KCD’s Monthly Podcast – November 2025

Podcast transcription:

The Inexorable Decline of “ISKCON”:
Its Conversion Into An Organized Religion

By Kailäsa Candra däsa

HARIÙ OÀ NAMAÙ

“The materialist has a natural repugnance for the transcendent. . . The church which has the best chances for survival in this damned world is that of atheism under the convenient guise of theism. . . The idea of an organized church, in an intelligible form, indeed marks the close of the living spiritual movement.”

From “Organized Religion” by Bhaktisiddhänta Sarasväté Prabhupäda

Çréla Siddhänta Sarasväté was not favorable to organized religion or, as he calls it, the organized church. The title of his article indicates clearly the direct link between organized religion represented as an organized church, but we should not conclude that his critique is of “Christianity” alone. Please note an apparent contradiction (emphasis on the adjective) that, before he departed physical manifestation at the beginning of 1937, his Gauòéya Matha mission was very well organized.

The conclusion is not at all difficult to discern: If there is an uttama-adhikäré leading his own branch of the Hare Kåñëa movement from the Caitanya tree–from the unbroken line of disciplic succession in the Brahma-Madhva-Gauòéya sampradäya—then the more organized at every level his mission is, the better.

The next question is: What about after he departs physical manifestation? In that eventuality, if his leading secretaries carefully follow the Founder-Äcärya’s instructions and expressed intentions and desires, the mission continues on as a branch of disciplic succession. That should not be misconstrued to be organized religion. We get a hint from the following comment by Prabhupäda:

“Group of individuals can remain, provided they are all devotees. But if the group of individuals, if they are all rogues and rascals, they cannot be representative of God. But either singular or plural, if all of them or single actually representative of God abiding by the laws . . . that is actual religion or law. And if we manufacture in our own ways, without reference to the God’s program, it will be useless and failure.” 1

This excerpt must be understood in context to its application. Thomas Hobbes was all about the supremacy of the monarch, who obviously is an individual. When he leaves the scene, then a group of his closest executors, confidants, and advisers can and must carry on the government until the emergence of the next monarch. They act as group regents.

Relative to that example proposed by Hobbes, when applied to the context of our chief theme, after the Founder-Äcärya departs, his leading secretaries can carry on the mission as madhyam-adhikärés until the next uttama-adhikäré emerges. Obviously, this is provided that they are all madhyams and do not fall down from that platform.

A madhyam-adhikäré is a very perfect man. He is automatically both a vartma-pradarçaka guru and a çikñä-guru in our branch of Hare Kåñëa. He may or may not be a dékñä-guru, based upon whether or not he has received the order from Prabhupäda to initiate (to transmit the bhakti-latä-béja) newcomers into a connection with the disciplic line.

Prabhupäda’s ISKCON movement was, despite some speed bumps, well organized in its initial years of functioning. It was still well organized—but to a lesser extent—after he departed physical manifestation in November, 1977. If his leading secretaries, at that time, had been pure and dedicated to his orders, general instructions, and expressed wishes, the movement could have carried on in a genuine way. It would have done so until the next mahä-bhägavat emerged.

Those leading secretaries of ISKCON, however,were not madhyams, and it did not carry on in a bona fide way. It was transformed. This has become well known. However, the principle still remains intact, as misuse of a great principle or science does not render it useless.

In other words, Prabhupäda’s cult of bhakti-yoga back in the day should not be confused with the organized religions that predominate the world at this time, and these are the three Abrahamic religions. Neither Gauòéya Matha nor Prabhupäda’s ISKCON mission were ever to be considered organized religions like that until one of them, The Mother Ship, deviated after he departed, and became a pseudo-bhakti cult.

However, ISKCON, when it later became guided by the self-interests of deviant leaders, could become perverted to such an extent that it would be converted into another organized religion, and this is exactly what happened. It is particularly the case since the emergence of The Second Transformation, the Collegiate Compromise in the mid-Eighties, when that change upended the zonal debacle.

