Podcast transcription:
Could a Pseudo-Bhakti Cult
Become the Church Universal?
by Kailäsa Candra däsa
HARIÙ OÀ NAMAÙ
A theistic transcendentalist in the developing stage of spiritual advancement does not make progress when buying into a false narrative about “ISKCON.” We require the right narrative. In the aftermath of the late Seventies, both before and after Prabhupäda’s disappearance (and relative to his branch of Lord Caitanya’s Hare Kåñëa movement), a number of factions have developed. The one right narrative describes why and how that went down.
The leaders of these factions 1 are all invultuated by principalities from the lower astral. They have their own narratives in order to explain things according to self-serving motivations. These narratives establish themselves as representing what Prabhupäda intended, wanted, and ordered, but they differ from one another. This creates conflict, which also spawns hatred and fear between and amongst such deviated factions. The principalities from the astral feed off lower emotions coming from such possessed people.
Logic compels us to either reject all of the narratives purporting to tell us what went down–or to reject all but one of them. Some spiritual seekers who initially came to Prabhupäda—and we are talking prior to what broke loose gradually (and then abruptly) in the second half of the Seventies—came to him on the same process of elimination basis, hoping that there might be a needle in the haystack. We can apply it to the convolutions of today’s deviations.
Either these particular organizations, sects, cults, philosophies and their rationalizations (all of which have basic and irreconcilable differences amongst them) present THE REAL NARRATIVE or none of them do. The latter ascertainment is the truth. In the mid-Sixties, Prabhupäda gave us the movement of Kåñëa consciousness. Not everyone came to him on the basis of a logical process of elimination nor did these later deviations exist at that time, but some did.
Once per year, The Vaishnava Foundation offers a Q&A session for the edification and realization of those devotees who get something from these. The time has come for another one, so please give your rapt attention to the issues being discussed in some detail here.
Is “ISKCON” responsible for the emergence of Rittvik?
It is partially responsible, not fully.
Is “ISKCON” responsible for the emergence of Neo-Mutt?
It is more responsible for it than it is for Rittvik, but still only partially. How it is so will be discussed subsequently.
What are the other factors responsible for the emergence of Rittvik?
Christianity, obviously, for Rittvik.
Can you explain this?
Rittvik compares Prabhupäda to Iesus Kristos in two ways. First, Prabhupäda and Iesus Kristos were betrayed by some of their disciples. More importantly, just as Christians claim to be twice born by Iesus Kristos (even though he is no longer physically present), all the Rittvik splinter groups agree on the same idea, wrongly applied to Prabhupäda, of course. As we know, they claim that Prabhupäda is still initiating disciples.
The emergence of Rittvik is less obviously connected to Gouòéya Mutt, specifically from Swämi B. R. Çrédhar in his final Will and Testament. There, he appointed his lead disciple to initiate on his behalf after he died. He mentioned in that Will that he did so by comparing it to Prabhupäda, viz., “just like Swämi Mahäräj.” In effect, he was inferring that Prabhupäda created a Rittvik-in-absentia system for continuing initiations by him after his departure.
It is obvious that all of the Rittvik groups agree on their main concoction. Do they agree on most everything else?
They do not. That is why there are so many of them. Rittvik is highly centrifugal by its very nature. It is a concoction that has no deep roots. Rittvik has no real tradition in either Vedic or Vaiñëava sacred text. Nor does it have any solid evidence, what to speak of conclusive evidence, that Prabhupäda wanted it.
It is concocted out of thin air. It has no çiñöäcara. Indeed, its very branding indicates its deviation. After that, those who exploit it for their own purposes are free to go in many different directions, and they do just that. It is Prabhupäda-centered, granted, and that radically differentiates it from Neo-Mutt. However, although it is not as dark as Neo-Mutt, it is still a major deviation from the Madhva-Gaudiya Vaiñëava sampradäya.
Can we consider Rittvik to be heresy?
Certainly.
Due to Neo-Mutt’s false teaching about the origination of the jéva, can we also consider it to be a heresy?
I would not call them that. Their no-fall jéva origination idea is the gist of a philosophical contention between Prabhupäda’s devotees and Neo-Mutt. Although very serious, it is not to be categorized as heretical. Those initiated by Prabhupäda who helped to form it or joined it after it gained momentum, should be labeled differently.
You call it Neo-Mutt. Obviously, it does not accept that moniker. What is its technical branding, and is it different from Gouòéya Mutt?
