Podcast transcription:
It’s Not Been “Prabhupada’s G.B.C.” for Over 48 Years
(“ISKCON” Transitive Dogma: Is It Reality . . . or Illusion?)
Second of a Two-Part Series
by Kailäsa Candra däsa
HARIÙ OÀ NAMAÙ
“It was a bright, cold day in April, and the clocks were all striking thirteen.”1
“Beware of pretty faces you may find;
A pretty face can hide an evil mind.” 2
The bureaucratic maze of the fabricated, so-called “ISKCON” confederation is in the initial process of further empowering its Venus Fly Trap. It is on the verge of ruling in favor of female dékñä-gurus (F.D.G.). Since it deviated from Prabhupäda in the Seventies, the cult has always been in the business of attracting numbers. It has been ever-increasingly compromising with the Western social-feminist movement for decades, and now that compromise shifts into high gear.
As most of you know, its Governing Body Commission (the G.B.C.) has already approved one female dékñä-guru, so the die is cast. The Commish is going to create more; it is only a matter of time. The tightrope “ISKCON” is currently walking is to keep its right wing from breaking away and creating a schism while still placating the demands of the feminists in the cult. Thus far, it has been able to do so.
This F.D.G. controversy has been active since 2005. In 2021, it went to next level (of its downward spiral) via an actual female guru appointment. She is not recognized as an uttama-adhikäré by “ISKCON,” which means she is recognized as a madhyam-adhikäré but qualified to transmit the bhakti-latä-béja via initiation. She thus joins many men who already have attained that same institutional recognition.
She is an elderly lady who does not project sexual charisma. However, she easily meets one of the many bureaucratic requirements (which will be delineated, subsequently) of being over fifty-five years of age; “ISKCON” enjoins that you must be no younger than fifty-five in order to be eligible for appointment as a dékñä-guru in “ISKCON.”
The males have no such restriction.
The age selected is obviously arbitrary. It is sheer nonsense to claim that there are not many thousands of Western women who possess significant sexual charisma in their late fifties or early sixties. Such women are also members in good standing in “ISKCON.” Just because one of the other stipulations required is that they must be married does not guarantee anything, and there is no need to explain why.
It is a G.B.C. disaster in the making, requiring all kinds of damage control once the inevitable first scandal surfaces down the road. Feminism and Kåñëa consciousness go ill together. The right wing of the “ISKCON” Bird of Prey knows this, but the feminists (and that moniker is not at all limited to women in that movement) want equal rights for them, including the right to be a spiritual master in the cult, recognized by it as an initiating guru. Feminism is under the control of the goddess Kali. To some degree, its current “ISKCON” ascendancy is a backlash against the heavy-handed misogyny promulgated by the eleven great pretenders during the ultra-aggressive zonal epoch preceding the Second Transformation.
Having set the foundation, Part Two of our presentation is divided into two halves, both connected to the vitiated G.B.C.. One has already been discussed a bit. The other half is “ISKCON” Transitive Dogma, and you need to understand what it is. The G.B.C. claims to be the ultimate authority of ISKCON, but this is a false pre-supposition.
First of all, only corporate ISKCON exists at this time. Many decades ago, the real ISKCON movement was replaced, killed by the fabricated, so-called “ISKCON” confederation.
Secondly, Prabhupäda’s Will puts a restriction on any G.B.C. claim that it is the ultimate authority of his movement. In that Will, Prabhupäda added an adjective which limits the body: Ultimate MANAGING Authority. Even if it had remained bona fide after he departed—and, most definitely, it did not—it was never awarded ultimate authority status.
Third, since it massively deviated via the zonal äcärya imposition in the Spring of 1978, the G.B.C., which gave its imprimatur to that concoction, lost all spiritual credibility and authority. It really had very little to begin with, because true spiritual authority is passed from guru to disciple, not from a governing body to its subjects. Once validating the zonal debacle, the G.B.C. lost all authority, although it does control the “ISKCON” confederation as the cultpower source.
For these three reasons, there is no transitive relationship between the guru-paramparä and the current vitiated G.B.C.. There is no reason whatsoever to fear that not being approved by the G.B.C. as a member in good standing in “ISKCON” has any effect on your spiritual life. Check your premises! The very premise of a transitive relationship between the current G.B.C. and Prabhupäda—that they are allegedly non-different—is nothing but flawed “ISKCON” dogma.