It is even worse now—it is even more of an organized religion now—since the Collegiate Compromised was transformed into The Hindoo Hodgepodge sometime in the first decade of the Twenty-First Century. None of these transformations were envisioned by the Founder, Prabhupäda. None of them were or are authorized. They were and are all warped transformations of his bhakti cult. It was, as already mentioned, organized to a significant extent but never anywhere near to the point of being an organized religion.

Was Prabhupäda himself favorable to organized religion? The following excerpt gives us some something to consider in this connection:

“Everyone has got his personal religion, and there (are) the hippies also. They are against any organized religion. . . it is a fact that you cannot make an organized religion by your concoction. So actually those who are religious, they have no difference (of) opinion, because religion means enacted by God. God is one. So not that God makes one kind of religion for one kind of person and another kind of religion for another person.” 2

His comment appears to be ambivalent in terms of the question as to whether or not he was favorable to organized religion. However, it really is not. He was against any conditioned soul forming his own religion from his individual concoction, that’s all.

Prabhupäda inspired a worldwide manifestation of the Hare Kåñëa movement. It had to be organized, and it was. His employment of rittviks to conduct the initiation ceremonies on his behalf was an authorized adaptation as the movement expanded (by early 1970) to such an extent that he could no longer personally conduct those fire sacrifices for all of the new people coming to him.

Certainly, a significant amount of centralized organization was required in putting that adaptation into effect. As long as his sannyäsés, brähmins, and leading secretaries remained loyal to him, his general instructions, his specific orders, and his stated intentions and desires, no problem. The more effective organization, the better.

However, spiritual advancement for the initiated disciples of the bona fide guru is personal. It was through pleasing—or better yet, impressing—the spiritual master in their adherence to the rules and regulations, their application of the rituals, and most importantly, their personal seva to him, that his movement ran well.

Their sevas were not to the institution or the governing body. The real workers were not trying to climb the latticework of the bureaucracy, which was very minimal until after Prabhupäda left the scene. The institution, which is a passive entity, a form, served the needs and desires of the active principle, the devotees engaged in important, personal seva to His Divine Grace A. C. Bhaktivedänta Swämi Prabhupäda.

If you foolishly believe that this arrangement was a form of an organized religion, then there is little that your host speaker can do to disabuse you of such a wrong notion. The movement did not function at all like the organized religions of the three Western Abrahamic mleccha-dharmas. It was never designed to do so, and it did not do so.

However, you need some perspective in relation to organized religion and genuine bhakti-cults. They are very different. They have different strengths and weaknesses. Bhakti cults can easily be destroyed by the host civilizations that allow them to exist within them as counter- cultures. They can also rather easily be destroyed by wars or major upheavals in those material host cultures.

Organized religion, on the other hand, is difficult to destroy. Genuine bhakti cults are linked to transcendental energies and entities, whereas organized religions are linked to the three modes of material nature. All civilizations functioning at this time—and such has been the case for centuries—are seeped in the three modes of material nature, particularly the two lower modes. There is a kind of stability and endurance provided by functioning in any mundane civilization while its prominent religion or religions are situated in its same the lower modes.

Genuine bhakti-cults have no such anchor nor do they try to attain it. As such, they more easily subject to be overridden, scattered, and destroyed in due course of time . . . and sometimes, quite quickly. Have you noticed something also connected to this fact?

The three chief deviations since the disappearance of His Divine Grace are the fabricated, so-called “ISKCON,” confederation, Neo-Mutt, and Rittvik. Before you become aware of what each of them is religiously linked to, a brief introductory explanation is required. Christianity is one of the three Abrahamic organized religions. It has immense sway throughout many, if not most, of the countries of the world. It is very powerful in Western Europe and North America, obviously.

Hinduism has representation and sway throughout the world, particularly in Southeast Asia, although its influence if not limited to that region. The Gauòéya Matha had immense influence throughout India, which is very populated. After its Founder, Prabhupäda’s guru-maharäj left the scene, its influence gradually diminished for various reasons via schism.