It was first formed as the Mahä-Maëòala. Then, it took a different label and became known as The Guardian of Devotion. It is now known as the W.V.A. or World Vaishnava Association. At the top, it consists of stalwarts initiated by Prabhupäda from back in the day, obviously previous to the emergence of Rittvik. Indeed, it proceeded Rittvik by about a decade.
It is one with but different from Gouòéya Mutt. It shares the same philosophy, including the apa-siddhänta of the jéva’s alleged no fall/no fault. Neo-Mutt has the same style, mood, and modus operandi of what was and remains of Gouòéya Mutt.
Prabhupäda would never have approved of Neo-Mutt. He would have wanted those who formed it to confront the major problem in his own branch by staying there and fighting the zonals. Since all of the major Neo-Mutt players were men holding major posts in his movement (or statuses, such as sannyäsa), it would have been difficult for the eleven pretenders to have run them all out, especially if their combined effort to reform the movement was legitimate.
What is the main contention or contentions of Neo-Mutt?
It has two of them, both of equal malefic potency. Philosophically, it takes a pillar of Prabhupäda’s Vaiñëava presentation, of the Vaiñëava tattva that he provided us, and turns it on its head. The controversy is centered around an issue that both Gouòéya Mutt and its nasty step child, Neo-Mutt, have injected into the mix.
Prabhupäda gave us the actual tattva, and it is that we are responsible for our fall into this miserable condition of saàsära. Neo-Mutt disputes this. It claims that not a leaf in Vaikuëöha ever falls. It presents all kinds of rationalizations regarding Prabhupäda teaching us diametrically different from Gouòéya Mutt’s apa-siddhänta of jéva-origination as being from the brahmajyoti.
Prabhupäda called his magazine (which he also said was the backbone of his movement), “Back to Godhead.” Neo-Mutt claims that we fell from the brahmajyoti, the impersonal effulgence. This means that we never were, at any time, in the spiritual world. I experienced one Gouòéya-Mutt leader, Swämi Näräyaë, stating this to me directly in late 1983. 2 Swämi B. R. Çrédhar has also written this in at least one of his intoxicating treatises.
That Gouòéya Mutt stands for this apa-siddhänta is beyond dispute, as there is plenty of evidence. Does Prabhupäda’s magazine, which he had initially printed on a monthly basis in India before he arrived here in the mid-Sixties, mean “back to the brahmajyoti”? No disciple of his would buy into that.
There are many other conclusive evidences provided by His Divine Grace as to our fall-down originating in the spiritual world of form and activity. Virtually all of these have been provided in my most recent book, 3 which can be consulted to advantage. I shall only mention one of them here: The Crow-and-Tal Addendum. 4
What came first? When the crow landed and, simultaneously, the apple (or pear or orange, whatever you like) fell from the branch, did the crow cause that? Or, by coincidence, did that fruit fall on its own separate from the crow landing on the branch?
Prabhupäda, in this Addendum, gives us the clear answer in three concise words: “Before That Even.” In this Addendum, he states that many of us (perhaps most of us) have climbed out of saàsära and merged into the brahmajyoti (this is called säyujya-mukti) and have fallen from there back into saàsära. He then clearly and indisputably states that, BEFORE THAT EVEN, we were originally in the spiritual world of form and activity and initially fell from there, misusing our own minute independence. 5
The opposite teaching by Neo-Mutt is, as far as Prabhupäda’s teaching is concerned, is clearly an apa-siddhänta. Doesn’t this make Neo-Mutt and its followers unnecessarily confrontational?
That motivation on their parts in indicated to some extent.
You mentioned that there are two main elements that radically differentiate Neo-Mutt from Prabhupäda’s true teachings and his real movement. What is that second deviation?
It is the minimization of Prabhupäda himself. His senior godbrothers, although he was recognized as a great scholar in Vaiñëavism (and thus gave him the title of Bhaktivedänta), still always considered him lower than themselves. As such, they tagged him with the label “Swämi Mahäräj” after he took sannyäsa. This was a back-handed compliment that was essentially offensive.
Neo-Mutt is infected with the same attitude. Those who started Neo-Mutt in the very early Eighties did not make Prabhupäda anywhere near the centerpiece of their preaching. They made Swämi B. R. Çrédhar (and later, Swämi Näräyaë) out to be more important. Prabhupäda was simply mentioned as their dékñä-guru and little or nothing more than that. This is a major difference between Neo-Mutt and “ISKCON,” as well as with Rittvik.
