Podcast transcription:
Against Sahajiyaism
by Kailäsa Candra däsa
HARIÙ OÀ NAMAÙ
“One may make a show of devotional service like the präkåta-sahajiyäs, or one may try to support his philosophy by joining some caste or identifying himself with a certain dynasty, claiming a monopoly on spiritual advancement. . . Just to cheat some innocent people, one makes a show of advanced spiritual life and becomes known as a sädhu, mahätmä or religious person.” 1
“If a so-called spiritual master accepts a disciple for his personal benefit or for material gain, the relationship between the spiritual master and the disciple turns into a material affair, and the spiritual master becomes like a smärta-guru. . . Such spiritual masters are satisfied simply to get some material benefits from their disciples. Such a relationship is condemned by Çréla Bhaktisiddhänta Sarasvaté Öhäkura, who calls such spiritual masters and disciples a society of cheaters and cheated. . . Their aim is to make the connection between the spiritual master and the disciple into a very cheap thing. They are not serious in wanting to understand spiritual life.” 2
“Don’t be allured by cheap disciples. Go on steadfastly to render service first. If you immediately become guru, then the service activities will be stopped . . . as there are many cheap gurus and cheap disciples, without any substantial knowledge, and manufacturing new sampradäyas, and with service activities stopped, and all spiritual progress choked up.” 3
We need accurate perspectives in order to understand what happened to the movement: What went down in the immediate aftermath of Prabhupäda leaving the scene and the so-called new gurus taking over his branch of Lord Caitanya’s line of disciplic succession. These three quotations give us a strong hint: It was different waves of sahajiyäism pushed by cheap gurus and cheap disciples.
Were Prabhupäda’s leading secretaries actually heroes when they decided to take over the movement in the way that they did? Could you say that they accepted were justified in taking lavish worship reserved only for the self-realized and God-realized uttama-adhikäré? Were they then fallen heroes after their pretension hit the wall?
Historical Revisionism
You have probably heard rationalizations, such as this one: They took all of the vikarmic reactions of their many disciples and fell down as a result of this heroic effort of self-sacrifice. That kind of perspective is false, limited, and prejudiced, but cults work like that. They made a show of their so-called advancement in spiritual life, based upon the illusion that they were heroes. . . but what came of it?
They still push their “ISKCON” movement as the only way, the only door to Vaikuëöha or Goloka, with themselves holding the key on a monopoly centered upon who can be linked to the guru-paramparä and thus guaranteed to be saved.
They have cheated thousands over the years, but that pool of easily bewildered chelas is shrinking over time, i.e., people are catching on. They treat their movement as a dynasty with themselves at the capstone of its artificial hierarchy. This is what happens when devotional movements degrade into perverted reflections of themselves.
We need this perspective, and, with all that has gone down, it is not really difficult to achieve it. “ISKCON” is a society of cheaters and the cheated. It is a society led by sahajiyäs. Despite all the glitz of opulent Deities and colorful, sacrificial fire ceremonies, the thing has degraded into a quasi-material affair in the form of a manifestation of sahajiyäism. It is a cheap thing, a show-bottle of tainted love now overcoated with a Hindoo hodgepodge. It is loaded with bogus gurus and their disciples, all the latter of which are improperly initiated.
Cultivation of Knowledge Not Emphasized
There is no substantial spiritual knowledge amongst the overwhelming majority of today’s “ISKCON” members. In no small part, this is because the cultivation of knowledge and realization is not only not emphasized but is covertly scorned. If you are on the outskirts (or the fringe) of that cult and donating to it–but at the same time, cultivating spiritual knowledge–Paramätmä will, through the agency of prajïä, be lighting you up within via realization as to just where “ISKCON” is at. As such, the cult does not wish to emphasize that which, in due course, will threaten its already dwindling momentum and influence.
The real ISKCON movement, when it was acting in a bona fide way, was a system which depended upon a transcendental circuit centered upon Prabhupäda. He was, technically speaking, the chief element which shaped how it functioned and its responses. The equipment of the system gradualy changed when he departed physical manifestation. This potentially altered how it would then respond to new imputs.
