Podcast transcription:
On and For the Record
A multi-part series
Analysis of Eleven Naked Emperors
(Review of Chapter Thirteen)
by Kailäsa Candra däsa
HARIÙ OÀ NAMAÙ
The root issues of why and how Prabhupäda’s branch of the Hare Kåñëa movement was converted into an abhäsa-dharma is analyzed every month in our presentations. This month, we shall shed more light upon that make-show. Today’s analysis centers on dogma, pretension, and the avidyä feeding that dogma and pretension. It is a procedural avidyä before it becomes cult dogma. Once the dogma is believed, it continues to exacerbate a major institutional delusion in “ISKCON.” Since the mid-Eighties, this delusion is at the core of maintaining the cult’s pretense of offering genuine gurus and genuine initiations.
People who are still under the spell of the “ISKCON” version of Mahä-mäyä mistake dogma for truth, and their progress in spiritual life is thus bollixed. Some of them push all their chips to the center of the table. Doing so, they identify with the deviated cult out of fanaticism.
Once an unfortunate seeker of the Absolute Truth gets sucked into the cult’s vortex, there is little chance of escape. There is dogma in “ISKCON” which serves as the mortar to hold its wonder wall together. It works to keep each of its countless so-called initiated disciples in illusion, adrift without a spiritual rudder. Although there are exceptions, for the most part, that dogma covers over the fringies, also.
The “ISKCON” narrative of what went down since Prabhupäda’s disappearance is deeply flawed. Yet, its dedicated followers, all with a poor fund of knowledge and meager discriminatory power, are unable to realize this fact. The dogma, buttressed by unsound sentiments, was promulgated aggressively during the heady zonal äcärya era. Because that particular broken arrow—which we rightly term The First Transformation—derailed the bhakti train from the tracks (at very high speed), it soon enough led to an intense internecine war within the organization.
We have been discussing that contentiousness in our recent presentations, and we shall continue to do so this month. Rationalizing dogma becomes easy as long as even a couple of major misconceptions are believed to be true by everyone in an occult institution. “ISKCON” is just such an institution under just such a universal spell. Undeniably, massive, mind-boggling pretension was at the heart of the zonal äcärya era.
Yet, “ISKCON” is warping the actual historical narrative when it promulgates the belief that pretension disappeared after the temple presidents, via the Guru Reform Movement led by Ravéndra Svarüpa, finally got over in 1987. He and his comrades spread the illusion that they had overcome pretension after the eleven great pretenders, along with some later additions, were all busted down.
In the course of the zonal pretense, all of Ocean’s Eleven had taken constant exalted worship as so-called mahä-bhägavats. It was utterly undeserved. The T.P.s, finally triumphed, believing that they were justified to then carry on the organization via a new dispensation, unimpeded by all those who had previously imitated Prabhupäda. However, although mostly unrecognized, pretension remained in their new paradigm.
What it did was morph into an imitation which was and is different at the outer circles, but not at the core. As the outrageous zonal era segued into the contentious mid-Eighties, some “ISKCON” leaders, and even some rank-and-file devotees, began to think that the godmen— supposedly appointed by Prabhupäda as dékñä-gurus and worshiped as uttama-adhikärés on lavish seats in front of open, Deities in temple rooms— did not deserve the hype and adulation.
The developing internecine war was then in its incipient stage, and those who would become its stalwarts on the reform side of the coin (Ravéndra, in particular) could not fail to see signs that the leaders at the top echelon, the high-flying gurus, were not expert in spiritual science. How could they be? If they were, then that schism with Gouòéya Mutt would not have, and could not have, transpired.
Remember: “ISKCON” relied heavily on Gouòéya Mutt—one of its prominent leaders, in particular—for what was implemented in the zonal imposition during its incipient stage. By 1984, that scheme was floundering. Actual experts in the knowledge of cause and effect, what to speak of spiritual science, could not have drafted anything for the movement that would so soon wind up in such dire straits.
Real transcendental experts, on the other hand, produce successful results according to a plan which is in accordance with Providence. What was the result of the zonal era? It would not have collapsed if it had produced excellent or even good results in spreading pure K???a consciousness, if it was actually guided by very perfect men. It didn’t, and it wasn’t, and it cratered under the weight of its own contradictions.