You said that you do not approve calling the leaders and dedicated followers of Neo-Mutt heretics, despite the apa-siddhänta that underlies the W.V.A. as its energetic principle. As such, how would you label them?
They are TRAITORS. They have betrayed Prabhupäda, his movement, his teachings, and his branch. Their narrative is saturated in the betrayal intrinsic to Neo-Mutt.
You mentioned Gouòéya Mutt as having influenced ISKCON and negatively impacting it. You have mentioned Swämi B. R. Çrédhar attracting Prabhupäda initiates in order to create the original version of Neo-Mutt. Has Neo-Mutt expanded since that time?
That time was the early Eighties. It has expanded, but it does not nearly have the presence that “ISKCON” has internationally. Swämi B. R. Çrédhar died in the summer of 1988. Not long after that, Swämi Näräyaë of the Keçava-jé Mutt in Mathura became the most prominent representative of Gouòéya Mutt, especially in relation to some malcontents from ISKCON, those who gravitated to Gouòéya Mutt for so-called spiritual shelter from “ISKCON.”
Swämi Näräyaë is no longer living, but, in his latter years, he created another version of Neo-Mutt that is still functioning in the District of Mathura in Uttar Pradesh, India. As such, there are two different and chief cults of Neo-Mutt: The sannyäsés and stalwarts still aligned with Swämi B. R. Çrédhar and those aligned with Swämi Näräyaë.
Do you have a label for these two?
I call the original one (from the early Eighties) Neo-Mutt East, and the later one, loyal to Swämi Näräyaë, Neo-Mutt West.
Do they associate with one another? Do they cooperate?
I am not at all into the granular aspects of what they may or may not be doing. I do not know whether or not they all congregate once per year for the annual conclave of the W.V.A. but it is not unlikely that they do so. They do not divulge much to those outside their cults. They are highly insular and have almost no online presence.
Is there a possible wedge between them?
That is highly likely, because Neo-Mutt West boasts a female dékñä-guru, one of Prabhupäda’s initial disciples from the mid-Sixties. It seems incomprehensible that many, if not most, of the pukka sannyäsés of Neo-Mutt East would accept that.
Besides your personal experience with Swämi Näräyaë in late 1983, when he told you that we were never with Kåñëa in the spiritual world, are there any other factors we should know about him and his relationship to Prabhupäda?
He demeaned Prabhupäda. He criticized Prabhupäda’s translation of Bhagavad-gétä, 9.32, and how he grouped women with the low-born, päpä-yonayaù, which the verse itself states. However, it got worse over time. In a tape recording I have recently heard, Swämi Näräyaë directly states that no one can develop bhakti-yoga if he or she reads Prabhupäda’s books. This is an outrageous gurv-aparädha.
Is the conclusion we should come to that both Swämi B. R. Çrédhar and Swämi Näräyaë were against Prabhupäda?
Such a conclusion is unavoidable.
As you have clearly informed us for years, there are these three deviant groups: “ISKCON,” Neo-Mutt, and Rittvik. Some important questions have been already answered here inconnection to Neo-Mutt and Rittvik. I would like to ask some questions about Prabhupäda and his branch of the movement. This means both ISKCON and the G.B.C. and what they degraded into, which you appropriately call “ISKCON” and the vitiated G.B.C.. Can we segue to this?
Sure. “ISKCON” is always more important than the other two deviations, more important to know about, understand, and expose than the other two groups combined.
What is the chief factor that makes “ISKCON” bogus?
That chief factor is that its mission drift is now comprised of institutional gurus, improperly initiated disciples, sahajiyäs, sociopaths, Hindutva, fanatics, sentimentalists, covert Mäyävädés, and materialists all of whom are exploiting it in various ways.
Does this mean that, in relation to transcendental advancement, that movement is an unreliable source for spiritual attainment?
Certainly it means that. You can get A-B-C-D knowledge from it, but not anything more. If you try to get knowledge about spiritual life, tattva, real process, etc. by going deeper into its version of the spiritual alphabet, you will be misled. In the process, it is also highly likely that you will get entrapped by it.
How important is reliability in spiritual life? Did Prabhupäda consider reliability to be a key factor?