However, by the time that Prabhupäda left the scene, it already was not functioning like it used to act in the Sixties and the early Seventies. In order to get an accurate perspective on what went down post-Prabhupäda, this needs to be acknowledged: The relationship between input and output changed and the system transformed.
A New Resultant Emerges
A transfer took place. When the system transforms—as it did from the outset of The First Transformation—what then enters it as input will come out as something different when the resultant emerges: A new devolutionary stage will emerge.
ISKCON was replaced by “ISKCON.” The matrix remained the same, but the paradigm became a different one. The inputs were similar and recognizable (as far as that goes), but the immediate responses and the resultants were different due to impurity of transfer.
The hash tag and acronym remained the same (in the legal sense or in the sense of recognition by the general public), but the players in the band were labeled differently from what they were while Prabhupäda was physically present. Then, there were limitations which worked to preserve the identity of the movement in the bona fide way.
After that, there was, somewhat covertly, a new architecture formed, based upon the eleven great pretenders. It was supposed to be a rejuvenation or a genuine revival, but it was neither. It was a wave of mäyä. The response that was supposed to be preserved was not. There was a drastic conversion at the root, and this was integral to that first wave.
The inputs were the same (in the beginning years). However, the output changed gradually at first . . . and then, over time, radically. The means of production were hijacked and warped. In order to understand this month’s presentation, these are some important prerequisites you must know. The first one is being able to extricate yourself from the apparent reality of the moment via a perspective based upon time and scale in universal affairs, especially human affairs.
“If a so-called spiritual master accepts a disciple for his personal benefit or for material gain, the relationship between the spiritual master and the disciple turns into a material affair, and the spiritual master becomes like a smarta-guru. . .Their aim is to make the connection between the spiritual master and the disciple into a very cheap thing. They are not serious in wanting to understand spiritual life.” 4
A Great Movement Became Small
All such participants in that new wave of mäyä become insignificant, no longer important in the eyes of the Parameçvara and His chief demigods. They become very small, and mundane life went on within and without them. There was no longer a link to Absolute Truth.
That is the real perspective. The Party Men of the fabricated, so-called “ISKCON” confederation are prone to misconstrue the facts of what went down in the late Seventies, both just before Prabhupäda departed physical manifestation in late 1977, as well as in the aftermath. We are obliged to get our facts straight about the whole saga. We are equally obliged to interpret it in the right way, the factual way. That is what is being offered to you in this month’s presentation.
There are thirteen classic sahajiyä manifestations:
“There are many so-called followers of the Vaiñëava cult in the line of Caitanya Mahäprabhu who do not scrupulously follow the conclusions of the çästras, and therefore they are considered to be apa-sampradäya, which means “outside of the sampradäya.” Some of these groups are known as äula, bäula, kartäbhajä, neòä, daraveça, säìi, sahajiyä, sakhébheké, smärta, jäta-gosäïi, ativäòé, cüòädhäré and gauräìga-nägaré. In order to follow strictly the disciplic succession of Lord Caitanya Mahäprabhu, one should not associate with these apasampradäya communities.” 5
“ISKCON” qualifies as Neo-jäta-gosäni. Jäta means the group or caste, such as the caste goswämis in India. It can also mean family. It is not possible to “perfectly” imitate this in the West, i.e., you cannot repeat any of these classic sahajiyä groups per se, but an imitation can rhyme. Such is the case with “ISKCON,” as it is a semblance of a caste claiming to have a monopoly on Prabhupäda’s branch.
It does so by its mind hive in general, its leaders, and its sannyäsés (gosänis) being automatically pure and special via its institutional delusion of a group claim to pseudo-spiritual authority relative to institutional gurus in a corporate (read, a post-modern caste) structure. The hierarchy allegedly was approved by His Divine Grace.
