Podcast transcription:
Overcome These Six Core “ISKCON” Dogmas
by Kailäsa Candra däsa
HARIÙ OÀ NAMAÙ
There are many myths connected to the fabricated so-called “ISKCON” confederation, and you need to psychically and spiritually free yourself from all of them. In this particular presentation, we are going to confront and expose six of them. These can be considered core myths, although the totality of such myths (in connection to that deviated institution) is certainly not limited to these alone.
There are distinct and tangible benefits for you at all levels—not necessarily instantly, but sometimes that is the case—when you overcome even one of these myths . . . what to speak of all six of them. These myths are ingrained in the “ISKCON” movement as essential to its all-encompassing dogma. It can only have control over you if you believe in its dogma. This presentation will assist you shattering such belief or such faith, which is naturally situated in the lower modes.
The “ISKCON” cult will not pester you if you do so. You may be harassed, to some extent, psychically when overcoming these myths. You may have some unpleasant dreams or dramas as a side effect. However, the spiritual strength entailed by confronting this institutional dogma will help to protect you from falling back into the black hole of its confederated dogma, i.e., no longer will you be attracted to it.
The professionals who run the cult will not encourage their lackeys to keep trying to entice you back into “ISKCON” if you have lost faith in the essential nescience it represents. Disconnecting from its belief system allows you to realize the freedom that entails, although there will, in all likelihood, be some trying times at first as you get free.
That’s the price you have to be willing to pay for believing in that deviant cult’s dogma in the first place. You did not have the required sincerity, seriousness, and basic knowledge when you threw in with “ISKCON,” so there is ultimately no reason you should feel resentment and bellyache about some flotsam that comes out of the back of that boat and hits you when you finally bail out from it.
During the span of your spiritual life in Kåñëa consciousness (this would also include pseudo-Kåñëa conscious connections), you have been fed
myths about Prabhupäda’s branch of the Hare Kåñëa movement. How could it be otherwise? There were so many deviations running and gaining traction in the Seventies and the Eighties–many of them covertly, while he was still physically manifest–that the colossal hoax which had to go down after he left was a stone cold, metaphysical lock.
Prabhupäda had warned us about much of it, but those warnings were not heeded by his leading secretaries. As such, its myths spawned an “ISKCON” narrative, which morphed into different rationalizations after the first imposition of the cult narrative ran its course. About a decade after that one, another very different one emerged from the ocean of nescience and then but another one. There are obviously different myths connected in these two backlashes.
For the purposes of an overview, you need to understand something integral to all such deviations: They are engineered by professionals. The real leaders of the “ISKCON” religion are all professionals. They are expert cult manipulators. They may appear to be institutionalists for their own purposes (and, in “ISKCON,”many of them are institutionalists), but they need not be. The professionals know the black art of how to manipulate their chelas and suck them into their vortex; they do that effectively, just like professionals in every walk of life do.
Always remember that Humpty was pushed. The current Prabhupäda-centered deviations–”ISKCON” and Rittvik—did not just, somehow or other, emerge on their own. They were created, insinuated into the movements they formulated and formed, and then implemented. When it was a time for a change, the professionals knew how to arrange for a new outcome via a new dispensation. This, to some degree, entailed tweaking the myths and the dogma (at least, some of it) that were upholding the previous false dispensation.
However, the professionals, as accomplished cult manipulators, did not find that too overwhelming a situation to confront and overcome. They had a captive audience. The institutionalists who were not professionals nevertheless still thrived in the new dispensation, because they were needed to buttress the roof erected over genuine Kåñëa consciousness. The chelas of various sorts all fell in line.
There are heavy-duty professionals in “ISKCON,” Neo-Mutt, and Rittvik. It is not that they overtly appreciate one another, of course (that would be unnecessarily risky), but they do recognize one another. After all, they were all part of the general deviant scheme of things even before Prabhupäda departed. They knew how to subvert his movement to their own personal advantages, and they did just that.