Spiritual master in “ISKCON” was, and still is, determined by the vitiated G.B.C. As such, all of the gurus (post-Prabhup?da) are institutional gurus; this includes the eleven great pretenders who kicked off the massive show bottle. In the late Seventies and the first half of the Eighties, they were expert only in playing the governing body and climbing the latticework of its bureaucracy. They were trained and ruthless cult manipulators, granted, but more than this was needed in order to prevail during the fierce internecine war that they seeded.
In our ongoing review of Eleven Naked Emperors by Henry Doktorski (henceforward ENE), we have now reached Chapter Thirteen. Mostly, it centers around the fateful year of 1987. Last month, we covered 1986, the full emergence of the war. The appropriate title of ENE Chapter Thirteen this month is: “Fall of the Zonal Äcäryas.”
It details how Compromise Reform got over and successfully busted down the so-called uttama-adhikärés to the alleged status of madhyam-adhikaris. The great pretenders who did not manifest egregious falldowns during this new “ISKCON” transformation (and who cooperated with Compromise Reform) were now supposed to be seen as madhyam-adhikärés, but they were nowhere near that level.
Directly related to this will be “ISKCON” dogma manifested in the form of a major misconception (avidyä) about the spiritual science of bhakti-yoga. Just as importantly, like the zonal imposition, it was also a pretension. “ISKCON” since 1987 has been dependent upon its loyalists fully buying into this particular avidyä. It is the not-so-hidden linchpin of what afforded The Second Transformation to gain needed traction in order to last as long as it did, which was not very long.
In 1987, T.K.G. removed his vyäsäsanas from all of the centers in his zones, indicating that he should only be shown the respect due a madhyama-adhikärés. He gave up the pretense of being a God-realized mahä-bhägavat, and it was an effective move. He knew which way the wind was blowing, and he acted accordingly. The chief scribe of the cult almost immediately followed his lead, having indicated even previous to it that he no longer wanted to be seen and worshiped as an uttama-adhikäré.
In the same time frame, ENE reveals that Harikeça, delegating his power and autocratic style to his own men, transitioned four new gurus in his zone from sannyäsés and a brahmacäré. This was an unprecedented move, part and parcel of the reactions which were breaking bad for the zonals who did want to be ostracized after being busted down. The gurus who were most shrewd made those adjustments, setting the stage for Compromise Reform to prevail in the Spring of 1987.
In the Sixties, politically inclined hippies, rejecting the host culture in America, often turned to Marxism as their positive alternative; they were located in urban centers, particularly in New York City. They concluded amongst themselves that the struggle against Capitalism was not how the final battle against the most potent enemy would ensue. As such, their infighting was fierce, because they all believed that the final fight would be between Socialism and Communism.
Similarly, the writing was on the wall in early 1987: The battle with the high-flying gurus was not the essence of this “ISKCON” internecine war. The battle against Status Quo and Status Quo Modified still had to be fought to its destined end, but it was clear how it would play out and which party would win. Reform would triumph, and that became more and more evident by the day. Instead, the essential battle was, in 1987, between Compromise Reform and Radical Reform.
ENE describes this as follows:
“The Radical Reformers argued that ISKCON should return to ‘Square-One,’ to the time before the zonal acharyas took office after Bhaktivedänta Swämi Prabhupäda’s disappearance. They advocated making all previous initiations by the zonal äcäryas null and void. They said that all the thousands of disciples of the new gurus should be notified that their initiations had been conducted under false pretenses; that they had actually not received initiation into the sampradäya.
