second Transformation wound up implementing? If it had been bona fide, then why should there have been any fear of short-term backlash? It would have to be expected, because material nature is so constituted. It would have to have been directly confronted and endured, but it wasn’t. Instead, what did The Second Transformation actually enact?
It actuated a major compromise based upon mistaken knowledge of the science of the theistic ladder of spiritual advancement in the process of bhakti-yoga. It allegedly busted down the high-flying gurus, using a few of them as scapegoats via excommunication. It busted the rest down from uttama-adhikärés to madhyam-adhikärés . . . allegedly.
They were to be known as regular gurus rather than mahä-bhägavats to be worshiped by all. However, they never were uttamas. They were all great pretenders. They were all sahajiyäs. You do not bust down a sahajiyä to the level of a madhyam-adhikäré, a regular guru. That does not represent the ladder. A genuine madhyam-adhikäré is light years more spiritually advanced than any sahajiyä, especially of those pretenders who had been hippies less than a couple of decades previously.
Their disciples were all improperly initiated. Each and every one of those newcomers had to be confronted about that fact. The only ones who were confronted were the disciples of gurus who got either de jure or de facto excommunicated. Those new people were urged to accept re-initiation from a list of institutionally approved gurus, which included former zonals (and those who also took uttama worship a bit later) along with a slew of new men who were bought off by being voted into the post of initiating spiritual master during the Mäyäpur G.B.C. asat sabhä of 1986.
That whole arrangement was a massive institutional concoction. It could not be fobbed off as a mere adjustment, because the roots of the problem—which required a radical solution—were not uprooted whatsoever. The whole arrangement was a massive compromise.
And what about the so-called revolutionary Professor Blueblood? What was his status after all was said and done? Why, he cleaned up, big time! He got voted in as a new guru before that herd of his godbrothers—those who cooperated with the Bolsheviks and adopted its compromises—later achieved the post in 1986. However, it got better for him, as he also secured the vote to become a G.B.C.. He then held title to the trifecta: Initiating guru, G.B.C., and temple president.
Did all of these rascals shift over to the Western matrix? After all, instead of implementing a bona fide guru-disciple paradigm, The Second Transformation brought in a collegiate compromise 13 that reeked of a regency as its operating principle. Eventually, it would degrade into a queue process for any of its members to attain guru status. That became known as the governing body’s No Objection Certificate, which is very indicative of an organized religion.
However, in answer to the question, “ISKCON” did not shift into building its mid-Eighties replacement paradigm atop the Western matrix. It still built it upon just what The First Transformation used, the pseudo-para-Vedic matrix. It facilitated its third transformation (to the Hindoo Hodgepodge) when it was on the verge of collapse due to contradictions and compromises coming home to roost.
In summation, we have explained and exposed two major contradictions by the fabricated, so-called “ISKCON” confederation. The second one can be summarized as the chasm between what The Second Transformation promised and what it institutionally implemented once it overcame the embarrassed and rejected remnants of The First Transformation. The Second Transformation brought in unauthorized reforms, not anything which was even slightly revolutionary.
It was led by a man seeped in the university mentality, who then utilized his position papers in order to gain power. It was led by a man who compromised with the handful of zonals, those who were willing to cooperate with him. Along with temple presidents loyal to him, he beat back the Menshiviks, who rightly asserted that there could be no correction of the cult’s ills without de-legitmizing all the gurus proceeding the insurrection. That was far too radical for Professor Blueblood, and it got in the way of his ambitions. He wanted to get to the top of the “ISKCON” turtle tank, and he did just that.
Has this major contradiction now been made clear to you? It has a very bad astral smell, but understanding it for what it was helps overcome the stench of its major deviations and compromises.
“So, contradiction means childish. Contradiction is not scientist. Contradiction is childish.” 14
The colossal hoax known as the fabricated, so-called “ISKCON” confederation is a pseudo-spiritual scam. Prabhupäda named eleven rittviks to conduct ceremonies during his last year with us. He did not name a Successor, and he did not officially name any regular gurus. Such recognition in historically tangible form never took place.
Eleven rittviks went on to claim that they were dékñä-gurus, appointed by Prabhupäda after he left physical manifestation. Simultaneously, they divided the world into zones as their pseudo-devotional playgrounds, they took uttama-adhikäré worship from the improperly initiated disciples they made in their zones, and they claimed to be Successors in Prabhupäda’s branch of the Hare Kåñëa movement.
In the mid-Eighties, there was a backlash against all of this, mostly by the North American temple presidents. This insurrection was advertised as being a revolution, but it was no such thing.
If Prabhupäda had recognized any one of his disciples as being a qualified dékñä-guru, he would have empowered him as a regular guru, even in his physical presence. As he said as early as 1969, that was his program. He did not do so, because none of his discipleswere qualified.
The leaders of The Second Transformation had a fiduciary and devotional responsibility to uproot the debacle that went down after Prabhupäda left the scene. They failed to do so. They were all implicated as aiding and abetting the deviation by cooperating with the great pretenders. The so-called revolutionaries wanted to be worshiped as gurus themselves, so they were prone to compromise. And that is exactly what they did in the mid-Eighties: They compromised!
They were and are all ridiculous little children when it comes to spiritual life. As far as the demigods are concerned, they are all insignificant pretenders. In rationalizing the whole affair, the contradictions they thus created are childish.
Overcome any influence they may have had on you. They deserve no genuine status in Prabhupäda’s movement, because they are not spiritually advanced. The two contradictions they created in their first two transformations are baked into the tasty but warped “ISKCON” Cult Cake. Those contradictions expose its transformations, but only for those devotees who want to see things as they are.
OM TAT SAT
ENDNOTES
1. Çrémad-Bhägavatam, 1.5.11, verse and excerpt from purport;
2. Science of Self-Realization, Chapter Two;
3. Dharma, The Way of Transcendence, Chapter Ten;
4. Dialectical Spiritualism, Critique of Sartre;
5. Bhagavad-gétä, 4.10, purport;
6. Letter to temple president, 6-3-70;
7. Letter to leading secretary, 1-3-69;
8. Room conversation, 4-22-77 in Bombay, India;
9. Doktorski, Henry. Eleven Naked Emperors, p. 290. Kindle Edition;
10. Letter to temple president, 1-3-72;
11. Letter to Niraïjan, 1-6-72;
12. Letter to leading secretary, 7-27-73;
13. The presidents of the centers were steered into operating like a college of regents in determining what they would implement when they overthrew the great pretenders, which appeared likely. Momentum was on their side, but the key point of contention was whether or not to keep the gurus who acquiesced to them in their fold after the transformation. One party advocated removing all of them and rightly declaring that their initiations had all been bogus. The was the minority report. The majority, led by Professor Blueblood, opted to allow them to remain genuine gurus as madhyams and rule that their disciples were genuinely initiated, which is one of the contradictions embedded in this institutional compromise;
14. Morning walk, 4-19-73 in Los Angeles.