For the ones initially left unsatisfied with the first dispensation, they found their figurehead in Navadvipa and then proceeded to formulate and form Neo-Mutt. For the other malcontents who were not satisfied to join either of these disparate camps, sometime later they formulated and formed the Rittvik concoction. All of them are cult manipulators from back in the day, which saw them take advantage of a captive, intimidated, and compulsive membership, some of which were ripe to make a switch.
Even the hatchet men were in this latter category, because they had no power to actually manipulate bewildered chelas as did the professionals. The powerful institutionalists with big-time name recognition, although higher than the sycophants, also did not have the power. The power was only with the cult professionals.
And that is where it will continue to remain. There are myths that these Machiavellians utilize in order to keep all of the various categories of chelas entranced, compulsive, and fearful. Six of those myths will be confronted and deconstructed in this presentation. This will give you the opportunity to burn them out of the matrix of your astral body, as long as you are willing to do so.
You may ask: Why not give us the names? The answer is this: The time will eventually come for that. Your host speaker has no need to prematurely engage in doing so, as the käla for it is not yet ripe. Critical mass must be attained before that can be accomplished, because the professionals will, if specifically attacked too early, will counter and shift the momentum (which is now working against them) back in their favor.
However, people are catching on. Do your diligent research. There is enough information out there for you to put the specific pieces of the puzzle together—including with the names you now crave—if you are persistent and resourceful enough to tackle the project.
Provisionally, when critical mass is attained, part of its accomplishment will include the fact that many people of the host Western culture, including their political, religious, and semi-spiritual sub-cultures, will be able to see what they cannot see now. That will spell the death knell of “ISKCON,” Neo-Mutt, and Rittvik. The professionals in each of those camps know this well, but such critical mass is not a forgone conclusion.
Myth One
The Institution Remains Pure No Matter What
There is a kind of (mostly) subterranean energy, a belief, that is strong and all-pervading in “ISKCON.” Not all of its members is imbued with it, but many of them are. It is a mostly unrecognized, core dogma of ISKCON.” It is cent-per-cent in the category of faith. For the cult’s followers who fanatically believe it, they will stick with “ISKCON” no matter how ridiculous their cult’s scandal or deviation.
They all also believe that it is the essential test of any Prabhupäda disciple, whether from back in the day (1966-77) or from latter times. It can be called “Loyalty to the Institution No Matter What.” I intentionally chose not to entitle it “Loyalty to ISKCON,” because ISKCON has been murdered by the deviant “ISKCON” creeper for decades running.
Labeling this undercurrent as Loyalty to “ISKCON” is not what they believe. They believe that ISKCON still exists, and that it will always exist . . . at least, throughout Golden Age. The emotional energy permeating this dogma is the belief is that ISKCON was endowed with a quality and power allowing it to be compared directly to the Ganges. No matter what the contamination that floats atop it or, for a moment in time (the chief example here would be the zonal äcärya epoch)–that contamination, that scandal, that deviation—it does not actually enter their cult, because it is, allegedly, spiritually prophylactic.
In order to make progress in buddhi-yoga or bhakti-yoga, you cannot be under the whammy of this powerful dogma. Emotionally, you must free yourself from any belief in this idea. It is obviously a self-serving and self-perpetuating feeling strongly encouraged (even if that is only through vibration) by the leaders of “ISKCON.” The chelas who hold this sentiment–and those who hold it fanatically–will stick with the institution no matter the depth of its outrage or deviation.
We have already had three major deviations since the Spring of 1978. This proves that a sector of Prabhupäda’s originally initiated disciples, along with many newcomers, have stuck to the institution despite the deviations. They have done so despite glaring anomalies explained away via rationalizations chock full of contradiction.