Slowly but surely, the putrefaction of the fabricated, so-called “ISKCON” confederation runs it course on a descending octave. It could not be otherwise, because the evil-minded men and women influencing that cult can only produce more deviation over time.
Last month, your host speaker reproduced over thirty excerpts, all of which provided conclusive evidence that the G.B.C. was anything but effective in carrying out its assigned duty to relieve Prabhupäda of management burdens. We also reproduced the following excerpt:
“Krishna consciousness movement is for training men to be independently thoughtful and competent in all types of departments of knowledge and action, not for making bureaucracy. Once there is bureaucracy, the whole thing will be spoiled. . . Forget this centralizing and bureaucracy.” 3
The real question is not whether today’s vitiated G.B.C. is non-different from Prabhupäda. We have five decades of evidence to see that it obviously isn’t. Related to this, another question is whether or not all of these commissioners, both past and current, are subject to severe judgment after death. This will be touched upon subsequently.
Whether verbalized or only vibed, an explanation of the “ISKCON” Transitive Dogma is required. It is loosely based upon a key principle of Vaiñëavism: The guru is required in order to know what the Supreme Lord wants. The guru is a man who you, as another human, can relate to, while the Supreme Lord is not a man and He is, with very rare exceptions, not contactable by man.
The guru must be a very perfect man. 4 This is an exact statement, word for word, made by His Divine Grace A. C. Bhaktivedänta Swämi Prabhupäda very early in his movement, in the mid-Sixties. It is foundational, but it does require some explanation.
In prayers to the fully self-realized and God-realized guru, the topmost guru is called säkñäddhari, which means that, when you are hearing from him, you are hearing from the Parameçvara directly. If and/or when any dedicated disciple repeats his guru-mahäräja’s words without adulteration, then the transitive principle is invoked to some extent.
If A=B, and B=C, then A=C. Genuine Kåñëa consciousness is effectively spread on this principle. A disciple of a fully-realized guru, far more often than not, is nowhere near the platform of purity and realization of his guru-mahäräj. That is a given. Nevertheless, you can get transcendental value from his statements, as long as they accord with what the spiritual master preaches.
Guru. Sädhu. Çästra. The actual center is çästra or revealed scripture. You secure your evidence from these three sources. Accurately understanding the narrative of how Prabhupäda’s movement went through its stages is also very helpful in this connection. Let us proceed to the next explanation, the real explanation, of the transitive theory. This will, of course, entail references to the Governing Body Commission, the power node of what is known, in the U.S. (and other nations) as ISKCON, Inc.
We discussed this governing body in Part One. Indeed, in those thirty-plus excerpts enumerated via Endnotes, the G.B.C. was mentioned, at least once, in the vast majority of them. In the quote which was near the beginning this second part of our series, the G.B.C. is also mentioned, and the central issue about it is indicated by our headline.
Some questions: Briefly described in the aforementioned paragraphs of this second part of the series, does the G.B.C. qualify as part of the transitive principle? This is the marma. This is the guhä. It either does or it does not. Is it automatically non-different from Kåñëa?
If we assign A to the Supreme Lord, and we assign B to the fully-realized spiritual master, can we assign C to the G.B.C.? Does it qualify? Did it qualify in the past but lost that qualification? Did it deviate from the guru-paramparä? If so, did it return to the straight and narrow by actually following its Founder, i. e., did it fully recover?
Do those who strongly advocate for its (alleged) spiritual authority have standing upon which to base their confidence? If you are a genuinely initiated disciple of Prabhupäda—if you were initiated by him sometime during the span of 1966 and mid-November, 1977—is your means of deliverance dependent upon whether or not today’s G.B.C. recognizes you as a Prabhupäda devotee loyal to this governing body?
These questions must be raised and answered to the full satisfaction of your higher intelligence (prajïä). They should not be answered based upon sentiment. They should not be answered based upon vested interest or upon society, friendship, and love orbits. And they certainly should not be answered based upon fanaticism.
They should not be answered on the basis of retaining inclusiveness in a Society—in this case, in the “ISKCON” organization. You should not entertain faulty premises in answering them. They should not be answered based upon false prestige, position or remuneration within the “ISKCON” Pyramid of Power.
