Podcast transcription:
Krishna Consciousness Means
Liberation From Cult Dogma
by Kailäsa Candra däsa
HARIÙ OÀ NAMAÙ
“Avidyä, or ignorance, is undoubtedly dangerous, but vidyä or knowledge is even more dangerous when mistaken or misguided.” 1
“ . . . we should not blindly accept knowledge from the descending path. It is not dogma. We can test it with logic and reason and discover for ourselves how it is superior to any contrary conclusions arrived at through the speculative method.” 2
“Look at this wasteland, it’s chaos.
But there’s always somebody behind the wheel.” 3
Both from the mundane and the spiritual perspective, there is a great deal of mistaken knowledge afflicting virtually everyone in this difficult juxtaposition of Kali-yuga. Most believe in the Copernican speculation that the universe is heliocentric. It is not. It is geocentric.
In a similar vein, everyone is taught that the orbits of the planets are elliptical, but they are circular, revolving around the Earth, not the Sun.
Students are taught that the retrograde movement of the five major planets is an optical illusion. However, they actually do move backwards in their orbits at a certain sector of their revolution around the Earth.
Vedic knowledge rejects Copernicus, Galileo, and Kepler in all respects, because all three of them spread nescience as mistaken knowledge. The modern and post-modern intellectuals falsely contend that that the Sun is not in the center of the universe but only in the center of one of many solar systems or galaxies within a much larger universe.
All of that is anti-Vedic. It is untrue. It is mistaken knowledge. More serious than any of these examples of mistaken knowledge is mistaken knowledge in the institution parading itself as the representative of Prabhupäda’s branch of the Vaiñëava guru-paramparä. “ISKCON” contends that his appointment of eleven rittviks in July of 1977 was that of eleven dékñä-gurus in waiting. This example of mistaken knowledge says that they had to wait (until Prabhupäda left the scene) in order to act as gurus. In the interim, they could only act as rittviks due to an etiquette that Prabhupäda had clearly rejected in 1969.
It is now “ISKCON” dogma and a key pillar of that cult’s false narrative. This mistaken knowledge of gurus-in-waiting is believed by all of the echelons of “ISKCON.” It is a false pre-supposition, but the whole chain of the “ISKCON” narrative depends upon it being accepted.
We defy and challenge it. We expose it. This institutional dogma must be rejected by all real devotees. Prabhupäda only appointed rittviks, because there were no gurus available to initiate newcomers in 1977 except himself. He did not recognize any of his disciples as gurus, because none of them were qualified. As such, he did the best he could: He re-established the rittvik system. A rittvik-äcärya does not become as good as an äcärya after The Äcärya departs physical manifestation.
It is mistaken knowledge that he does.
“There are differences in cultures and in body types. Scientists will say that human beings are all of one species, but when they speak of species, they mean something different. The Vedas, for instance, would consider the Negroes and Äryans to belong to different species.” 4
Western teachings would consider men and women to be one human species with different race–an African race to be different from the Gujaratis in India, for example. However, Prabhupäda and the Vedic revelation equates race with species. Just mentioned is this excerpt from Dialectical Spiritualism, where Prabhupäda commented on Charles Darwin in a Q&A format.
Although the Darwin chapter can be found in the Folio, this excerpt cannot be found there. Obviously, the excerpt was intentionally culled out. This has helped to strengthen the mistaken knowledge, believed by almost everyone in the Western world, that there is only one human race or one human species. . . or that there are four or five human races based upon different skin colors, but only one human species. The actual fact is that there are 400,000 different species of human beings, and race is a synonym for species, i.e., 400,000 different races.
The different tribes of American Indians, for example, were different species of human beings, despite all of them having a distinct reddish tint to their skin. The advanced human beings in India, born generation after generation in Vedic culture, were and are not the same species as Africans. These are different races from birth. The propaganda that there is only one human race is mistaken knowledge. Widespread belief in the mistaken knowledge of one human species or one human race is an all-pervading belief and a wrong conception of humanity.