Myth Two
The Institution Can Never Be Scattered and Lost
At the Battle of Kurukñetra, Lord Kåñëa was accomplishing many purposes. He was facilitating revenge for the outrageous insult to Draupadé during the asat sabhä, where she was stripped (unsuccessfully) in front of all the kñatriyas present there. He established Yudhiñöhira as the actual emperor, replacing the false king, Duryodhana, who did not deserve the crown. He was testing Arjuna’s devotion to Him. And He was establishing the spiritual science and the Reality of the Absolute Truth for millennia by enunciating Bhagavad-gitain front of all the warriors assembled, such as in Chapter Four, verse two. 1
All of His many objectives were accomplished during those fateful eighteen days, but one is sometimes overlooked: He was also re-establishing a sampradäya, one in which Arjuna was to be the first new leader and member in the disciplic line.
It had been scattered and lost.
There is a major ramification connected to this important truth and objective: A genuine disciplic succession of bhakti-yoga, either as a branch or a line, had warped to such an extent that the actual spiritual science it was supposed to pass down through gurus was no longer a valid representative of the Absolute Truth.
Consider that the practitioners back then within spiritual lines, that they were far, far more advanced than what Prabhupada was afforded. They were so in all important personal and cultural categories, immeasurably more advanced than all the Sixties and Seventies unwashed hippies, clever sociopaths, crummy pseudo-Marxists, seedy perverts, decadent wankers, obnoxious psychopaths, petty criminals, and squalid losers of every sort who drifted into Prabhupäda’s branch of Lord Caitanya’s Hare Kåñëa movement mostly to escape the vikarmic reactions plaguing them at every moment. Five thousand years ago, all people in Vedic culture lived much longer. They had far greater power of memory, as well.
Brahminical culture was almost accessible to all back then, and brahmins were respected for good reason. Realized brähmins (not devotees, but still advanced in terms of knowledge) were easy to contact. Prabhupäda’s disciples had no suchpersonal assets or cultural access. He said that Krsna only sent him second-class men. Really? Fifth-class men is more like it! They had been engaged in daily sinful activity previous to surrendering to him as neophytes . . . for as long as that lasted.
Yet, over five thousand years ago, a genuine line of Kåñëa consciousness was scattered from its founding principles and teachings to such an extent that it had to be separately re-established by the Supreme Lord Himself. And you actually think that Prabhupäda’s movement would, somehow or other, be immune from also degrading into such a fate?
Wake up and guess again!
Prabhupäda established the B.B.T. separately from ISKCON, because he knew that ISKCON could become corrupted, which certainly it has been in every way possible. Ironically, the corruption was so deep that the B.B.T. does not even legally exist anymore as a viable entity due to being split (by those who could accomplish that) into two new entities. 2
Yet, the dogma pedaled in “ISKCON” is that it can never become so corrupt as to be no longer a genuine branch of the Brahma-Madhva-Gauòéya sampradäya. The dogma is that it will last as a viable movement of bhakti-yoga for the duration of the Golden Age. It will not. Free yourself from this false belief. It is based upon a myth. As far at the reality of the situation is concerned, Prabhupäda’s branch of the Hare Kåñëa movement has already been scattered and lost almost entirely.
His leading secretaries and their sycophants, vested interests, and hatchet men made sure of that over time. The institutional remnant of what is left is nothing more than an institutional Paundraka, a pretension, just like the eleven great pretenders made it so in the late Seventies and early Eighties.
Myth Three
The Eleven Rittviks Were Already Dékñä-Gurus
This is the corollary derived from the BIG LIE, namely that Prabhupäda appointed those eleven great pretenders when he named the eleven rittviks in July of 1977. The so-called appointment tape (which none of the devotees had access to, as it was squirreled away in a vault in L.A.) supposedly was the proof of their appointment as dékñä-gurus.
It was the appointment that never was, but this fact did not surface in any meaningful way until November of 1980. This gave those eleven men enough time to fill the centers within their zones with mostly their own improperly initiated disciples and jettison their doubtful godbrothers, those who did not accept them as perfect.