The Radical Reformers also insisted that the zonal acharyas who had taken over the G.B.C. in 1978 and who were still in office—Jayapataka, Bhavananda, Hridayananda, Satsvarupa, Harikesh, Tamal Krishna, Ramesvara, Bhagavan and Kirtanananda—should be stripped of their guru-ship and disciplined. For nearly a decade, the reformers claimed, these pretenders, with the authorization of the G.B.C., had instituted their own totalitarian regime and persecuted the actual brahmins in ISKCON, such as Pradyumna, Yasodanandan, Kailasa-Chandra and others, who had so bravely tried to confront the charlatans and keep Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupäda’s movement on track.” 1
In the same time frame, one of three gurus initially expanded from Ocean’s Eleven–when it shared the franchise for the first time in 1982–chastised the vitiated G.B.C.. ENE offers a part of his critique as follows:
“An ISKCON guru and G.B.C. member, Panchadravida Swami—who had been ordained as a guru in 1982—advocated removing every single G.B.C. member and electing entirely new members. All the leaders, including himself, he claimed, had a hand in corruption. Panchadravida Swami explained: ‘I want to apologize to the devotees for what I consider was a great injustice perpetrated over the last nine years. As a G.B.C. and guru I can’t absolve myself of responsibility for many of the injustices that devotees have experienced. . . for the last nine years, ISKCON underwent a shift from being a very scientific and scripturally presented movement to a personality cult. . .We established elaborate worship of ordinary persons. We’ve worshiped people who are more astute politically than spiritually. By establishing that kind of worship for persons who aren’t pure, we diminish Prabhupäda’s position.’” 2
The wheels were coming off, but the vitiated G.B.C. would not be converted to reform without a fight. Their corruption was being exposed by insiders, but point man had to be punished. It expelled Païcadravida from “ISKCON” in the Spring of 1987. As a result, he soon joined the fledgling Neo-Mutt adversary.
As noted previously, the insurgents in “ISKCON” became commonly known as the Guru Reform Movement. Ironically, this anomalous title would be modified and adapted less than a decade later by one of the Rittvik groups. The Guru Reform Movement of late 1986 wanted to establish a committee in order to check the power of the vitiated G.B.C.. Astonishingly, they were able to do just that in the last month of 1986, and it had quite the bite during the fateful next year. As per ENE:
“Finally, after nearly three years of struggle, the guru reformers constituted a formidable force against the guru-controlled G.B.C.. A fifty-man committee consisting of temple presidents, sannyäsés and other senior Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupäda disciples who opposed the zonal acharyas, was formed at the December 1986 North American G.B.C. meeting in Dallas, Texas. Tamal Krishna Goswami was elected chairman. Besides being ambitious and determined, Tamal Krishna was a superb administrator and political strategist. He saw the fall of the zonal acharyas coming, and in an effort to retain as much power as possible, he jumped ship to join the side he thought would win: the guru reformers.” 3
Remember: The temple presidents had the gurus by the short hairs. The gurus were big-time enjoyers. They exploited more psycho-physical pleasure than anyone else in the world, because they received so much adulation not afforded to anyone else, anywhere. They obviously needed to keep their disciples in the “ISKCON” institutional system, if for no other reason than to be able to secure a portion of the pick their men and women brought in daily.
It was up to the temple presidents to train (this word is used in a loose sense here, obviously) thousands of new people, keeping them loyal to “ISKCON.” Such loyalty necessarily entailed adherence to their gurus, supposedly on the highest level of purity and realization. ENE describes more about the Guru Reform Movement and its fifty-man committee in the showdown at Mäyäpur, 1987:
“The fifty-man committee dominated the agenda at the 1987 G.B.C. meetings in Mäyäpur. The committee discussed a suggestion that the entire G.B.C. resign and new members be elected, but it was rejected “due to the consideration that Srila Prabhupäda’s mood was more to reform someone than to throw him out.” However, the fifty-man committee succeeded in suspending the G.B.C., an amazing feat . . .” 4
From what I heard through the grapevine, the committee targeted the most powerful of the gurus, the right tactic in order for their strategy (to overthrow the zonals) to succeed. Although it is not mentioned in ENE, your host speaker heard that they jettisoned Hådayänanda first, and he was very resentful about it when later re-instated.
However, the committee had its momentum checked when it came to attacking Harikeça, because he was very influential and wealthy. He threatened to start his own movement. It appeared that he could pull central and eastern Europe completely out of the “ISKCON” sphere, so the committee had to back off when it came to him.
Nevertheless, please note that the Guru Reform Movement being able to suspend the G.B.C.—no matter for how short the length of time it was—is mind-boggling. Prabhupäda did this in the first half of April, 1972, and fifteen years later it was done again. These suspensions proved (and still prove) that the G.B.C. was never endowed with absolute power. If it was, it could never have been suspended or checked in that way.