The Folio, which is an “ISKCON” publishing wing, did not include this “controversial” excerpt. However, it was included in the Dialectical Spiritualism edition of the book published separately by Prabhupäda Books in Moundsville, West Virginia in 1985. This lack of inclusion by “ISKCON” once again reinforces the fact that it is under the sway of the great Western adventure. As such, it will not defy the non-Vedic West but instead will compromise with it whenever it (and the Hindoo Hodgepodge dominating it) deems advantageous to do so.
“ISKCON” is a massive psy-op. Its G.B.C., often led by one prominent man in the governing body, is always the hand behind the wheel of this dangerous cult. The vitiatedG.B.C. produces the dogma that benefits it. The mis-leaders of “ISKCON” engage in a mass hypnosis that is especially effective on the unfortunates who fall within the fearful vortex of its influence, and there are thousands of them at this time.
The big guns exploit the apa-sampradäya they have created, which means they lead a semblance ofa spanking new sahajiyä line. They claim to have gurus, but it is mistaken knowledge to believe that they actually have spiritual masters in their confederation. However, since everyone in it believes that there are gurus in there, they can and do exploit all çästric statements by Prabhupäda in relation to guru, such as:
“You cannot argue with guru. That is praëipäta. Therefore, we must have a guru where exact knowledge is coming, without any mistake, because we cannot argue. . . we must find out such guru, where perfect knowledge is coming. . . (who) must be perfect representative of Kåñëa.” 5
That institution’s so-called spiritual masters push their chelas to fear the alleged consequences of not seeing them as gurus and questioning whatever dogma spews from their pie holes. This is standard cult procedure, of course, and Neo-Mutt, a splinter group of “ISKCON,” certainly actuates the same intimidation technique.
As we have already mentioned (but it bears repeating), in cults such as “ISKCON,” mistaken knowledge eventually hardens into cult dogma. All of its gurus will push such dogma, because it benefits them. The past controls the future of “ISKCON,” as its leaders steer their semblance of bhakti via false pre-suppositions. The chelas, under the control of such mis-leaders, will continue just as they are doing now into the future, but things will warp even more as the old guard dies off. 6
As within, so without is a slogan used by both Eastern and Western astrologers. The astral plane, in particular combinations, is represented in each individual according to where the universe was situated astrologically during the moment of every person’s first breath.
However, mistaken knowledge dominates Western astrology, also known as tropical astrology. This is an in-depth topic, and it would be tangential to explain here. The matrix of its mistaken knowledge is the speculation that the movement of the Sun, during its tropical journey from the vernal equinox to the summer solstice to the autumnal equinox to the next vernal equinox, is related to the solar position in twelve signs of occupancy. This is patently untrue. The signs are not determined by the Uttaräyana or Dakñinäyana movement of the Sun. The signs are determined by the stars or nakçatras that actually comprise those signs.
Remove that mistaken knowledge, accept the sidereal truth (even though you have other hoops to jump in order to secure accurate planetary placement), and you make progress in understanding the sidereal science. However, if you accept the mistaken knowledge of tropical astrology, you are misled from the gate in the majority of your placements.
Similarly, if you accept that “ISKCON” had eleven bona fide gurus in 1978, you are a victim of mistaken knowledge from the jump. It had no genuine gurus. It had eleven pretenders, all of whom were imitating Prabhupäda. All of them were sahajiyäs, and some of them were egregious.
All of them created improperly initiated disciples as their dedicated disciples, many of whom became fanatics with a poor fund of knowledge. You can make no progress whatsoever if you accept the “ISKCON” narrative. It begins with the mistaken knowledge that, post-Prabhupäda, there were spiritual masters which represented His Divine Grace in the way he both wanted and authorized. There were not.
If you place the planets wrong in your janma-kuëòali, you achieve wrong results. If you initially place the narrative of the post-1977 movement as having genuine gurus and genuine initiations, you are starting from aflawed position. Check your premises and return to square one in order to rectify your misconception. Then, remove all of the mistaken knowledge you unfortunately imbibed after that first illusion.