Once the BIG LIE was thoroughly exposed, rationalizations concerning the whole zonal äcärya scheme had to be concocted. The main one was that, since the G.B.C. was allegedly non-different from Prabhupäda, even though he did not appoint the eleven, the G.B.C. did. As such, according to this rationalization, they were appointed by him through this bad, transitive logic meant only for damage control.
However, there was a kind of (mostly, but not entirely) subterranean concoction which slowly spread, one which would not necessarily fail if the first G.B.C. rationalization cratered, which it eventually did. It was that the appointment by Prabhupäda of those rittviks was a recognition by him that they would become initiating gurus once he left the scene.
This dogma meant that they were qualified to be dékñä-gurus, but Prabhupäda allegedly eased them into that through the means of first appointing them as rittviks. This belief is still present in “ISKCON,” but it can be shattered rather easily.
The first truth which unmasks it is phalena-paricéyate: Judge by the results. What were the results of them taking over the movement four months after Prabhupäda departed? The results, after a very short-term jolt of energy, were disastrous! Do I have to list all the hells those eleven great pretenders put everyone through in the Hare Kåñëa movement? The scandals. The flipping of zones. The murders at Moundsville and L.A. The degeneration of the pick. The internecine wars.
All of that horror (and more than what was just listed) is conclusive evidence that none of those men was a qualified spiritual master. If you think that Prabhupäda did not know where they were all at, his own disciples, and covertly recognized them as gurus, then your allegiance to him is spiked with faithlessness. Also, as early as 1970, in two separate (but almost identical) letters to two of those men, Prabhupäda let it be known that he wanted his disciples to initiate, while he was still physically, newcomers of their own by (hopefully) no later than 1975. 3
The etiquette rationalization (that he had to first appoint them as rittviks while he was still active here on Earth) has no basis, because he made it clear in those letters that he did not want to observe it if he found that any one of his disciples was a qualified spiritual master. None of them were in 1977 so, to re-establish initiations (which had been put on hold for many months), he appointed eleven rittviks.
All of them had been rittviks before. They all knew the ceremonial processes involved, and their appointment in July of 1977 was nothing out of the ordinary. Prabhupäda was still the only real guru, and none of his disciples had passed his tests and took the training he offered in order to be qualified as guru. 4 The appointment of those eleven rittviks–as a cover of their actual glories until he departed–is a myth. Do not believe it for a moment. It is “ISKCON” dogma meant for the trash heap of history.
Myth Four
G.B.C. Has an Automatic Self-Corrective Mechanism
The Governing Body Commission is mentioned in only a few places in Prabhupäda’s purports to his books, which are destined by Providence to become the Lawbooks of Mankind throughout the remainder of the Golden Age—but only after we get past this difficult passage in time. However, that does not mean that the G.B.C. is absolute.
As an example, the gurukula in Dallas is specifically mentioned also in the books, but that school in Texas merged into oblivion decades ago. There will not be a gurukula in Dallas for the duration of the Golden Age. A devotee of Prabhupäda is mentioned by name in one of his purports, but he has been dead for over a decade.
Something that you need to understand is that the guru, although he mostly speaks and writes about eternal topics, is not restricted to only speaking and writing in that way. He can make points based on current situations, which can and will change in the course of time.
Prabhupäda wrote about an incursion into Indian territory by China in one of his purports while he was still in India in the early Sixties. That does not mean that such a military incident is immortalized as permanent in what is prophesied to become the Lawbooks of Mankind for thousands of years.
TATTVAMASI
The sastric principle being discussed here is nitya and naimittika: Eternal and incidental. The G.B.C. is in the latter category. “ISKCON” is the glove, and the vitiated G.B.C. is the hand within that glove. It is the controlling node of “ISKCON.” It holds great sway. It has presumed unto itself all kinds of powers; indeed it considers itself to be the ultimate authority of “ISKCON” in all matters, both material and spiritual.