Institutional controlby the governing body reaches its apex when it is considered the ultimate spiritual authority. That creates a kind of fraternity locked into its own agenda; in many respects, that produceseven further the cult stratification which preceded it. Institutionalism favors its own men, its pseudo-spiritual frat boys. It acts on occult planes as a block and blinder to anyone seeking siddha within the cult.
However, no one in that kind of movement is seeking siddha, and such has been the case in “ISKCON” for many decades. “ISKCON” is now loaded with pretender madhyams, as opposed to the pretender mahäbhägavats in the late Seventies and the first half of the Eighties. Nothing has been resolved at the root level in “ISKCON.”
The conservative wing of the “ISKCON” Bird of Prey has been, and continues to be, losing the war. How could it be otherwise? The feminists have more than merely a foot in the door. Their çästric evidence is much weaker than that of the conservatives, but the so-called strict sector of the cult has made many compromises over the past decades, and, as such, Providence cannot be on its side.
Proclaiming a governing body to be the ultimate spiritual authority amounts to cult imposition of gurus and bogus initiations, now mostly represented by, and conducted by, left-wing party men. That turns “ISKCON” into an organized religion, which was never wanted nor ordered by the Founder of the movement.
He had formed a Governing Body Commission in 1970, one meant to advise his presidents in the management of various centers throughout the world. This process was perfect, but it could not be continued once the movement scattered and shattered into bogus gurus at the end of the Seventies. It’s been concoction after innovation, producing one internecine war after another.
After one of them betrayed the rest, there was war against Swämi B. R. Çrédhar and Gouòéya Mutt. The war between the presidents and the gurus followed. Then came the war against the rittviks. And now, after the introduction of the Hindoo hodgepodge and an even stronger version of feminism into the general mix, the war between the left and right wings is active . . . and the feminists are gaining momentum.
There will be no schism caused by it, because the right-wingers are just as dependent upon the corrupt G.B.C. (in order to keep their posts) as are the feminists within that a massive bureaucracy.
When it was bona fide and under divine guidance (by following the Founder’s orders), the G.B.C. was meant to keep everything running smoothly. Then, the action principle of the occult bhakti process would be effective in promoting self-realization and God realization for the practitioner (tévrena bhakti-yogena) in the buddhi-yoga process, which the institution was simply meant to aid as a passive entity.
The eleven pretenders were known as zonal äcäryas, and their typhoon was a concoction on many levels. It was also a diversion. On the strength of governing body institutionalism, they all feigned to have attained siddha. This pretension degraded the concept. It produced faithlessness in the ranks of those who had been trying to attain siddha.
The bhakti process was inexorably changed by the zonals. That imposition only lasted eight years and then was exposed. Still, irreversible damage was wreaked upon Prabhupäda’s branch of Lord Caitanya’s movement during that epoch. Thousands of improperly initiated new people, ships without spiritual rudders, were also let loose on the Earth, falsely believing themselves to be linked to the guru-paramparä. Indeed, whatever previous spiritual progress they may have made before wandering into the vortex of “ISKCON” was either degraded or lost.
All eleven zonals were dependent upon the governing body in order to imitate the Founder-Äcärya, and their whole show was a tempest in a teapot. Now we have this latest storm in the form of the F.D.G. controversy. It is also a diversion, because the weak justifications claimed by the feminists do not make them bona fide. Nor do the stronger justifications make those conservatives bona fide. The forest has been lost for the trees, with the F.D.G. internecine war as a diversionary cult drama.
In 2013, when anyone typed the acronym ISKCON into the Google search engine, it pulled up a Wikipedia hyperlink. On that page, after the entry of Successor, it listed the Governing Body Commission as being that Successor. A perfected person achieves siddha, not a governing body. The aim to become a siddha, a jévan-mukta, was lost during The Second Transformation of “ISKCON,” and that is one of the flaws of an ecclesiastical convention which super-imposes institutionalism:
“. . . or one may try to support his philosophy by identifying himself with a certain dynasty . . . claiming a monopoly on spiritual advancement.” 5
Corporate ISKCON claimed that monopoly. The vitiated G.B.C. claims that monopoly, despite the fact that its resolutions have changed (and even reversed) many times since 1978. None of the ISKCON leaders were spiritually advanced; they were all very far from having attained siddha. However, they were accepted as perfected gurus by the majority of their godbrothers and godsisters via a combination of delusion and institutional pressure, along with mundane considerations.