There are enough examples here in order to understand the principle involved in making these comparisons. Mistaken knowledge is not part of spiritual life, obviously, but it is an integral part of pseudo-spiritual life. There are plenty of examples of mistaken knowledge in the name of Prabhupäda and in the name of the Kåñëa consciousness movement. Henceforward, we shall concentrate our presentation for this month on dogma in the name of Kåñëa consciousness.
From the occult standpoint, the vitiated G.B.C. came under the control of a dormant malefic egregor waiting for the right time, utilizing the ambitions of eleven prominent men leading the movement. It succeeded. The Governing Body Commission was going off the rails while the movement’s Founder was still physically on the scene. As such, the cult was anything but a conduit to the attainment of siddha for its members.
Indeed, just before he departed, the Founder said (to the temple president of the Bombay center) that he was trying to liberate his disciples but the governing body was trying to keep them in bondage. This statement shocked that president. Your author was not at all shocked when he first came to know of it, having heard it from a sannyäsé who heard the anecdote directly from that Bombay president. No one who was in the cult at that time—who was actually trying for perfection in it—would have been surprised to have heard this statement from His Divine Grace if it had been revealed in 1977 . . . which it wasn’t, of course.
It is mistaken knowledge to believe that the Governing Body of the fabricated, so-called “ISKCON” confederation was, at any time, comprised of advanced Vaiñëavas. Most definitely, such was not the case. We know this beyond a shadow of a doubt from many angles of vision. We know this from the established Vedic principle of phalena-paricéyate: Judge by the results. The results of G.B.C. dogma in the late Seventies was represented by eleven sahajiyäs dividing (with vitiated G.B.C. imprimatur) the world into eleven playgrounds (called zones) for their enjoyment. The effect of these zones was the continued entrapment of insincere, non-serious (not sincere or serious enough) new people entering them. 7
Any other conception than this constitutes mistaken knowledge. As such, walk back the cat, return to square one, and put the pieces of the puzzle together again but in the right way this time, which would mean free from the nescience of cult dogma. You need this freedom. Figuratively speaking, it is the air that you are required to breathe in order to continue to make advancement in spiritual life.
It is nothing more than cult dogma to believe that the eleven great pretenders, all members of the vitiated G.B.C. and so-called zonal äcäryas, were simply exuberant young boys who were inadvertently victimized by some unintentional mistakes made while they sincerely tried to carry out Prabhupäda’s wishes after he left physical manifestation. 8
The eleven pretenders were called zonal äcäryas, a complete concoction. On the strength of that institutionalism, they all feigned to have attained siddha. This pretension degraded the concept. It produced faithlessness (for some) in even the possibility of attaining perfection, especially for the devotees who may initially had been trying to achieve it.
The bhakti process was also inexorably changed by the vitiated G.B.C. after its zonal concoction was implemented worldwide. That zonal imposition only lasted about eight years, but the needle in and the damage done. Its so-called äcäryas then were busted down or excommunicated, but major and irreversible damage was wreaked upon the movement.
Losing the essence of Kåñëa consciousness, thousands of improperly initiated pseudo-transcendentalists were let loose on the face of the Earth. Many of them became fanatics, and all of them falsely believe themselves to be linked to the guru-paramparä. All of them, as figurative ships without rudders, have no possibility of attaining siddha.
Indeed, whatever incipient spiritual progress they had made (previous to wandering into the pit of “ISKCON,”) was then bollixed and scattered. All eleven zonals were dependent upon the governing body in order to imitate the Founder-Äcärya. Superficially, they took over the governing body; however, at the occult level, such was not really the case.
This was proven in the Eighties when The Second Transformation brought in crushing institutionalism. It is cult dogma that a collegiate compromise rectified the deviations. In reality, the malefic astral influence, the egregor inimical to the movement (and to anyone in it seeking siddha) got over after the zonal äcärya scheme crashed and burned.
On Evidence and Conclusive Evidence
“ . . . Govinda is the cause of all causes, and He is without any cause. This is the beauty of the çästras, that one çloka finishes billions of years hard labor of mental speculation. Just try to give evidence like this.” 9
“Disturbance is caused by ignorance; where there is no ignorance, there is no disturbance. The four sannyäsés may bark, but still the caravan will pass. There is every evidence that they are influenced by some of my fourth-class godbrothers.” 10
The evidence presented in court throughout the West—and all of the contemporary world, for that matter—has only the faintest similarity to the evidence that devotees rely upon. As such, in this chapter, we shall not list dozens of descriptions of evidence emphasized in the proceedings of the Western jurisprudence system.