This last statement must be understood in context, because there is a bit of truth in it. The G.B.C., however, was never meant to be the all-encompassing controller of Prabhupäda’s branch of Caitanya’s movement while it was bona fide. It was primarily an advisory entity. 5 The presidents, at that time, had more de facto power than the governing body, and that was the way Prabhupäda wanted his movement to run.
However, after he departed physical manifestation, the G.B.C. misused a sentence in his Final Will and Testament in order to claim ultimate control of everything. Since ISKCON was converted into “ISKCON” at the beginning of the zonal äcärya debacle—and the G.B.C.’s fingerprints were all over that conversion—the G.B.C. was converted into the vitiated G.B.C.. As such, it does have complete control over anything and everything connected to “ISKCON,”
This introduction was necessary in order to set the stage for the chief point being made here. That is in relation to the belief that, while Prabhupäda’s movement was still bona fide—and the G.B.C. was still functioning in the way it was meant to function (however sporadically)–that the G.B.C. had an inherent or intrinsic power to always self-correct itself if, somehow or other, it deviated in advising the movement.
However, it would be counterproductive to get heavy into all particulars, because dong so would distract from what is being communicated here. It is meant to uproot the myth underlying “ISKCON” dogma that The Commish automatically can be relied upon to self-correct. It was never empowered in that way, and it has not done so.
There is no evidence anywhere in Prabhupäda’s statements about such an empowerment, no writings about it, letters about it (and the G.B.C. was mentioned very often in his letters, that’s for sure) or in any official documents that the G.B.C. had, or ever has had, an automatic self-corrective mechanism intrinsic to its creation. Its founding document mentions no such thing. 6
It did not self-correct during the 1972 centralization scheme it put into motion. Prabhupäda had to interfere. 7 It did not self-correct after allowing eleven of its own—the most powerful amongst the group of twenty four commissioners constituting it—to impose the zonal äcärya scam. The Second Transformation of the Collegiate Compromise in the mid-Eighties was not a self-correction by The Commish. Instead, it was a new deviation or dispensation replacing the zonal deviation, which had run its course in every imaginable way possible.
Do we have specific evidence that Prabhupäda never recognized the G.B.C. as having an inherent self-corrective mechanism? We have plenty of conclusive evidence to that effect, and here is but one example:
“And I am surprised that none of the G.B.C. members detected the defects in the procedure. It was detected only when it came to me. What will happen when I am not here: Shall everything be spoiled by G.B.C.?” 8
There could be no such anxiety if the Governing Body Commission had an automatic self-corrective mechanism embedded in its institutional being. Notice, Prabhupäda uses the word “shall.” Subtly, this indicates he was telling us, in advance, that just such a deviation (for example, engineered by the vitiated G.B.C. in the form of the zonal äcärya catastrophe) WOULD ruin his movement after he could no longer interfere to reverse such institutional shenanigans.
You are advised to reject the self-serving myth that the G.B.C. has some kind of automatic self-serving corrective mechanism in it. Those who sentimentally or fanatically cling to this dogma believe that the vitiated G.B.C. will eventually make everything alright again. It will never do any such thing. It is a flawed and temporary entity that controls a flawed and temporary sahajiyä movement. Nothing more.
Myth Five
There are Many Qualified Dékñä-gurus in “ISKCON”
Please note that there are at least five corollaries to this particular self-serving belief. One of them is that the madhyam-adhikäré is not a perfect man. Another one is that there are many madhyam-adhikärés in “ISKCON.” Another one is that the guru does not need to be a very perfect man. Another one is that, if you do not believe that there are madhyam-adhikärés in “ISKCON” who are qualified to be dékñä-gurus, then that means you do not believe in Prabhupäda, because he would then have to be judged as having been unable to create madhyams.