Let us consider the following two excerpts from his letters, and then answer this question:
“Once there is bureaucracy the whole thing will be spoiled. There must be always individual striving and work and responsibility . . . (t)hat will train men how to do these things, and they shall develop reliability and responsibility. That is the point. I am little observing now, especially in your country, that our men are losing their enthusiasm for spreading on our programs of Krishna Consciousness movement. Otherwise, why so many letters of problems are coming, dissatisfied? That is not a very good sign.” 6
“But the difficulty is that our G.B.C. men are falling victim to mäyä. Today I trust this G.B.C., and tomorrow he will fall down. That is the difficulty. If the G.B.C. men are so flickering . . . (u)nless this problem is solved, whatever we may resolve, it will not be very useful.”7
Bureaucracy, with a distinct flavor of Hindutva, has taken over “ISKCON.” Only fools are unable to spot this. Prabhupäda did not approve it, and he would never have approved of this current arrangement. He would also have considered what is going down now to be non-different from the Hindoo-Hodgepodge, which he criticized and condemned in many places.
Please note that a significant percentage of the Western Hindus, especially those living in America, are quite degraded. This segment of their diaspora engages in most of the Western sinful habits. They are bad association.
When that segment enters “ISKCON,” (which is not at all difficult for them to do, particular if they bring their money into the equation), the cult members who rub shoulders with them devolve. Hindoo moneyed men are effective in spreading the contagion of their mentality within the devotee culture of Western man.
Relative to the culture at large, where is all of this leading?
It is leading to a major paradigm shift, one which will profoundly effect everyone in the West, the cults being no exception.
“ISKCON” and Neo-Mutt are deviations known as abhäsa-dharmas. They are semblances, and they do not have real substance or västu due to major deviation from the Sampradäya Äcärya.
Rittvik is a chala-dharma, a cheating arrangement from the gate. These three deviations have negatively impacted the spiritual and devotional strata to such an extent that it has bled down line to propel the degradation of the culture and civilization at large.
TATTVAMASI
As such, the intellectuals of Western civilization—and they are exceptionally intelligent materially, especially in technology, masters of AI, king technocrats—are the reflection of real brahmins. The so-called Kåñëa consciousness movement has not produced real brahmins since the Seventies. The kept brahmins of “ISKCON,” are Neo-jata sahajiyäs, laid back sahajiyäs. In combination with the egregious sahajiyäs (three of them obvious), the Western world at large is permeated by opposition and faithlessness.
The master technocrats of the West, may indeed take over in due course and form a tight TECHNOCRACY. They are without prajïä, or higher intelligence, but there is a paucity of prajïä everywhere. The culture at large has already reached the stage of depravity. This, in conjunction with some kind crisis 8 will lead to a paradigm shift in order to keep the following pandemonium at bay.
That new or changed world will shift the political and economic power to the Council of Technocrats. All this could have, and should have, been avoided if the Western devotees, all second class by Prabhupäda’s own (liberal) assessment, 9 had obeyed his orders. They didn’t. Thus, we have this developing situation.
In reference to all the loosely aligned groups, cults, sects, and at least one organized religion, how do you think time will play out in the near and intermediate future for the Hare Kåñëa movement?
Are you asking for my prediction?
Affirmative. We want to know your view, how you see the culture at large running its course. More importantly, how will the Kåñëa movement—or its perverted reflections—fare in that Fate?
Predictions are not prophecies, so keep that in mind. Predictions are not metaphysical locks, butprophecies are.
My prediction is that there is going to be a very major change throughout the Western world. This will happen sooner or later, probably sooner. The current paradigm will be destroyed and replaced in the West by a completely different one. The Western matrix will not change, but the paradigm built upon it will undergo a complete upheaval.
What is the current paradigm, and how long has it been around?
The current paradigm is that of the nation-state. It was formulated, loosely, in 1555, but not implemented until the Peace of Westphalia in 1648. It has undergone some serious changes over the centuries, of course, but its basic framework remains.
Of those changes, what was the most important one?
Religion was the basis of nation-states when the Peace of Westphalia was agreed to by the monarchs and major powers of Western Europe. That religious basis changed, of course. The political, social, and economic structures of any given nation-state are now its raison-d’etre, or its purpose of its existence.
There are really no State Religions anymore, and such has been the case for a very long time. Technically, Great Britain has the Anglican Church as its State Religion, but that is only a formality. All organized religions, along with so many cults and sects, have legal functioning power throughout that nation.