The mis-leaders kept degrading. Those who were worshiping them began to look up to them not nearly as much . . . and then, not at all. Thus, Rittvik emerged just weeks before the Nineties ensued. It spread its dispensation by comparing Prabhupäda to Iesus Kristos, which also entailed mixing poisoning to myths about the crucifixion.
Once again, over time, another component of the left-wing “ISKCON” dynasty has emerged: F.D.G.. The cutthroat competitive sector of the women consider themselves at least to be equal to milquetoast party men, so why not the same privileges?
In one way, Rittvik and the “ISKCON” feminists are aligned: Both of them are invested in the false premise that Prabhupäda started a brand spanking new, completely different movement from any branch of the Gauòéya guru-paramparä. Both parties throw out çiñöäcara (tradition). They reject çästric references which limit initiation by either pushing a non-manifest Prabhupäda (Rittvik) or females approved by the G.B.C. as madhyam adhikärés (“ISKCON”).
Via self-serving beliefs and bad logic, Rittvik belittles all limitations specifying what a genuine Sampradäya-Äcärya could and could not do. Both of these factions couldn’t care less about standard Vaiñëavism. They ignore the limitations that Prabhupäda established in his branch, which included keeping it free from permissive gender innovation. The whole thing is in the final stages of intramural competition for dékñä-guru, with the dragon ladies clearly winning.
“. . . the Baghbazar party and Mayapur party have unlawfully usurped the missionary institution of Srila Prabhupäda, and whenever they will talk of a compromise, it means another complication.” 6
“If you yourself remain always pure, then your preaching will have effect. As soon as there is little impurity, the whole thing will deteriorate and go to hell.” 7
The zonal era was a catastrophe. The movement may have been too ruined to have been later eligible for a real reversal by the time it cratered. For those who believe otherwise, a radical return to the actual Vaiñëava standard—a revolution—would have been required.
Since the zonal scam was replaced by The Second Transformation (mostly due to scandals and infighting), there had to be damage control. Replacing one anachronism with another, removing the first one and dismissing it via paltry rationalizations, does not uproot deviation simply by labeling the replacement mechanism as an “adjustment.”
TATTVAMASI
This tendency of the jagat to keep deteriorating everything is setting up “ISKCON” for another dispensation: The implementation of F.D.G. by the governing body. The rittviks have no problem with it, because they share the same attitude as F.D.G. The feminists want it, and they have de facto control of S.A.C. 8 in order to influence the vitiated G.B.C..
They use general statements by Prabhupäda (not many, actually) in order to insist that he approved F.D.G.. After all, they believe that however the G.B.C. can be arm-twisted into accepting anything, its resolutions become non-different from what Kåñëa approves. Once the right wing loses, it will acquiesce, rationalize, and buckle. It will adapt, because it is as compromised as the other side.
Although its arguments are better, there will be no schism forthcoming. The Indian Scholar Bureau’s history of Prabhupäda’s movement is better, its prediction (as to what F.D.G. will lead to) is better . . . but none of that will be enough to stem the tide. The feminist desire is strong, and S.A.C. will prevail over the scholarly section, producing another complication. In other words, the dragon ladies will get over.
While Prabhupäda was here, how many female disciples were appointed as presidents? How many were appointed as governing body commissioners? How many were given sannyäsa? 9 How many were appointed as trustees to the various properties? How many were selected as his personal secretaries? How many received brähmin threads?
Did Prabhupäda appoint any of his female disciples as rittviks? In our line of disciplic succession, in the line of the Great Äcäryas listed at the conclusion of Prabhupäda’s Introduction to Bhagavad-gétä, do we find a female named there, even once, anywhere on the list?
Eight questions, and the answer is the same for each. The answer is the same for the whole group. The answer is a resounding “NO!” We get a clear answer here. This is called solid historical evidence. Prabhupäda did not vest positions of responsibility in any of his female disciples. This indisputable fact does not involve obscure Vedic injunctions.