We instead emphasize evidence presented by the spiritual master on a particular subject. Such evidence never works to establish cult dogma, although, when it is misused, it appears to do that. When there is either contradiction (or apparent contradiction) from Vedic texts, that evidence is always subordinate to the evidence presented by the sampradäya spiritual master, the Äcärya in the true sense of the term.
Here is the chief point you must understand in order to glean any benefit from this particular chapter: There is always some evidence lurking both within and behind any particular “ISKCON” dogma. The same holds true for both Neo-Mutt and Rittvik, but we are not focusing upon those splinter groups this month. We are focusing upon “ISKCON.”
As long as it is not misused, anecdotal evidence can be helpful. However, it is often misused when it comes in the form of a “Prabhupäda said” that cannot be verified. Whenever “ISKCON” uses anecdotal evidence to establish its dogma—either as the main evidence or supplemental—know it for a fact that that anecdotal evidence is always misused.
Comparative evidence is never more than secondary. This is different from anecdotal evidence. “ISKCON” will use number of temples, number of letters received from Prabhupäda to one of the big guns, or the number of the congregation internationally. In these cases, such evidence is actually weak, although it superficially appears to be strong.
Ultimately, numbers mean nothing. When applicable (to the degree that it is), comparative evidence is never more than supplemental. From the generic standpoint, evidence can be extremely weak, weak, neither very weak or very strong, strong, or extremely strong.
TATTVAMASI
Then again, there is another generic term for evidence: Conclusive evidence. This one is most salient. It is non-different from proof. It is proof. Often, eliminatio logica is integrated into conclusive evidence. Be assured that “ISKCON” has no conclusive evidence backing any of its dogmatic beliefs, protocols, or narratives.
Still, you need to concede that it always has some kind of evidence underpinning—but not proving—any of its particular cult dogma. As an analogy (and it is a good one) for your edification and realization on this point, let us present the following. It is mundane, but it illustrates quite clearly why you should not fall for “ISKCON” dogma when it presents weak evidence to establish its dogma.
The analogy begins like this: Two men in New York City are heated rivals for the same woman, and they hate each other. One lives in an apartment on a street directly connected to Central Park, and that domicile is in a building very close to Central Park.
The other one works at a call center in a building next to Central Park. As long as the weather is decent, he takes his lunch break on a bench in Central Park. On a day with good weather, the rival in the apartment is found shot to death there in the early afternoon. The coroner places the time of death at around noon.
Now, is that evidence that the other rival murdered him? It is. If that was the only evidence that the District Attorney could come up, could the D.A. charge that man with Murder One? Unless there was some kind of personal animosity involved between District Attorney’s office and the fellow who takes his lunch in Central Park, if that was the only evidence, no charge or indictment would ever be issued.
It would be a waste of taxpayer money if it was. It would result in a certain verdict of not guilty, and the D.A. would be jeopardizing his re-election if he indicted the living rival for murder on such paucity of evidence. Still, that fact of proximity would remain in the category of evidence.
As we now proceed to a discussion of examples of “ISKCON” dogma, feel free to keep this analogy in mind. Why? Because the evidence that “ISKCON” uses to establish each and every major dogma that it pushes is just like that: Weak evidence. It is primarily based upon sentiment and superstition and/or misuse of some statement from Prabhupäda.