“ISKCON” has now linked itself to Hinduism, strongly. Rittvik linked itself to Christianity. Neo-Mutt linked itself to the leadership of Gauòéya Matha. The three chief deviations, which simply appear to be succeeding and representing Prabhupäda’s movement after his departure from physical manifestation, are all now linked to different organized religions that are rooted in the modes of material nature.

“ISKCON” is the first of the three, but it did not forge any link with mundane religion until recently.. It then gained material strength via Hinduization. Affiliations with Hinduism, Goudiya Mutt, and Christianity secures for the three of them, respectively, material stability. In due course, an inexorable decline will kick in with Neo-Mutt and Rittvik, but we are focusing upon “ISKCON” in this presentation. We are focusing on its conversion into an organized religion, which will not prove to be a successful strategy in the long run.

During the epoch of the zonal äcäryas, to a significant degree, “ISKCON,” (in its first conversion from what it was meant to be) was not an organized religion, except in a kind of covert way. The gurus predominated in their zones, but that unauthorized scheme (of those zones) was instituted by the vitiated G.B.C. As such, the touch of evil of organized religion was present in order for it to function.

Where organized religion took over was in The Second Transformation of the Collegiate Compromise. By that time, the mid-Eighties, the concoction of organized religion had already crept into the zonal paradigm in an ever-increasing way. Despite resistance from the eleven great pretenders, a backlash from the non-guru section led to some compromises.

Still, organized religion really entered and took over when there was a massive rebellion by the temple presidents, and the gurus were busted down from uttama-adhikäré to madhyam-adhikäré. This was solidified in 1987, although it was already transpiring the year before. Please note: None of those gurus had been uttamas, so actually they weren’t busted down. They were just what they always were since 1978: Sahajiyäs!

However, when all of the recognized institutional dékñä-gurus remaining loyal to the vitiated G.B.C. went completely under the thumb of the Commish, that constituted the victory of organized religion having prevailed in “ISKCON.” The bureaucracy, which had been expanding during the first half of the Eighties, now had a long runway to work with, and it took full advantage of it.

The conversion of “ISKCON” into an organized religion, which then became readily apparent to all serious devotees—mostly on the outside of the cult, of course—becamefixed. The high profile, fake uttamas were uprooted. Kértanänanda still cut that profile at Moundsville, but, for all practical purposes, he was no longer connected to “ISKCON” in a meaningful way. He was doing his own thing. The leading secretaries of “ISKCON” did not approve of him nor he of them.

The leaders of The Second Transformation all became initiating gurus themselves, as long as they did not fall down or engage in a major scandal during the transition of The Collegiate Compromise. It was led by Professor Blueblood, as could only have been expected. The colleges and universities throughout the Western world are little more than perverted reflections of organized religion, but without the theistic base. Initially, they had that base of The Church Universal centuries previously, but by the Twentieth Century it was gone.

Professor Blueblood dovetailed his institutional acumen in the mundane sphere to the abhäsa-dharma, the semblance of religion that “ISKCON” had become, and it proved successful . . . for awhile. However, it had a bit of an unforeseen Achilles heel to it: Its centers, which were now filled almost completely with new disciples (all improperly initiated), those new people had lost their uttama gurus.

They had been amped up by those great pretenders when they were, allegedly, mahä-bhägavats and worshiped as such. Now, they were no longer worshiped in the temples. The new disciples had been addicted to them and their high profiles and powerful statuses, but this had been taken away. As such, the new people were negatively impacted. Most of them were pickers, and almost all of them lost their mojo.

The centers, especially the major centers in the larger metropolitan areas, were expensive to run. With the great gurus (in the eyes of their disciples only, of course) now relegated to a lower platform, those fanatical followers out on the pick either were no longer willing to go into the field at all or, at the very least, would collect for many less hours. They were also not as enthusiastic to collect, because they were no longer doing so for a fully realized spiritual master in their minds.