It is fixed history.
Just because you say that my kurta is dirty does not mean that yours is clean. Just because the men appointed to those posts of responsibility did not carry out their duties well does not mean that replacing them with females (in the post-modern epoch) will produce better results. Probably, it will produce even worse results.
As far as Prabhupäda concocting his own new movement, without any çiñöäcara limiting it, that argument does not hold up. He followed çiñöäcara, and misogyny had nothing to do with it. In the Caitanya line, even if a female disciple is initiated by a bona fide guru—and, as an aside, that would be directly from the physically manifest Prabhupäda while he was initiating (1966-77)–even if she reaches the madhyam platform (a very special attainment), she does not act as a dékñä-guru.
In the first place, she would not receive the personal order from Prabhupäda to be dékñä-guru. She cannot imitate Jähnavä, who was an uttama-adhikäré but is still not listed in our line of paramparä-Äcäryas. A rare female attaining siddha (real perfection beyond madhyam) would know well how to act and how not to act. She would not require any institutional blessing. She would not defy the çiñöäcara.
The issue is regular guru, that’s all. You can become guru when Prabhupäda orders you to do so, not when the G.B.C. gives its institutional imprimatur, which is not only worthless but counter-productive. The dragon ladies clamor for that sanction, which proves that they are completely disqualified . . . just as much as all the male institutional gurus preceding them were and still are.
Someone under the strictures of vidhi-bhakti, even if advanced (this is the madhyam) cannot imitate either the räga-bhakta or the jévan-mukta. Let us now take a look at recent G.B.C. institutional resolutions:
“. . . whether or not to allow Vaishnavis to initiate disciples has been discussed by the Governing Body Commission (G.B.C.) of ISKCON since at least 2005. Srila Prabhupäda, ISKCON’s Founder-äcärya, had offered various comments and instructions on the subject of women gurus, and some quarters within ISKCON had argued that women initiating is not appropriate . . . Supporters of Vaishnavi dékñä gurus referred to multiple Srila Prabhupäda references to support their position, including these:
‘I want that all of my spiritual sons and daughters will inherit this title of Bhaktivedanta, so that the family transcendental diploma will continue through the generations. Those possessing the title of Bhaktivedanta will be allowed to initiate disciples. Maybe by 1975, all of my disciples will be allowed to initiate and increase the numbers of the generations. That is my program.’”10
My comment: This is evidence for F.D.G, granted, but the title itself of Bhaktivedänta indicates that such a disciple is conversant and very learned in the Vedanta of Bhakti. The chief issue, however, is that Prabhupäda did not officially award that title to anyone.
In 1975, no one had been named by Prabhupäda as a madhyam-adhikäré, qualified as a regular guru. His aspiration, in this 1969 excerpt, was certainly not realized. None of his disciples was fixed up enough to be recognized as a dékñä-guru, a regular guru qualified to accept a limited number of disciples, the small fire. And that includes any and all female disciples at that time, what to speak of now.
G.B.C. Dialogue: “Caitanya Mahaprabhu has said that anyone who knows the science of Krishna, that person should be accepted as spiritual master, regardless of any material so-called qualifications; such as rich or poor, man or woman, or brahmana or sudra.” 11
My comment: It’s evidence, but not conclusive evidence, i.e., not proof.
“I hope that all of you, men, women, boys and girls, become spiritual master…” 12
My comment: A hope is neither a prediction nor a prophecy. And please note, çikñä-guru and vartma-pradarçaka guru are attainments (by advanced devotees) that do not require Prabhupäda’s order to actuate.
Dékñä-guru, however, does require his specific order!
G.B.C.: “Actually, one who has attained the perfection, she can become guru. But man or woman, unless one has attained the perfection…” 13
My comment: Here again, we find the use of the term perfection. That is known as siddha. Jähnavä attained siddha. A regular guru, whether man or woman, has not attained siddha. Prabhupäda certainly stressed that the best guru, which he, of course, was, is a siddha.
On the other hand, an active madhyam guru, initiating disciples in the public domain, has been validated by Prabhupäda; it is a bona fide attainment and empowerment. The sannyäsis are supposed to have reached that level before taking sannyäsa, but entering that order, in and of itself, does not make them a siddha.