Three Dogma Night
“ . . . preachers of religion are simply dogmatic. They have no clear idea of God; they only make official proclamations. When one does not understand, he cannot make others understand. But there is no such vanity in Kåñëa consciousness. Kåñëa consciousness is clear in every respect.” 11
“ . . . in the Bhagavad-gétä, it is more clearly explained so that you can understand with all reason, arguments, and scrutiny too. It is not dogmatic. That is the beauty of Bhagavad-gétä.” 12
“ . . . you must clearly understand. Because you have submitted, it is not that you have to understand something dogmatic. No. Submission must be there, but at the same time, you should have clear understanding.” 13
We are not very much concerned with Vedic evidence, although we accept it more times than not. Sometimes, it can be misleading, but that is a tangent that we shall not expound upon here. The Vedic system, however, we always accept: It is the deductive process for acquiring knowledge. Such knowledge is never dogmatic. It is received, in most cases, from disciplic succession.
We accept the words of the genuine guru as they are; we cannot derive benefit from them if we do not do so. This is not a dogmatic process, although the enemies of the guru-disciple relationship will say that those who accept this process are being bamboozled. When we accept the word of the guru, we shall eventually find out that it is right.
We cannot understand that science of self-realization through the medium of cult dogma. Prabhupäda taught us realization through his presentation of the spiritual science, not through dogma. If you argue with him, you will never reach a solid conclusion.
The argument is going on for what seems to be forever with “ISKCON,” because its leading secretaries misuse the words of the spiritual master far more often than not. We must engage in this battle with the mis-leaders of that dangerous cult, because that is integral to spiritual progress. There is a great deal of dogma in “ISKCON,” and your host speaker could devote a whole Monthly Audio to it.
As such, three specific and dark examples of its dogma will subsequently be presented. They all have something in common, besides being known and accepted as cult dogma.
All three have evidence that attempts to establish them. None of that evidence is anywhere near conclusive for many reasons, not the least of which is that it could never be conclusive. Truth is never dogmatic. Yet, falsity disguising itself as truth, especially when combined with dogma, is always the exact opposite of proof.
We shall present the evidence used by “ISKCON” in order to establish each of its three dark assertions, and then we shall expose and destroy each of them. They are pillars of “ISKCON,” but that does not mean that they are regularly verbalized. In point of fact, they are not.
The one major factor that all three of them have in common will be revealed at the end of the penultimate segment. With unbiased intelligence fixed in prajnä, let us now examine all three of them.
“Prabhupäda’s G.B.C.”
This dogma contains the so-called automatic corrective mechanism allegedly intrinsic to the G.B.C.. The G.B.C. is integral to everything that has gone down in “ISKCON” since the Spring of 1978. It was already growing in influence before Prabhupäda’s disappearance.
The argument that the eleven great pretenders hijacked the movement and took over the G.B.C. is a half truth. Ultimately, all of them were dependent upon G.B.C. imprimatur. Yet, it is a fact that those eleven—although being one vote short of constituting half of the G.B.C.—were never completely independent of it. Despite the Äcärya Board, their shenanigans could not have even begun to sprout without the G.B.C. allowing it; indeed, the G.B.C. encouraged much of it.
When the eleven took over their zones (which is why they were referred to as zonal äcäryas), that was by G.B.C. arrangement. None of them individually decided upon the size, scope, and layout of the zones, although each of them influenced the final demarcations.
This verbalization of “Prabhupäda’s G.B.C.” is actually itself quite recent, but the mentality underlying it has been ever-present and increasing for half of a century. The dogma is a bit more extensive than a mere two words. Still, those two words (“Prabhupäda’s G.B.C.”) encapsulate the “ISKCON” shibboleth, and it has evidence backing it.
Prabhupäda did transfer an immense amount of power to the G.B.C. He did list it as the ultimate managing authority in his Will. The question is whether or not he endowed it with both absolute authority and power and, in conjunction with that, whether or not he empowered it with an automatic, self-corrective mechanism.
We have already conceded the fact that the dogma has evidence backing it up . . . to some extent. The evidence is not weak, but to say that it is very strong would be a bridge too far. This is primarily because the evidence against “Prabhupäda’s G.B.C.” is both tangible and strong.
Let us examine the idea of absolute authority. We can know beyond a shadow of a doubt that the G.B.C. was never endowed with such power. It had, as its original charter, the Direction of Management, a number of Particulars describing its duties and powers. The second Particular was important, no doubt. However, the First Particular of this charter stated clearly that the G.B.C. was always subordinate to Prabhupäda.