The G.B.C. was supposed to be the ultimate managing authority in the movement, but it only held that status for as long as it remained bona fide. By 1987, it had been severely deviated for at least nine years. It was never the ultimate spiritual authority, although it appeared to be so by its actions of appointing . . . or not vetoing . . . or voting in spiritual masters through ever-changing, ecclesiastical devices (read, concoctions).
Chapter Thirteen devotes substantial font space to the North American temple presidents and their meeting in Towaco, New Jersey just prior to Mäyäpur, 1987. There is almost no record of it, because they wanted it that way. Their penchant for secrecy had been assimilated by them from their leaders at the top echelon. However, some information about that Jersey mini-conclave did eventually surface.
We are simply going to summarize it. It marked the final battle between Compromise Reform and Radical Reform. One of the chief leaders of the latter group did not attend, and that contributed in a major way to the outcome. Ravéndra and his comrades (the Bolsheviks) prevailed against the Mensheviks. Not only did they prevail by their numbers, but the most powerful scholar was on their side.
In Chapter 13, what went down in this smaller battle within the bigger battle was analyzed by a former disciple of Hansadutta as follows:
“According to the compromise, . . . the remaining “zonals” would keep the ‘disciples’ they had acquired under the blatant lie that they had been appointed by Srila Prabhupäda, and a number of guru ‘reform’ movement leaders like Ravéndra Svarupa dasa and Atreya Rishi dasa would abandon any appearance of principle by also joining the make-show as an ecclesiastical ‘guru.’ This Machiavellian pragmatism is unfortunately how things often get done in the G.B.C.. It isn’t . . . trying to do what is pure or even according to Srila Prabhupäda. Although his instructions are selectively invoked, when the going gets tough, it is too often what is going to keep the powerful in power and keep the mass of devotees bewildered about how the G.B.C. really does things so that they will keep producing the results of new members and money.
In this way, the blatant abuses and deviations of the zonal acharyas were only replaced by a lesser evil. The remaining ‘zonals’ who had the real power of many so-called ‘disciples’ and temples were forced to come down a notch or two and largely surrender the movement’s management . . . Then the new bosses painted a new face on the fading patient by ostracizing the more strident reformers, quieting the more dependent with assurances of ‘righting the wrongs,’ and ushering in a less autocratic, collegial, far more Western and warm and fuzzy “ISKCON.” 5
All of this was courtesy Professor Blueblood. It is virtually certain that he had been in consultation with some of the “ISKCON” leaders still backing the original gurus. By Towaco, at least two of them (mentioned already) had signaled a willingness to accept a compromise. Ravéndra proposed compromise with arguments against rejecting post-Prabhupäda initiations. He warned that the schism it would cause was not worth the solution it would produce, and the majority bought into that argument.
Radical reform lost at Towaco. As such, the new Guru Reform Movement came into Mäyäpur, 1987 with a strong and united momentum. They came in free from the radicals formerly in their group, because the few who still believed in Radical Reform no longer had a runway.
The torch was passed to a new transformation. Four prominent sannyäsés– embroiled in scandals and all initiating gurus and influential members of the vitiated G.B.C.–either resigned or were removed from office. Damage control was still in vogue at the 1987 Mäyäpur conclave, which would pass many resolutions. The Second Transformation of “ISKCON” was now the wave of the future, but for how long would its collegiate compromise last? And what was it really based upon?
What may surprise some of you is that, at root, it was based upon the same things The First Transformation of the zonals was based upon: It was based upon both institutionalism (in an even stronger way than during the zonal era), and it was still based upon pretension. The pretension of cutting obnoxious mahä-bhägavat profiles employed by the zonals was eradicated. However, it was REPLACED by another pretension.
TATTVAMASI
It was based upon the idea that the zonals institutionally being busted down to madhyam-adhikäré actually qualified them as being madhyams. In point of fact, they had no such qualification. It was based upon the pretension that all of those initiating gurus added to the cult in the Eighties were madhyams. None of those pretenders were madhyams. It has always been a pretension that they were. None of them were anywhere near being genuine madhyam-adhikaris.
Since the mid-Eighties, it has been integral to “ISKCON” dogma that its gurus are madhyams. There is no substance to that whatsoever. Since then, they have all been pretender madhyam-adhikaris. A madhyam-adhikari initiated by Prabhupäda can become a dékñä-guru only if he receives Prabhupäda’s order to initiate new disciples. A madhyam-adhikäré is an advanced transcendentalist. We shall discuss this in detail later in our presentation. A madhyam guru is never an institutional guru.