Another one is that, as soon as he gave any of his disciples sannyäsa, it meant that he recognized them as qualified dékñä-gurus and madhyam-adhikärés. Let us first establish the through line as follows:
“The guru must be a very perfect man.” 9
As many of you know—those of you who follow my posts and either listen or read them each month—I have repeated this definitive statement from Prabhupäda many times. Such repetition is wanted. Also please note: He made this statement before he initiated his first disciples. As such, its overall importance is made all the more imperative.
Neophytes cannot be gurus, either in general (çikñä-gurus) or specifically as initiating spiritual masters. Neither neophytes or miçra-bhaktas can perform a proper spiritual and devotional initiation, what to speak of sahajiyäs. All such newcomers accepting dékñä from neophytes or miçra-bhaktas or sahajiyäs are improperly initiated devotees.
Prabhupäda gave sannyäsa as an incentive. This was risky. Prabhupäda took many risks. He took the biggest risk of all by coming to the West in the first place, and he did so as a vibrant but nevertheless old man. That risk paid off big-time. It was rewarded. We are all grateful to him for taking it. That does not mean, however, that all of his risks panned out or were successful. Some results were mixed. Some flat out failed.
That is the nature of risk, no matter who takes it. The track record of Prabhupäda’s sannyäsis was abysmal; there is no need to go into all of those sordid details. The same thing went down in Gouòéya-Mutt, as Prabhupäda has established (in at least one of his purports) 10 that many if not all of his godbrothers were neophytes.
How could it not also play out that way in his movement? In point of fact, it most certainly did. No one reached the status of being an advanced devotee—and please note that the madhyam-adhikäré is just that 11—but it cannot be pinned on Prabhupäda. He gave them plenty of knowledge and plenty of training, which they did not adequately take.
Making the statement that none of his disciples who received sannyäsa advanced to the point of madhyam-adhikäré is not at all outrageous. For the purpose of a fair consideration, we shall present a theoretical vision presently. Still, the historical record gives a plethora of evidence that it was true that there were no madhyams, and it is not outrageous to assert this conclusion as either very probable . . . or even near certain.
As promised, let us theoretically say that there were a handful of madhyams in the movement just after Prabhupäda left the scene. What then happened to all of them? If we continue with this theoretical example, what happened to those madhyams when the great pretenders did their thing by claiming themselves as “Successors.”?
Theoretically, if such madhyams existed, they would have been obliged to speak up against that imposition. If they even existed, did any of them do so? Negative. If they even existed, how many of them cooperated with The First Transformation of the zonal äcärya scheme?
Almost all (if not all) of the sannyäsis in the movement at that time (the Spring of 1978) fell in line and backed the new dispensation, which was a massive deviation. That is called anartha. A sannyäsé cannot be engaged in anartha of any sort (personal or institutional) and remain a madhyam-adhikäré. If he was a guru in general, a çikñä-guru, he would have immediately fallen down from that position.
Anyone who cooperated with “ISKCON” after the asat sabhä of the Mäyäpur Annual Meeting in the Spring of 1978 could no longer be a madhyam. If he recognized those zonal äcäryas, that would be an anartha and direct cause of falldown. If he recognized any of those improperly initiated disciples spawned from those eleven great pretenders, that would also have been engagement in institutional anartha.
Remember, for most of 1978, no one in the upper echelon of “ISKCON” had broke away to form his own group. That certainly includes what became, a bit later, the emergence of Neo-Mutt in the form of the Mahä-maëòala. In point of fact, although some of those “ISKCON” sannyäsés who still stayed (which was almost all of them), they were disgruntled that they had not been recognized by the vitiated G.B.C. as dékñä-gurus, but they made no major effort to speak up.
When all hell broke loose in early 1978 (in what was then converted into the “ISKCON” movement), the whole environment in that deviated cult was suffused with opposition, faithlessness, aggression, and dominated by toxic masculinity. It was aggressively bogus, and any madhyam-adhikäré—if one even existed (and that is very doubtful)–could neither have survived or thrived in it. Indeed, its most powerful leaders were no longer neophytes or miçra-bhaktas. Instead, they were all in the category of sahajiyäs, some more flagrant than the others.