That limits it in terms of absolute power, but there is conclusive evidence of this also in a practical event. It had its authority and power completely taken away by Prabhupäda in April of 1972. All the power was transferred back to the temple presidents. This transfer did not last long, but length of time here is meaningless, because the event itself shatters the concept that it was absolute in all time, space, and circumstances.
Then, we come to the so-called self-corrective mechanism. This is nothing more than a self-serving myth perpetuated by “ISKCON” leaders decades ago. For it to be true, there would have to be tangible evidence of it. That evidence would have to be both very solid and official. No one can find any such thing, because it does not exist.
Prabhupäda is not on the record anywhere, in either verbal or written form, verifying that he endowed the G.B.C. with an automatic, self-corrective mechanism. Phalena-paricéyate: Judge by the results. The results for the last fifty years clearly indicate—and it is strong evidence indeed—that the G.B.C. keeps making matters worse.
The vitiated G.B.C. has not been “Prabhupäda’s G.B.C.” at least since the Spring of 1978, although those aware of the actual narrative of his movement (and what became of it over time) can and do reasonably argue that it was not his desired governing body since it rebelled against him in the Spring of 1972.
What really keeps this sentimental shibboleth (read, “ISKCON” dogma) powerful is not any of the known evidence—all of which has proven to be shaky. What keeps it powerful is different from intellectual evidence. We shall soon reveal what that is, and that will not surprise you.
Bhakti Without “ISKCON” is a Hallucination
You could say that the shibboleth for this “ISKCON” dogma is:
ISKCON is the only way.
All cults tend to push this argument, and that fact is well-known by all of you, no doubt. In terms of the institution, does this dogma have evidence backing it? Certainly, it does:
“Anyone who is trying to be aloof from this Kåñëa Consciousness Society and yet engage in Kåñëa consciousness is living in a great hallucination, for this is not possible.” 14
That is strong evidence. However, it has a time stamp factoring into it. In this S.B. 4.9.11 purport, Prabhupäda could be said to be referring to the ISKCON movement. No one would dispute that as a possibility, although it is circumstantial evidence. However, that is not what the leaders of “ISKCON” have been able to restrict the quote’s absolute status to . . . despite their efforts to do just that.
For example, are the rittviks—all of whom (as there are many splinter groups there) are Prabhupäda-centered—do the rittviks constitute a Kåñëa Consciousness Society? They are not part of ISKCON, granted, but they are Prabhupäda-centered and Kåñëa conscious–at least, to some limited and flawed degree. In the S.B. 4.9.11 purport, Prabhupäda does not cite ISKCON. He would have to have done so to put real teeth in the evidence backing the dogmatic assertion.
For those few and special devotees who have realized that ISKCON received a death blow in the Spring of 1978, they do not consider “ISKCON” to be either a genuine or strong Kåñëa conscious society. The shibboleth is losing steam over time. People are catching on, but this particular “ISKCON” shibboleth is still strong within the cult. What keeps it powerful is different from its intellectual explanation. We shall soon reveal what that is, and it will not surprise you.
Criticize and You’re Condemned
That is the shibboleth. Any negative judgment of the movement’s leaders is not only an offense, but demoniac. This is then extended into cult dogma. “ISKCON” considers itself to be like the Ganges: Incidental and meaningless junk may float on the top, but the Ganges remains pure. It is an inaccurate analogy, but it is effective.
During its heyday of Empire, the saying in Britain was: “England, with all thy faults, I still love thee.” This attitude is mandatory in “ISKCON.” However, there is more to it. If you are below the top echelons in that organization, the potential for ostracism always hangs over you. If your criticism is not with the intention to reform some deviant elements in it, get ready for the hammer to come down.
If you make such waves at any lower level, you will be thrown back into the vikarmé world. After that, it may condemn you to something much worse, although the curse has no justification. Criticize and you’re condemned is the dogma and the cult propaganda.
And now we come to that chief factor already alluded to; this factor is present in all three dogmatic pillars of the “ISKCON” cult. As already indicated, it is more powerful than any of the explanations rationalizing or defending those three dogmatic assertions . . . much more powerful. It is not intellectual, but emotional. It is:
F-E-A-R.