Here are some of the resolutions passed at 1987 Mäyäpur:
1. Kértanänanda Swämi was expelled and henceforward forbidden to participate in any ISKCON functions;
2. Bhävänanda had his status as dékñä-guru suspended (again);
3. Bhagavän and Rämeçvara (each no longer recognized as a swami but as “dasa” in the resolution) were suspended as ISKCON gurus;
4. Only Prabhupäda’s vyäsäsan was allowed in any ISKCON temple;
5. The only guru-püja allowed would be for Prabhupäda;
6. ISKCON gurus could not be worshiped by their disciples in the temples;
7. Honorific titles for gurus could not be used in public forums;
8. The term “äcärya” could not any longer be used for ISKCON gurus;
9. Only Prabhupäda’s name would be chanted in temple kértans. 6
Your host speaker is quoted as follows in Chapter 13:
“On the other hand, the radical reformers were saddened by what they saw as the victory of ecclesiasticism and the defeat of philosophy. Kailasa-Chandra noted, ‘Sahajiyas cannot be allowed to keep their so-called initiated disciples if they superficially clean up their act. Pretender mahä-bhägavats cannot retroactively be accorded the status of advanced devotees—and know it for a fact that any Vaishnava madhyama-adhikäré is an advanced devotee—simply because they jack down the opulence of their worship and say that their godbrothers and godsisters are no longer obliged to also serve and love them as gurus.’” 7
ENE quotes Yaçodänandan prabhu, an important initiated disciple of Prabhupäda (and formerly an influential sannyäsé), as follows:
“‘The current G.B.C. still maintains as members some of the ‘unrepentant architects’ of the zonal-acharya system. . . . And yet we are being told that a reform took place in 1986-1987 and that everything is back to normal. I question whether or not this was a merely cosmetic reform, while some of the masterminds and ‘unrepentant architects’ merely toned down their style, even though their ‘acharya ambitions’ had been clearly unmasked. Is the G.B.C. of our movement really serious about re-establishing the much-needed integrity of its board? Or are we to sadly conclude that it is simply the same ‘old boys’ network’ with a different gloss?’” 8
ENE quotes Nityänanda prabhu, a powerful disciple of Prabhupäda, who single-handedly opened the New Orleans yatra in the Sixties, as follows:
“’Many senior devotees are not at all satisfied with the meager repentances that followed after the fall of the absolute gurus in 1987. From what I have seen, only Satsvarupa Maharaja genuinely regrets his involvement with the G.B.C.-Guru Era of 1978-1987. . . . As far as I know . . . there was little to no public repentance for what a few powerful G.B.C.-Gurus did to nearly destroy Srila Prabhupäda’s movement. Some of them are now gone, and some are still here.” 9
Actually, there has been a complete turnover in the G.B.C. since 1987. As far as functioning gurus from that time are concerned, there are only a handful left. Time changes things.
The ISKCON Shastric Advisory Council is quoted to have warned:
“’We should also be aware from the history of other sampradäyas and religions of the real danger of gradual corruption. Even if apparent purity were maintained for some time by a bureaucratic regulating system of authorization, the eternal temptations of misusing the status of guru for self-aggrandizement could ruin the system and the institution. In future generations we, like other sampradäyas, could become burdened with gurus who collect disciples mainly for money and power. Such corruption could occur even while maintaining the external appearance of bureaucratic purity.’” 10
ENE, in Chapter 13 at its very conclusion, shares the following analysis by Dhaneçvara Swämi, a genuinely initiated disciple of Prabhupäda and today an influential preacher:
“’As the highest authority of ISKCON, Srila Prabhupäda was final arbiter (decision maker). His decisions on all matters were the final word. In Srila Prabhupäda’s Last Will and Testament, he wrote that the G.B.C. would be the Ultimate Managing Authority for the entire Society, just as Srila Prabhupäda was during his manifest presence. There is nothing wrong with that. However, again this title (form) has been misinterpreted by the G.B.C., mistaking this phrase to mean that they are both the ‘Ultimate Managers,’ and the ‘Ultimate Authority.’