That contamination continues to this day, although subtler. A kinder, gentler version of an institutional delusion (now infused by the Hindoo Hodgepodge) is not an environment wherein a madhyam adhikäré can survive. What to speak of any madhyam being created from the thousands of improperly initiated newcomers spawned over time.
The “ISKCON” dogma that there are many madhyam-adhikärés in the cult—and, therefore, many dékñä-gurus qualified to transmit the bhakti-latä-béja—is rubbish. It is nonsense.
Myth Six
“ISKCON” Will Fulfill the Every Town and Village Prophecy
In the months of November and December of 1971, Prabhupäda wrote letters to three of his leading secretaries, each of them containing related messages about the future. The second letter in November was almost identical to the third letter, so we do not reproduce it here.
“Lord Caitanya Mahäprabhu has forecast that this Hare Kåñëa Mantra will be heard in every nook and cranny of the globe. He is God, so it will happen, that is a fact. So if we take advantage then we may take the credit, but if we do not someone else will.” 12
“Actually, He has said that this K.C. movement will spread to every nook and corner of the world—so there is no doubt it will happen. He is God, so how can He be wrong? So it will happen. So if we are intelligent, we will assist and get the credit. Otherwise, someone else will.” 13
You can easily intuit what part of each of the excerpts I am going to emphasize, but all three of them produce a similar conclusion. First of all, as of late 1971, the Hare Kåñëa message of Lord Caitanya had not spread to every nook and corner of the world, because Prabhupäda was speaking about it being a future development. Was that forecast (read, prophecy) fulfilled in the next six years while he was still with us?
Some may opine that it was, yet such an opinion is highly doubtful. If it had been fulfilled, would not Prabhupäda have definitively stated that it was then fulfilled? He never made such a statement.
The most significant parts of these three excerpts—repeated in all of them—was their ending: “Then someone else will.” Does this indicate that his movement may not be the vehicle to spread the Hare Kåñëa mahä-mantra to every town and village of the world? It is self-evident that it does! Why else would he include it in all of these statements about the Caitanya movement spreading to every nook and cranny of the world?
This question may be justly raised. First of all, does ISKCON even exist anymore in order to accomplish the fulfillment of the prophecy? Even if you are an optimist and believe that ISKCON does still exist, at least admit that it is now completely covered over by the weed that strangled it in the late Seventies, namely “ISKCON.”
Can “ISKCON” fulfill the prophecy? Can a deviant institution shot through with sahajiyäs, miçra-bhaktas, covert materialists, fanatics, and chelas of various sorts be the vehicle?
Certainly, it cannot. Since the late Seventies and early Eighties, the deviant remnants of Prabhupäda’s originally pure branch of the Hare Kåñëa movement have been engaged in a fierce, internecine struggle for supremacy. This has not gone unnoticed in the Western host culture nor in India, which is also mostly Western now.
If you agree with the rather obvious fact that, just previous to this, Prabhupäda’s movement had not yet spread the mantra and message to every town and village of the world—that there was still plenty of work to do in this connection—how can you possibly believe that it has been accomplished after he departed?
A sahajiyä enterprise divided into three warring camps can never fulfill the prophecy, which means someone else will have to do it. That it is already fulfilled or soon to be fulfilled by “ISKCON” is nothing more than wishful thinking. It is a myth underlying the dogma that “ISKCON” is the agent of Lord Caitanya’s movement and its eventual spread to every town and village. There is plenty of evidence that this cannot happen—cannot be achieved by that institution . . . and why did Prabhupäda even add that sentence at the end of all three letters?
He had to add it, because it was a distinct possibility that his movement would deviate, and the eventual spread would be accomplished by someone else via a future mahä-bhägavat’s movement.