In your opinion, what will replace the nation-state as the paradigm of the Western world? How will it be different?
It will be very different. Currently, this nation-state model has a kind of covert centrifugal foundation. The Peace of Westphalia broke the already weakening unity of the Holy Roman Empire and the Catholic Church, which also called itself (and still does) the Church Universal. The Catholic Church had tyrannical control for over a millennium in Western Europe. If it issued an interdiction against a king, that monarch would be overthrown soon, because the people in his kingdom did not want to be excommunicated (which was part and parcel of any such Papal interdiction) and therefore, according to Church dogma, destined for eternal hell.
If THE TECHNOCRACY decides to establish—under its ultimate control, of course—a New World Religion, that religion would have even more psychic and social control over the populace of the West than did the Church Universal from the Dark Ages until the first half of the Sixteenth Century.
When all of these nation-states accepted the new paradigm of 1648, it was a model for eventual decentralization, which was never the model of the Church Universal. The Catholics, Lutherans, Anglicans, and Calvinists were all afforded exclusive legitimacy within the borders of their own nations. This put an end to both the Thirty Years War and the Eight Years War.
It brought peace, but that peace was based upon recognizing separate borders with exclusively separate religions. It has not held up all that well, but at the time, it was better than nothing. Still, the centrifugal element was naturally intrinsic to it and still is. The next paradigm in the West will, conversely, be all about centralization.
What do you call that next paradigm?
It will be known as THE TECHNOCRACY. That is my prediction. That is not my prophecy. I am not on a plane where I can deliver a prophecy. I can repeat one, and I shall do just that later. My prediction for a near future civilizational takeover, however, is what I call THE TECHNOCRACY. I wrote about it in my most recent book. As a matter of fact, I dedicated a short chapter to it there.
Can THE TECHNOCRACY emerge in this current environment?
It cannot. It requires an international and severe crisis in order for liftoff. Indeed, it would prefer a convergence of crises, which will then afford it an opportunity to dominate everything dependent upon tech.
Is this vision new?
It is not. There was a movement, in an incipient form, called The Technate in the Thirties. It had a similar vision of a centralized government controlled by technology experts. What will emerge, according to my prediction, will be something incrementally far more sophisticated, comprehensive,and powerful than The Technate.
Are you referring to Techno-Feudalism?
Today’s version of Techno-Feudalism is mild—and its vision for the future is also limited—compared to what will transpire when THE TECHNOCRACY brings the hammer down. Techno-Feudalism will be part of it, but The New World Order will be much more.
It will be an ORDER far more obtrusive and dominating in the West than either The Technate or Techno-Feudalism had or has ever envisioned. It will be far more sophisticated and much tougher to overcome. I do not see it being overcome anytime soon. It will be a combination of Brave New World and the Orwellian projection written in his book, 1984. It will be much more than that in terms of its power to control man and his actions.
Are you against its development?
I am not. Devotees can function in any political environment which allows us to do so. Give to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s. There are no nation-states in the world today that are based upon a Vedic foundation, what to speak of Vaiñëavism.
If your prediction turns out to be right, how does the Kåñëa movement fit into this development of a new Western paradigm, of a New World Order based upon complete control of technology? Will the movement be persecuted? Will THE TECHNOCRACY allow the spiritual science of theistic transcendence to even exist?
It could go either way. That cannot be predicted now.
Is a CORPORATOCRACY a more likely development than THE TECHNOCRACY that you are predicting?
The motion picture industry, beginning in the early Eighties, began to lean that way. It is a predictive view not without merit. Movies such as “Outland” and “Robo-Cop” were all about corporations taking over the world through the technology they controlled. Recently, a well-done mini-series, “Continuum,” presented the same prediction. Still, I do not see it as more likely.
Even in a State Capitalist paradigm, many different corporations competing with one another for supremacy—and it is a certainty that they will do so—maintains a centrifugal element, one which will lead to eventually breaking the system down. THE TECHNOCRACY will be cent-per-cent centripetal. It will be all about central control of everyone, everything, and every corporate entity will bend to its will with no internecine competition allowed.
One of the chief reasons that THE TECHNOCRACY will emerge is in order to overcome the centrifugal elements within the nation-state paradigm; these lead to major international crises on a regular basis. The stress of what is coming will not favor big business domination, but instead will favor skilled technocrats.