Thus they think they can do with ISKCON as they see fit (creating substance), while disregarding Srila Prabhupäda’s earlier statements of what ISKCON is meant to be—forgetting that their authority stems from him even to this day. They interpret their title to mean they are equal to Srila Prabhupäda himself, even stating that whatever they say is as if Srila Prabhupäda himself had said it. And beyond that, through this idea of being the ‘ultimate authority’ they attempt to create siddhanta (spiritual principles), contradicting long-established Gaudiya Siddhanta.
Thus many of their ‘laws’ are simply dogma. The most glaring example of this is their idea that all gurus connected with ISKCON must be subordinate to their control, ignoring the fact that the bona fide guru must be a transcendental autocrat. . . . The G.B.C. have failed in every respect to carry out Srila Prabhupäda’s instructions to themselves and for his mission. They have taken charge of Srila Prabhupäda’s ISKCON as if it were their own to do with what they please, rather than acting as fiduciaries carefully protecting what Srila Prabhupäda had entrusted to them, and are in fact acting in opposition to Srila Prabhupäda’s direct instructions.’” 11
Dhaneçvara brought up dogma in his analysis. Dogma was also mentioned at the beginning of this month’s presentation. We are, of course, only referring to “ISKCON” dogma. Along with it, continuing pretension was also mentioned earlier. The dogma that replaced the pretension of The First Transformation, of the massive deviation of the zonal äcäryas (and all of the hell it brought to everyone), relied upon, and continues to rely upon, the following procedural avidyä:
THE DUMBING DOWN OF MADHYAMA-ADHIKÄRÉ.
We find the description of a madhyam-adhikäré in TLK:
taj joñaëäd äçv apavarga-vartmani
çraddhä ratir bhaktir anukramiñyati
Cultivating that transcendental knowledge, one quickly advances on the path of liberation. Firm faith, attraction, and devotion will follow in order.
Çrémad-Bhägavatam 3.25.25, verse 12
“One who has firm faith in the Supreme Personality of Godhead becomes fixed . . . “ Çrémad-Bhägavatam 3.25.25, purport
Also in TLK, we find the following commentary:
“The madhyama-adhikäré. . . wants to see that not a moment is wasted without engagement in Kåñëa consciousness. He is always careful not to spoil life’s valuable time. That is the first qualification of a madhyama-adhikäré.” 13
The komala-çraddhä of the neophyte is not being described here. What is being described is prauddha-çraddhä, firm faith. This is the beginning of madhyama-adhikäré. The madhyam is an advanced guru. He is automatically a çikñä-guru and a vartma-pradarçaka-guru as soon as he reaches this advanced stage of madhyam, which entails real çraddhä. Firm faith means fixed faith. It means being fixed in buddhi-yoga.
An advanced transcendentalist in the bhakti line has this fixation at the very beginning of madhyam; he progresses from there. You can pick up that he is advanced and perfectly self-controlled by his vibration. He is a special man. The guru must be a very perfect man. The madhyama-adhikäré is a very perfect man.
The uttama is more advanced, but the madhyam can never be compared to the neophyte, who is not qualified to be guru and is not a perfect man. The real path to perfection, as evidenced in the verse quoted above, begins at real çraddhä, which is firm faith.
The institutional guru is never fixed. Institutional guru means bogus guru. Organized religion, when it enters into the outer level of bhakti (and that level is not bona fide), produces fake madhyams. It produces fake gurus who are all institutional gurus. That is all that you get in “ISKCON,” and such has been the case since the mid-Eighties.
Previous to that, you only got fake uttamas, which was more outrageous. That pretense broke down badly in about eight years. Yet, as mentioned previously, the pretense simply transferred itself to fake madhyams, appointed or not vetoed or forced to wait in queue to be approved to be institutional gurus by the vitiated G.B.C..
Always remember that the vitiated G.B.C. has its fingerprints all over the transformations which surfaced out of the ocean of nescience and became intrinsic to the “ISKCON” movement. Ocean’s Eleven were all governing body commissioners. The zonal imposition was overturned by the vitiated G.B.C., after having first authorized it. The collegiate compromise was engineered by the vitiated G.B.C., also. Professor Blueblood was appointed to the vitiated G.B.C. in 1987. And wouldn’t you know, the very next year, Ravéndra Svarupa was elected chairman of the Governing Body.