However, the çiñöäcara in all Vaiñëava lines has advanced devotees, who are madhyam-adhikärés, conducting initiations of disciples. Indeed, in the gaps of years between mahä-bhägavats (for example, in our line, between Narottama däs Öhäkur and Viçvanätha Cakravarté Öhäkur), the disciplic succession remained intact via initiations conducted by madhyams.
And they were all men.
However, a devoted transcendentalist who has reached the stage of siddha is far beyond vidhi-bhakti or even räga-bhakti. If an initiated (read, genuinely initiated) female disciple of Prabhupäda becomes a siddha, she will know perfectly well just how to act (and not act) as dékñä-guru.
G.B.C. Dialogue: “In its decision, the G.B.C. designated that this resolution falls under a special category of culturally sensitive laws, wherein regions of the ISKCON world may choose to ‘opt out’ of the new law, and not allow Vaishnavis to initiate in their region. North America was the first region to publicly endorse both the decision and their desire to facilitate Vaishnavi dékñä gurus.”
My comment: As expected, America, where feminism is very strong (and was the source of feminism during the hippie era), opted into this regional compromise. The G.B.C. again adopts another version of the zonal demarcation. It is not a repeat, but it does rhyme. It is a patented G.B.C. compromise . . . and completely bogus. A dékñä-guru can initiate anywhere and cannot be restricted according to regional considerations.
G.B.C. Dialogue: “RESOLVED: 1. The G.B.C. Body may, on exceptional occasions, pass resolutions which may, due to differing cultural norms in certain parts of the world, require special attention, and thus the G.B.C. may designate such a resolution as potentially a ‘culturally sensitive resolution.’
NOTE: “Culturally sensitive” is code for sampradäyas which are not going to accept F.D.G. and will protest against “ISKCON” adopting it.
G.B.C. Dialogue: Passed on December 22, 2021:
Category – Governing law
Whereas the G.B.C. representatives noted that they valued the time spent with the Bureau members 14, and that they now better understand the views of the Bureau representatives after those meetings,
Whereas the G.B.C. delegation concluded that further meetings, or additional study of the matter, would not provide new insights,
Whereas the G.B.C. delegation reported that, based on these discussions, some clarifications of the 2019 Resolution on Vaishnavi dékñä Gurus are required, 701.6, “ISKCON Spiritual Masters, Vaiñëavi dékñä gurus—2019.
Whereas the G.B.C., in its November 17, 2021, meeting, determined that on rare occasions a G.B.C. Resolution may be certified as a Culturally Sensitive Resolution, and thus, within specific G.B.C. guidelines, that Resolution may be applied differently across ISKCON regions,
Whereas, the G.B.C. has worked to achieve consensus and implementation of this resolution for many years, including the above mentioned extensive dialogues with representatives of the India Bureau;
Therefore, the Resolution regarding Vaiñëavi dékñä Gurus of 2019, 701.6, “ISKCON Spiritual Masters, Vaiñëavi dékñä-gurus—2019 is amended and replaced by the following:
1. Vaiñëavis are eligible to give dékñä within ISKCON provided that they:
a. Meet all the qualifications listed for ISKCON dékñä-guru applicants;
b. Are at least 55 years of age.
c. Are in a stable family situation living under the protection of a husband, elder son or son-in-law, qualified householder couple or senior Vaiñëava or Vaiñëavi sanga;
2. After five years the G.B.C. shall review this resolution to determine if the number of Vaiñëavis initiating in any region, or as a total for the world, is in keeping with Srila Prabhupäda’s indication of ‘not so many.’”
My comment: There were not so many uttama-adhikäré female dékñä-gurus in the history of all of the Vaiñëava lines and branches. This is mostly because mahä-bhägavats are rare, especially in terms of the female gender. Prabhupäda is referring to that status when he said “not so many.”
That evidence should be applied in context. As could only be expected, it is dumbed down here and manipulated to refer to madhyam-adhikärés or regular gurus. And, please note, there are no madhyams in “ISKCON” of either gender. They are all deviated.