If and/or when they unite, then THE TECHNOCRACY emerges and takes over all facets of life. This event will be, both individually and collectively, dependent upon the technology it controls. The emphasis will be on centripetal unity and unbreakable control.
After the takeover, THE TECHNOCRACY must make its most important and major decision, and this will be in relation to religion. This is where the rubber meets the road. It will be crucial, particularly in relation to the two prophecies (not predictions) that are destined by Providence to come to pass in due course of time. 10
“Lord Caitanya Mahaprabhu has forecast that this Hare Kåñëa mantra will be heard in every nook and cranny of the globe. He is God, so it will happen, that is a fact. So, if we take advantage, then we may take the credit, but if we do not, someone else will.” 11
Such prophecies can either be accelerated or delayed. If THE TECHNOCRACY makes a wrong decision in relation to religion, then these two prophecies will be delayed. Provisionally, if THE TECHNOCRACY establishes a kind of semi-spiritual environmental alternative for the enhancement of real religion within its New World Order, then unprecedented atrocities (which otherwise are certain to transpire if it chooses wrongly) can be avoided.
What are the chances that THE TECHNOCRACY will completely neglect religion in its controlling paradigm?
That is certainly possible. It may allow favorable religions to function in limited and restricted capacities and under constant monitoring meanwhile criticizing all of them as imaginary.
It will have complete technological control. Those religions that do not follow its directives will be cut off from access to necessary provisions, as well as accessories and amenities. This will automatically hamper those who practice them, what to speak of the all-pervading surveillance that THE TECHNOCRACY will impose.
However, it is possible that it establishes some kind of religious component as an essential (but subordinate to it) function of its paradigm. This could be a quasi-spiritual trans-personal institution.
Do you predict Christianity to be selected by THE TECHNOCRACY as its one-world religion component?
Negative. I do not believe that it will accept any of the three Abrahamic religions as models or foundations in order to conduct the cultural or religious aspect of its new civilization.
Could THE TECHNOCRACY pick “ISKCON” to be its one-world religion? If so, what would that mean?
It is possible, but highly unlikely. What is more likely is that it would include an “ISKCON” representative as part of its Religious Council, which would then determine how the one-world religion was to function. “ISKCON” is already cultivating this possibility by its participation in the Interfaith Initiative.
Would the one-world government be ultra-authoritarian?
If THE TECHNOCRACY imposed a one-world religion, it would be totalitarian, not authoritarian. If it did not impose a one-world religion, it would restrict and, whenever necessary, persecute all forms of religion (or so-called religion) in order to control the populace, which would thus be rendered free from religion.
If it formulated and formed a one-world religion guided by a Religious Council under its control, how would THE TECHNOCRACY deal with all of the other religions and sects which did not join it? Would it persecute them?
It would allow those who did not oppose it (but also refused to fully join it) to function under obtrusive surveillance and scrutiny. Their leaders and members would be allowed access to necessities and amenities. However, it would not allow those entities (which were semi-cooperative) any media access in order to advertise their programs, what to speak of proselytizing.
What about those religions or sects who opposed it?
Their leaders would be dealt with severely. These entities would be oppressed and persecuted. Atrocities could be part of the program. They would have no legal access to anything, such as necessities, amenities, or the media. These cults would be crushed.
If an “ISKCON” representative was accepted as part of the Religious Council, would he cooperate with a kind of theistic trans-personal religion 12 if it was formed by that Council?
Almost certainly. “ISKCON” is capable of making any compromise. That is why it is incumbent upon us, at this time, to decrease the chance of this happening. Lord Caitanya would never want, nor would He tolerate, such a bogus representative of His divine movement to be responsible for, and integrated and influential within, a completely anti-Vedic and anti-Vaiñëava Council.
Would “ISKCON” eventually take over that Religious Council? Or would it opt to achieve its aims, through the vehicle of limited influence, without making such an attempt?
It would take advantage of any opening that came its way in order to achieve dominance, especially in terms of wiping out its opposition.
Why should THE TECHNOCRACY, if it were to choose forming and imposing a One World religion working on its behalf, be wary of including “ISKCON” in its mix?
It should be very wary. It should, in advance, recognize that “ISKCON” is an unreliable religious cult guided by an equally unreliable governing body.
THE TECHNOCRACY should become cognizant of all of the strife that “ISKCON” authorities have put their congregation through, especially after Prabhupäda departed physical manifestation. THE TECHNOCRACY wants stability and predictability. It should become cognizant that any inclusion of “ISKCON” in its operation will only produce just the opposite effect.