Dogma is solidified in the cult primarily through fear. This has always been the case to some extent; however, after Prabhupäda departed, the fear dial was turned up to the top. The cult holds its chelas through dogmatic fear. It does not invite any genuine research or questioning about its inane beliefs, its shibboleths, and/or its dogmatic assertions.
This is the exact opposite of what a genuine guru wants for the organization he founds and guides, but “ISKCON” has been doing its own thing for many decades. It will continue to do so. Fear of ostracism or formal excommunication will always be the undergirding that holds up the institution when the going gets rough.
Siddhänta is Never Dogmatic
“Therefore, in all spheres of devotional service, freedom is the main pivot. Without freedom there is no execution of devotional service.” 15
“A person who gives up things that are certain and pursues things that are uncertain loses both.” 16
“There’s Still Time to Change the Road You’re On.” 17
Siddhänta automatically brings certainty. Knowledge through disciplic succession is, whether realized or not–intrinsically certain. Tattva and siddhänta are always wanted, and dogma is always unwanted. It must be rejected. Dogma is disguised as truth and, for those bewildered by it, it only appears to be certain, but it is never truth. Indeed, it covers truth.
However, siddhänta is never dogmatic.
Always remember that the cult’s dogma does not stand upon its own power alone. It had a beginning, and there have always been those behind its creation and pushing it. Generally there was always one powerful man behind the wheel with the others assisting him, but cult dogma always remains a group effort.
You need to get free from it!
You have the freedom to execute Kåñëa consciousness outside the walls of “ISKCON.” Indeed, you should do just that. Association with dogmatic cults, institutions, and governing bodies will never help you to become a pure devotee. Viparyäyaù: Just the opposite will be the result.
See “ISKCON” for what it is, and know that it will never curb its dogma. Secure the accurate historical narrative, which is provided by The Vaishnava Foundation through social media. Realize it by acting upon what it guides you to do. Acting in this way, the Paramätmä will guide you to right action and right association entirely free from dogma.
SAD EVA SAUMYA
ENDNOTES
1. Çré Éçopaniñad, Verse Nine, purport;
2. Beyond Illusion and Doubt, Introduction;
3. Cooper Howard, “Fallout”;
4. Dialectical Spiritualism, Critique of Darwin;
5. Platform Lecture in London, 7-23-73;
6. Superficially, it appears that things are getting better in “ISKCON,” but the actual fact is different. As time passes, there have been, and continue to be, massive book changes, an ever-increasing expansion of bureaucracy, proliferation of institutional gurus, the F.D.G. controversy (which never should have been allowed to be an issue), the Hindoo Hodgepodge, the Interfaith Initiative, ad nauseum. The situation in that international cult is getting worse despite horizontal expansion of members and satellite centers. This same point is also made a bit later in the presentation, and the next wave of sahajiyäs will exacerbate all of this.;
7. The zones were imitations of G.B.C. zones, of course, which simultaneously also existed, making for a confusion situation. Post 1977, there can be no doubt that some incipient transcendentalists came to what appeared to be Prabhupada’s movement seeking the Absolute Truth. However, if and/or when they took initiation from bogus gurus within “ISKCON,” that was a manifestation that they did not do the required tapasya and study of sacred texts previous to entering those zones. They were not sincere, serious, or knowledgeable enough, and thus they were cheated and turned into something different from what should have otherwise been expected.;
8. All eleven of the leading secretaries were powerful and experienced cult manipulators. They were not young boys. None of them were innocent.;
9. Letter to a temple president, 4-19-68;
10. Letter to a book editor and initiated disciple, 9-14-70;
11.Dialectical Spiritualism, Critique of Jung;
12. Platform Lecture in Montreal, 6-14-68;
13. Platform Lecture in Los Angeles, 1-12-69;
14. Çrémad-Bhägavatam, 4.9.11, purport;
15. Çrémad-Bhägavatam, 1.6.37, purport;
16. Canakya Pandit;
17. Led Zeppelin, “Stairway to Heaven”.