G.B.C. Dialogue: “3. Furthermore, this resolution is designated as a ‘Culturally Sensitive Resolution.’ Per G.B.C. law: A Regional Governing Body, or where there is no R.G.B., 15an authorized national council with the support of their G.B.C., or where a national council has more than one G.B.C., a majority of their G.B.C.s, may apply to the G.B.C. Body with a request to modify a culturally sensitive resolution for their area/yatra. Such a request must include the details of the specific adjustments they propose to make, as well as the reasons for requesting such an adjustments.
My comment: This is bureaucracy taking over. In the “ISKCON” wheelhouse, you get caught in a labyrinth of rationalizations, with layers of institutional innovation baked into the cake. Furthermore, the request must be according to imaginary parameters that must meet concocted guidelines. Any sane person can see that this is just the kind of bureaucracy Prabhupäda warned about:
“Krishna consciousness movement is for training men to be independently thoughtful and competent in all types of departments of knowledge and action, not for making bureaucracy. Once there is bureaucracy, the whole thing will be spoiled.” 16
My comment: The G.B.C. then provides an “opt out” if two-thirds of the R.G.B. votes to activate it in their region. How do you opt out of allowing a genuine dékñä-guru to initiate qualified newcomers wherever he chooses? How does R.G.B. accept a female dékñä guru to initiate in its region by an arbitrary two-thirds vote? And every five years, the G.B.C. says it can reverse course . . . but will that also require a two-thirds vote?
“Gradually the Krishna consciousness idea will evaporate: Another change, another change, every day another change. Stop all this! Simply have kirtana, nothing else. Don’t manufacture ideas!” 17
“. . . we have created this 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. As the post is very great, similarly, the punishment is also very great.” 18
The colossal hoax known as the fabricated, so-called “ISKCON” confederation is a pseudo-spiritual scam. “ISKCON” leaders have sold their chelas a bill of goods, but such sentimental followers can’t help but notice that, aside from all of the colorful Deities, rituals, ceremonies, festivals, parades and everything else in the cult’s Venus fly trap, there is always some kind of internecine war going down.
However, the cult mis-leaders don’t rely solely on attracting those entangled in its vortex. They play another card from the bottom of their deck: The G.B.C. is non-different from God shibboleth. They hold their doubtful unfortunates via fear of excommunication and condemnation if they reject anything, even when outrageous, that the vitiated G.B.C. resolves as absolute.
If the G.B.C. was actually absolute, how could it have been suspended (and its power taken away) by Prabhupäda in early 1972? But the chelas have no knowledge of that. Nor do they have knowledge about Prabhupäda’s dread of what the vitiated G.B.C. might resolve after he left the scene:
“What will happen when I am not here?:
Shall everything be spoiled by G.B.C.?” 19
Ready yourself for what this deviated governing body—euphemistically labeled as “Prabhupäda’s G.B.C.,”—is going to resolve and empower at next Spring’s asat sabhä in Mayapur. In the immediate aftermath of that debacle, on a bright, cold late morning next April, the “ISKCON” clocks will all be striking fourteen.
SAD EVA SAUMYA
ENDNOTES
1. George Orwell, 1984;
2. Johnny Rivers, “Secret Agent Man”;
3. Letter to a leading secretary, 12-22-72;
4. Platform lecture, 3-2-66
5. Caitanya-caritämåta Madhya, 19.160, purport;
6. Letter to Sw?mi N?r?yan of Ke?avaj? Mutt, 9-30-69;
7. Letter to former personal servant, 12-29-72;
8.Shastric Advisory Council;
9. “A female is never awarded the order of sannyasam. Because a female is never considered independent and sannyasam was never awarded to any female in the past by the great Acaryas like Sankara, Ramanuja etc. The female sannyasins are to be immediately understood as pretenders or prostitutes.” Letter to N.Y.C. temple president, 3-14-67
10. Letter to Hansadutta, 1-3-69;
11. Letter to Çilävaté, 6-14-69;
12. Vyäsa-püja Address, London, 8-22-73;
13. Interview with Prof. O’Connell, Toronto, 6-18-76;
14. The India Scholars Bureau, the chief antagonist F.D.G.;
15. Regional Governing Body;
16. Letter to a leading secretary, 12-22-72;
17. Letter to a governing body commissioner, 11-5-72;
18. Platform lecture on Bhägavatam 1.13.15, purport, in Geneva, 6-4-74;
19. Letter to leading secretary, 4-11-72.