The North American Temple Presidents Association had busted down the high-flying gurus. Once the new transformation was complete, if the president of any center had been part of NATPA, the incentive to collect for him and his center by the new people was minimized. This led to a revenue problem for many if not most of the “ISKCON” centers.

By the early Nineties, another major problem emerged: The appearance of the Rittvik concoction. When many high profile gurus were exposed in the mid-Eighties, they were forced to toe the line of the new dispensation or be de jure or de facto excommunicated. Kértanänanda was the exception, but he had all kinds of other difficulties emerging due his ordered assassination of a nemesis by one of his hatchet men. He also was almost killed himself by a former follower and suffered lingering repercussions to his physical and mental well being as a result.

Rittvik provided a different explanation as to why these cult problems emerged. The Second Transformation allowed new initiates (since 1978) to remain allegedly initiated (actually, improperly initiated) as long as their busted down gurus remained loyal to the new dispensation brought in by the vitiated G.B.C.. The Commish did not accept Rittvik.

Rittvik claimed that the only initiations that could possibly be bona fide were those performed by rittviks on behalf of Prabhupäda after he departed physical manifestation. This is not at all what The Collegiate Compromise stood for, of course. The improperly initiated disciples of gurus no longer connected to “ISKCON” were being strong-armed into what soon became known as “re-initiation.” Most of the new people were not at all attracted to this pressure.

At the same time, they did not want to leave the centers in order to become contaminated on the outside by the sinful host culture. Many if not most of them buckled under the pressure by accepting another initiation from the ever-expanding list of rent-äcäryas approved by the vitiated G.B.C.. There was no attractive alternative for these unfortunates. The vast majority of those new people were not into Neo-Mutt for reasons that were completely understandable, as that cult was anything but Prabhupäda-centered. It seemed that they had no viable choice but to stay in “ISKCON,” and such remained the case for about four years.

They had no choice . . . until Maya arranged for them to have another choice with the emergence of Rittvik. As such, the ruling class of “ISKCON” was now faced with fighting on two new and unexpected fronts: Lack of revenue due to massive loss of enthusiasm on the part of the collectors and, very soon after, defections of their new people to Rittvik and its gurus. Those unauthorized rittvik gurus (please note: Rittvik came to a close, permanently, in mid-1977) gave all of their new initiates a mirror to reflect what appeared to be the Moon.

These new people—almost the totality of which were not very educated in the spiritual science of Kåñëa consciousness and thus still prone to be cheated—looked into that mirror given them by the Rittvik leaders. In it, they saw the reflection of the Moon. They thus concluded (due to bad association) that they had captured the Moon. They went from one subset of bad association to another one and were plunged into heresy.

TATTVAMASI

While in latter-day “ISKCON,” some of these unfortunates had received as many as three re-initiations, which is bonkers. Now, with Rittvik, they subjected themselves to but another ceremonial throwing of the bananas and rice into the fire. They now wrongly believed that they had secured His Divine Grace A. C. Bhaktivedänta Swämi Prabhupäda, a non-manifest spiritual master, as their dékñä-guru.

“ISKCON,” already in need of the revenue they lost with the lack of incentive from their collectors—many of whom had been big-time, out in the field for sixteen hour shifts—now lost even more membership. Those new people held grudges for what the Mother Ship had done to their beloved first guru and joined Rittvik.

That resentment was fed by their new Rittvik leaders. Those mis-leaders also had broiling resentment against the “ISKCON” upper echelon for not granting them dékñä-guru status. Due to the well-worn policy of cult stratification that was always in it since the late Sixties, the stratification tactic had been kept in place.

Not unsurprisingly, The Vaishnava Journal emerged in “ISKCON.” It was, at least superficially, somewhat favorable to Goudiya Mutt, which meant “ISKCON” was lessening its opposition to Neo-Mutt, which also rejected Rittvik. This effort failed rather quickly, so “ISKCON” had to come up with something new. It was a time for another change. That change was The Third Transformation. It solidified even further “ISKCON’s” conversion into an Organized Religion.