The colossal hoax known as the fabricated, so-called “ISKCON” confederation is a pseudo-spiritual scam. Its dogma relies upon myths that have no substance, that are false, yet believed and spread by rascals and idiots susceptible to believing them. Reject that dogma and save yourself from where it will otherwise lead you if you don’t get out now!
And those clever sociopaths I mentioned earlier? Some of those, the worst of the lot, are today’s “ISKCON” professionals.
SAD EVA SAUMYA
ENDNOTES
1 evaà paramparä-präptam
imaà räjarñayo viduù
sa käleneha mahatä
yogo nañöaù parantapa
“This supreme knowledge was thus received and understood through the chain of disciplic succession, and the self-realized kings understood it in that way. However, over time in the course of this world, the succession was broken, and the great science is scattered and lost.”
(translation by Kailäsa Candra däsa);
2 The B.B.T. was neutered, and the power of copyright and distribution was transferred to the concocted B.B.T.(I) and Krishna Books, Inc.;
3 “By 1975, all of those who have passed all of the above examinations will be specifically empowered to initiate and increase the number of the Krishna Consciousness population.” Letter to Kértanänanda, 1-12-69.
An almost identical letter, sent right around the same time, was snail mailed to another leading secretary, Hansadutta, with the same message.
Please note: Prabhupäda was still with us in 1975;
4 Leading Secretary: Well, I have studied myself and all of your disciples, and it’s clear fact that we are all conditioned souls, so we cannot be guru. Maybe one day it may be possible . . .
Prabhupäda: Hmmmm.
Leading Secretary: . . . but not now.
Prabhupäda: Yes. I shall choose some guru. I shall say, “Now you become äcärya. You become authorized.” I am waiting for that. You become all äcärya. I retire completely. But the training must be complete.
Leading Secretary: The process of purification must be there.
Prabhupäda: Oh, yes, must be there. Caitanya Mahäprabhu wants that. Ämära äjïäya guru haïä: “You become guru.” But be qualified. Little thing, strictly follower.
Leading Secretary: Not rubber stamp.
Prabhupäda: Then you’ll not be effective. You can cheat, but it will not be effective. Room Conversation in Bombay, India, 4-22-77;
5 “G.B.C. is to see that things are going nicely but not to exert absolute authority. That is not in the power of G.B.C.. . . . The G.B.C. men cannot impose anything on the men of a center without consulting all of the G.B.C. members first. A G.B.C. member cannot go beyond the jurisdiction of his power.” Letter to Bombay temple president from London, 8-12-71;
6 That founding document is the Direction of Management (D.O.R.);
7 “Do not centralize anything. Each temple must remain independent and self-sufficient. That was my plan from the very beginning, why you are thinking otherwise? Once before you wanted to do something centralizing with your G.B.C. meeting, and if I did not interfere the whole thing would have been killed. Do not think in this way of big corporation, big credits, centralization—these are all nonsense proposals.”
Letter to leading secretary from Bombay, 12-22-72
8 Letter to leading secretary from Sydney, dated 4-11-72;
9 Platform lecture in New York, dated 3-2-66;
10 “Such neophytes, unable to appreciate the exalted service of the advanced devotee, try to bring the mahä-bhägavata to their platform. We experience such difficulty in propagating this Kåñëa consciousness all over the world. Unfortunately we are surrounded by neophyte godbrothers who do not appreciate the extraordinary activities of spreading Kåñëa consciousness all over the world. They simply try to bring us to their platform, and they try to criticize us in every respect.”
Nectar of Instruction, verse six, purport;
11 “Devotees attached to the transcendental loving service of the Lord may be described either as surrendered souls, as souls advanced in devotional knowledge, or as souls completely engaged in transcendental loving service. Such devotees are called (respectively) neophyte, perfect and eternally perfect.” Nectar of Devotion: “Impetuses for Kåñëa’s Service”;
12 Letter to leading secretary from Bombay, dated 11-4-71;
13 Letter to leading secretary from Delhi, dated: 12-10-71.