Since the manifestation of The Second Transformation, the dumbing down of madhyam has become procedural avidyä in the cult. It manifests as “ISKCON” dogma in the form of the belief that “ISKCON” must always have gurus. In point of fact, it has never had any gurus. Its so-called initiated disciples are all cheated, all improperly initiated. The so-called madhyams of “ISKCON” are now the cult’s primary cheaters.
“. . . we have created these G.B.C.. So, they should be very responsible men. Otherwise, they will be punished. They will be punished to become a çüdra. Although Yamaräja is a G.B.C., but he made a little mistake. He was punished to become a çüdra. So those who are G.B.C.’s, they should be very, very careful to administer the business of ISKCON. Otherwise they will be punished.” 14
Genuine gurus are never punished, but bogus gurus are. A genuine madhyama-adhikäré, if he is ordered by Prabhupäda to initiate disciples, will not cheat them. As such, they will not develop resentment against him, recognizing that he is an advanced man who, unless he becomes fully God-realized, can provide only insufficient guidance.
In the absence of any genuine madhyama-adhikärés in the Western world, the recourse, the äçrama, is the Book Bhägavat:
“There are two types of Bhägavatas, namely the book Bhägavata and the devotee Bhägavata. Both the Bhägavatas are competent remedies, and both of them or either of them can be good enough to eliminate the obstacles. . . Bhägavata book and person are identical.” 15
The Äcärya in the true sense of the term is the real Transcendental Autocrat. The disciple of that Transcendental Autocrat follows in his footsteps. From that perspective and in that sense, his direction is as good as the Äcärya’s. The madhyam is an äcärya as a regular guru:
“When I order, ‘You become guru,’ he becomes regular guru. That’s all. He becomes disciple of my disciple. That’s it.” 16
Prabhupäda wanted all of his men to become regular gurus. He expected this from his leaders, in particular. When the pronoun “he” is used for the first time in this concise quote (above), it refers to Prabhupäda’s initiated disciple being a regular guru. When that pronoun is used for the second time, it refers to the newcomer who that regular guru initiates. Prabhupäda wanted regular gurus. They are, by quality and definition, all madhyama-adhikärés . . . and they are all very perfect men.
They are like monitors in class, teaching assistants working under The Professor, The Äcärya, to guide newcomers up the ladder of devotional service through perfect spiritual science. The man who has attained niñöhä in buddhi-yoga can certainly guide his initiated disciple to his same advanced stage of mind control.
Stop dumbing down madhyam-adhikäré!
The colossal hoax known as the fabricated, so-called “ISKCON” confederation is a pseudo-spiritual scam. It is loaded with dogma. It is loaded with avidyä. Its gurus are all still sahajiyäs, just not as blatant in their actions as were the previous pretenders. Pretension has not at all been extricated from “ISKCON.”
SAD EVA SAUMYA
ENDNOTES
1. Doktorski, Henry. Eleven Naked Emperors, pp. 276-277, Kindle Edition;
2. Ibid, p. 277;
3. Ibid, p. 278;
4. Ibid, p. 279;
5. Ibid, pp. 284-85 (Bhakta Eric Johanson);
6. Only a handful of the resolutions are listed here. The numbers assigned to each resolution listed in this article (nine) are not the numbers assigned to any of those specific resolutions by its documentation at Mäyäpur, 1987;
7. Doktorski, Henry. Eleven Naked Emperors, pp. 290-91, Kindle Edition;
8. Ibid, p. 291;
9. Ibid, p. 292;
10. Ibid, pp. 294-95;
11. Ibid, p. 297. Please note: Your host speaker has broken down this long quotation into three paragraphs for easier assimilation. The original transmission was in one continuous flow, without any paragraphs;
12. Çrémad-Bhägavatam 3.25.25, verse translated by your host speaker;
13.Teachings of Lord Kapila, Chapter 15, “Meditation on the Lord’s Transcendental Form”;
14. Platform lecture on Çrémad-Bhägavatam, June 4, 1974 in Geneva;
15. Çrémad-Bhägavatam, 1.2.18, purport;
16. Room conversation in Prabhupäda’s quarters with the Governing Body Commission at the Krishna Balaram temple, May 28, 1977.