First, some backstory is in order. For all practical purposes, The First Transformation came in with a bang; it was introduced quite abruptly. It was decided for certain when the G.B.C. converted into the vitiated G.B.C. in the last week of March, 1978. By no later than May of that year, all but one center worldwide was under the full whammy of the heady, high-flying, great eleven pretenders.

All the inmates in the centers—and, of course, the new people that had arrived there just after Prabhupäda left the scene—were now worshiping, (in front of open Deities in the temple rooms), pseudo-mahä-bhägavats. It came in as an equivalent to a kind of smash and grab. It was their way or the highway. You were out if you showed any resistance to it.

Except for the Krishna-Balaram complex in Raman-Reti, the zonal debacle was complete, and the die was cast. Bottom line for the purposes of this part of our presentation, the zonal imposition did not gradually work its way into the takeover that it consummated. Instead, it came as an abrupt shock to the system.

The Second Transformation was not so abrupt. It took some time. It was gradual from one perspective, but it caught fire in 1986. It had been on warm the previous two years and simmering. By 1987, is was the law of the land. From a different perspective, the change came in somewhat quickly, as it only took three years to replace the zonals.

Now we come to The Third Transformation of the Hinduization of “ISKCON,” and the rest of our monthly podcast will focus upon this massive expansion of Organized Religion in “ISKCON.” It took over very gradually, to the extent that hardly anyone can pinpoint the year in which made it to the top of the turtle tank. It took over at the Bhaktivedänta Manor in the mid-Nineties. Somewhere in the neighborhood of 2005, it either had a foothold in virtually every “ISKCON” center.

India is the land of disparity. You travel by its Nineteenth Century railroad carriages throughout various places. For about five hundred yards, you will experience wonderfully scented air from fresh flowers and nice scenery. Then, all of a sudden, the next five hundred yards greets you with the smell of open sewage and rundown shacks. Particularly, this is experienced on the rail line between New Delhi and Mathura, but such disparity is not limited to that patch of land.

The disparity in wealth throughout the subcontinent is mind-boggling. Everyone knows this. Hindus dominate that subcontinent and its culture, and no one will dispute this. However, Hinduism has also become somewhat influential in the West and especially now in “ISKCON.” Since Hinduism colors the ISKCON” movement, we must not only understand why, but also just what it is . . . and what it is not.

Hinduism is NOT Kåñëa consciousness nor is it monotheistic, as some falsely claim. Those who state, with apparent conviction, that Hinduism is monotheistic are pushing mistaken knowledge. That is accepted easily in America, unfortunately. Just as importantly, even if it was or is monotheistic (which again, it has never been, is not, nor ever will be), monotheism is not the Absolute Truth.

Hinduism is rooted in Mäyäväda; in fact, it is a third simulacrum of heavy-duty Çankära Mäyäväda. Hinduism is neither monotheistic nor is it pantheistic. It is henotheistic. I shall simply mention the difference between all of these, although that is not important to the philosophical, procedural, historical, and practical factors regarding Hinduism’s takeover of “ISKCON,” which is its Third Transformation.

The chief reason it was able to become so influential is that it solved the revenue problem that virtually all the ‘ISKCON” centers suffered when The Collegiate Compromise took over. The Hindus in the Western world are, with very few exceptions, wealthy. They know how to obey the laws and take advantage of the opportunities the West provides them. You never hear about Hindu gangs in the West, because there aren’t any. They are law-abiding, successful citizens in the Western meritocratic environment in which they now domicile.

They had no presence or influence in ISKCON—at least, not in America—when devotees joined the movement in the late Sixties, early Seventies, and the mid-Seventies before Prabhupäda departed. While your host speaker was at the Chicago center, at most a Hindu would visit either as one man or with his immediate family. He would drop a five or a ten in the däna box, and that would be it. They had no interest in joining; they were attracted to the Deities and nothing more.