There is plenty of evidence of this fact, as long as THE TECHNOCRACY recognizes and assimilates the “ISKCON” narrative as it actually is, not as that wayward cult projects it to be. “ISKCON” will never stop trying to become the next Church Universal. Still, it can be stopped from that as long as it does not get its foot in the door at the beginning of the paradigm shift being predicted here.
The colossal hoax, known as the fabricated, so-called “ISKCON” confederation, is a pseudo-spiritual scam. At this time, it is dangerous only if you get caught up in its vortex. It could and would become far more dangerous, however, if we do not expose just what it is, especially before the next international paradigm replaces the current nation-state model . . . and especially if a One World Religion becomes integrated into that major material change.
SAD EVA SAUMYA
ENDNOTES
1. Although there are actually many splinter groups, the three chief representatives of them are: “ISKCON,” Neo-Mutt, and Rittvik. I am including “ISKCON,” because it is a splinter off of the original ISKCON movement, which has been killed and thus no longer exists, except as corporate ISKCON;
2. “We have never been there.” Word for word verbatim of what he said to me;
3. Titled: On Consciousness and the Perfection of Man. Concerning this controversy, consult Chapter Six of this book should prove helpful. Available via Amazon. https://www.amazon.com/Consciousness-Perfection-Man-speculation-gaslighting/dp/B0DK3J16DR
4. It is also called the Täl-and-Crow Addendum, a.k.a., käkä-täliya-nyäya: “crow-and-täl-fruit logic.” Prabhupada sent this essay to his GBC representative (Madhudviña) in Australia in June of 1972 as a definitive statement in the form of an Addendum. Although it was meant to settle a controversy that had arisen there over this issue, the devotees at large hardly knew about it. “Crow-and-Täl-Fruit Logic” presents Prabhupäda’s most thorough statement of the solution to the so-called controversy. In the Eighties (during the battle with Swämi B. R. Çrédhar), the essay was finally circulated throughout the movement;
5. “Formerly, we were with Kåñëa in His lélä, or sport. But this covering of mäyä may be of very, very, very, very long duration; therefore many creations are coming and going. Due to this long period of time, it is sometimes said that we are ever conditioned. But this long duration of time becomes very insignificant when one actually comes to Kåñëa consciousness. . .
Brahma-sayujya mukti is non-permanent. Every living entity wants pleasure, but Brahma-sayujya is minus pleasure; it consists of eternal existence only. So, when those who get Brahma-sayujya mukti do not find transcendental bliss, they fall down to make a compromise with material bliss . . .
Unless one develops full devotional service to Kåñëa, he goes up only to Brahma-sayujya but falls down. But after millions and millions of years of keeping oneself away from the lélä of the Lord, when one comes to Kåñëa consciousness, this period becomes insignificant, just like dreaming. Because he falls down from Brahma-sayujya, he thinks that this may be his origin, but he does not remember that before that even, he was with Kåñëa.”
Excerpt from the Crow-and-Täl Addendum, June, 1972;
6. Letter to a leading secretary, 12-22-72;
7. Letter to a leading secretary, 12-16-74;
8. The chief crises to consider are a nuclear exchange and/or a major pandemic (far more serious and infectious than Covid, on the order of something like “Capt. Trips” in the recent movie version of “The Stand”) and/or the draconian results from global heating. Please note, you host speaker never uses such milquetoast terms, such as climate change or global heating, to describe it. The actual event, what is taking place in this connection, is far more dire than that;
9. His disciples were almost entirely fifth-class men;
10. These two are the prophecy that every town and village of the world will chant the Holy Name of the Lord and that Prabhupäda’s books will become the Lawbooks of Mankind for the duration of the Golden Age of Kali-yuga.
11. Letter to a leading secretary, 11-4-70;
12. An allegedly theistic trans-personal dharmic creation appears contradictory, especially to Vaiñëavas. However, this is already present as both philosophy and organization now . . . and has been for centuries. Mäyäväda could be categorized as just such a system, as those who follow its teaching believe that God (indicated by the adjective “theistic” according to their point of view) is both theism and impersonalism combined. Another way of saying the same thing is that they believe God is the brahmajyoti, is ultimate truth, and superior to all forms of the Godhead like Kåñëa or Viñëu.