During my early years in the movement, I only had contact with one former Hindu, about my same age (and initiated almost at the same time). He joined and became a full-fledged Vaiñëava neophyte devotee. He eventually became the temple president at Ahmedabad, and he was recognized by Prabhupäda to a significant extent.

What is Hinduism? As already mentioned, it is neither monotheism nor is it completely united philosophically amongst its members. As far as its basic platform. shared by all of its acolytes, is concerned, it is a combination of henotheism and vivarta-väda. It gets vivarta-väda from Mäyäväda. Henotheism means worship of many demigods, and dyed-in-the-wool Hindus consider the Parameçvara, Lord Viñëu or Kåñëa, to be one of the prominent demigods only.

Hindus select their iñöa-deva from a package of Vedic deva options, and this is not Vaisnavism. Some select Kåñëa or Viñëu, of course, but those Hindus have the wrong conception of Parameçvara. Monotheism is the wrong concept that God does everything, and it rejects that demigods carry on the functions of the universe. In point of fact, thirty-three million of them do just that, while the Supreme Controller simply witnesses and sanctions the cosmic karma playing out under their control.

Monotheism is nonsense. God does not have to do all of that work, and He does not do so. Henotheism is also nonsense, because all of the demigods recognize Lord Viñëu as the Supreme Controller, and they recognize that He controls them as well. That means that He can, and sometimes does, punish them if they do not carry out the administration of his universe in the right way, although such punishment is rare.

Vivarta-väda is nonsense. The idea that everything in the universe is an illusion, unreal, has its roots in Mäyäväda. The actual philosophy, promulgated by all Vaiñëavas, is called parinamaväda.

The philosophy of Vaisnavism is panentheism, which is entirely different from either monotheism or henotheism. Everything in the universe is real, but it is temporary; actual creations are not illusory. While it lasts, the universe is real. It is not to be dismissed as a figment of imaginary creation that is not real. The material manifestation is not reality, but it does have existence while it lasts, along with its creations.

The Hindus who do not believe saàsära is forever (probably the majority), believe that mukti or mokña is the ultimate goal. This they believe is, ultimately, merging into Brahman, the White Light of Eternity. That is known as sayujya-mukti, and it is completely transcendental to material existence. It is also known as Brahma-nirväna.

That is the ultimate goal of Hindus, but Vaiñëavas will never accept it. They want to transcend it in order to reach eternal deliverance in the spiritual world of form and activity, but Hindus believe that that attainment is mäyä and previous to sayujya-mukti.

In other words, there is a vast difference between a follower of Hinduism and a Vaiñëava. The Hindu is henotheistic, believes in vivarta-väda, and thinks that merging into Brahman as a liberated spiritual spark is the only real liberation. Some of them think that makes them God.

The Vaiñëava adheres to panentheism, preaches parinämaväda, and wants to reach the spiritual world where his svarüpa-siddhi in rasa with Lord Näräyan or Lord Kåñëa functions in the ever-lasting world of form and activity, which is real worship and devotional service.

The introduction of Hinduism into “ISKCON” was never the intention of its Founder of his real movement. Here are excerpts from his statements and writings that prove this. They will include a commentary after them, although they do not require it, because they are crystal clear.

“ . . . they are of the opinion that one can become an incarnation simply by worshiping a demigod. This philosophical hodge-podge exists under the name of the Hindu religion, but the Kåñëa consciousness movement does not approve of it. Indeed, we strongly condemn it. Such worship of demigods and so-called incarnations of God should never be confused with the pure Kåñëa consciousness movement.” 3

Devotees of Lord Viñëu or Lord Kåñëa do not worship the demigods, although Vaiñëavas recognize that, materially speaking, the demigods are far more powerful than them. As such, Vaiñëavas go out of their way not to offend any of the demigods, but devotees of the Supreme Lord reject the henotheism intrinsic to Hinduism. Devotees know clearly that they are eternally subordinate to the Supreme Lord.

“Regarding the Hindu centers in the foreign countries, none of them are bona fide. There is a similar hodge-podge center in London. Actually Hindus and non-Hindus, everyone is at the present moment out of touch of the real science of spiritual knowledge.” 4

The real Kåñëa conscious movement established by Prabhupäda was meant to invoke knowledge and realization in the cultivation of spiritual life and spiritual science. This gets lost when Hinduism degrades it. Actually, once the zonal imposition was implemented, cultivating spiritual science was no longer even viable for most devotees; it certainly was anything but a priority. The Hindoo hodgepodge solidifies this trend of not invoking interest in understanding spiritual science but replacing that with the sentimentality that is integral to Hinduism.

“So far my writings, avoid publishing them in hodge-podge journals. These so-called Hindus are generally impersonalists, and we do not want to have anything to do with them.” 5

Current “ISKCON” encourages Hindus and their lifestyles and beliefs. It depends upon Hindu money to a significant extent at many if not most of its centers. It recognizes Hindu festival days and engages in something as wacky as car püja (after a Hindu member of the congregation purchases a classy, new vehicle) Some Hindus even control “ISKCON” centers as temple presidents.

“Other than the bona fide Vaiñëava functions, we cannot divert our attention to such participation in so-called religious functions. This has spoiled the Hindu religion into a hodge-podge pseudo-religion.” 6

“ISKCON” became a pseudo-religion once the zonal debacle took over in the late Seventies. Now it is in its third transformation from what it was actually meant to be. That is The Third Transformation of the Hinduization of “ISKCON.” Almost everyone has recognized this by now.

Question From a Guest: Now how do you relate the International Society for Krishna Consciousness to Hinduism? How would you describe it–as a part of Hinduism?

Prabhupäda: No. Hinduism practically we do not recognize, because this word “Hinduism” is not mentioned in any Vedic literature. It is a foreign term. . . Otherwise, we don’t find that word in any Vedic literature. 7

Hinduism has no place in Vaisnavism. It is a concoction. It is not mentioned in any authorized Vedic literature. Everything it stands for, except some weak sentiment about Lord Kåñëa (which only some Hindoos share) is opposed to the real sanätana-dharma of Vaisnavism.

“We are against all so-called cheating religion. The Hinduism is also a cheating religion.” 8

Hinduism is a kaitava-dharma. It is not a mleccha-dharma, although some Hindus in the West have degraded to meat eating. It is different and better than the three Abrahamic religions, but it is still a cheating religion. “ISKCON,” by allowing Hinduism to become as influential in its movement as it has, will lead the cult to its inexorable decline.

“This Hindu religion has no philosophy. Therefore, it has died, because in this age, people have become very much hardened by material living, and they are not much interested in sentimental religions like Hinduism. Sentiments are temporary, and they always dry up.”9

The colossal hoax of the fabricated, so-called “ISKCON” confederation is a pseudo-spiritual scam. It is now in the throes of its third transformation. It became an organized abhäsa-dharma during its second transformation, and the influence of Hinduism in its super-structure and its worship programs solidifies it even more firmly as an organized religion.

It has greatly diminished its chances to fulfill the prophecy of Lord Caitanya by allowing Hindoo influence, set previously into motion by the institutional compromises engendered from its bureaucracy. It is now its own kind of church, and organized Eastern religion in intelligible form.

SAD EVA SAUMYA

ENDNOTES

1. Critique of Thomas Hobbes, Dialectical Spiritualism;

2. Platform Lecture, 2-12-71;

3. Caitanya-caritämåta, Adi, 10.11;

4. Letter to Jayapätaka, 4-17-70;

5. Letter to Giriräj, 7-22-72;

6. Letter to Gopäl Krishna, 4-27-74;

7. Interview with L. A. Reporter, 12-26-68;

8. Morning Walk, 1-26-76;

9. Letter to Vaikunthanatha, 2-4-72;