His branch remained bona fide while he was with us, although it was trending in the wrong direction before he left the scene. The powerful aura of his presence was enough to check the deviations . . . but barely. How could any devoted transcendentalist expect to make spiritual advancement and achieve liberation by joining this post-modern sahajiyä group? What it has become is exactly what we were all against when we linked up with Prabhupäda back in the day!
The Actual Hierarchy of Devotion
We need the right perspective about the ACTUAL hierarchy of Vaiñëavism, not the “ISKCON” hierarchy nor the Neo-Mutt hierarchy nor the Rittvik levels of back-door gurus. The actual hierarchy, proceeding from uppermost to lowest, finds the mahä-bhägavat at the top. There are three successive divisions of them. They are rarely seen.
Next below them are the räga-bhaktas, who are almost as rare to come into contact with, and who are very much like the mahä-bhägavats. They can also deservedly receive lavish worship.
Next we come to the vidhi-madhyams, who are somewhat akin to the räga-bhaktas but not yet beyond rules and regulations. They may not be rare (although, in the West, they certainly are), but they are infrequently found. They are very perfect men and regular gurus. They possess firm and fixed çraddhä, and there are two divisions of them.
Next, in descending order, come the kaniñöhä-bhaktas. There are four divisions of them. They possess komala-çraddhä or soft faith, but that should not be misinterpreted to mean, at the highest division of the level, that the komala-çraddhä is just as soft as at its lowest division.
Below this, we come to the many miçra-bhaktas, who are not at all difficult to contact in either the West or the East. There are three divisions of them corresponding to the three modes of material nature. The miçra-bhaktas in the mode of goodness not frequently contacted, but the mixed devotees in the lower modes have proliferated and are everywhere.
The next descending level is, of course, the sahajiyäs. Our presentation today centers upon them. Siddhänta Sarasväté informed us of forty-four varieties. His great father, Bhaktivinode Öhäkur, listed for us the thirteen classic sahajiyä groupings. Post-modern varieties are becoming more and more plentiful in the West.
Bogus gurus beget improperly initiated disciples, and all of these are automatically inclined to enter into the sahajiyä mix. Indeed, now that things have degraded badly at this difficult juncture of Kali-yuga, even newcomers are declaring equality with genuine initiated disciples, as could only be expected. They imitate and try to impress, of course.
“ . . . actually, we do not want to create a group of prakrita-sahajiyä, or devotees who do not know the science of Krishna and do not know the science of devotion, but simply worship the Deity with no depth of knowledge. That is called materialistic devotee . . .” 6
Vitiated G.B.C.: The Source of All Evils
The vitiated G.B.C. is the hand within the glove of “ISKCON.” That is becoming more and more obvious every year. “ISKCON” has created, and is composed of, miçra-bhaktas and sahajiyäs. Prabhupäda did not want to create that kind of cult. Yet, in “ISKCON,” there is no emphasis on understanding the spiritual science of buddhi-yoga.
The emphasis is instead on the buzz, the feeling, the experience, the so-called bliss . . . or, for others not after these, their emphasis is on climbing the latticework of the bureaucracy in order to be accepted as an advanced devotee and a guru. Securing the No Objection Certificate from the governing body in order to become an initiating spiritual master is not the same thing as becoming advanced in spiritual science.
Neither the gurus nor their improperly initiated disciples attain anything of substance through that tactic or device. Those people are mostly sahajiyäs, especially the gurus who conduct the ceremonies. Everything in the institution is taken cheaply, because the emphasis is not on actual spiritual attainment but acceptance by and from the self-appointed men at the top of its turtle tank.
History has proven this for you beyond a shadow of a doubt . . . as long as you were serious enough to have put the pieces of the puzzle together and recognized the actual narrative of what went down in “ISKCON” and why. If you have not yet done that, here is your opportunity.
“One may make a show of devotional service like the prakrita-sahajiyäs, or one may try to support his philosophy by joining some caste or identifying himself with a certain dynasty, claiming a monopoly on spiritual advancement. Thus with the support of family tradition, one may become a pseudo-guru, or so-called spiritual master.” 7
The Greatest Showbottle on Earth
“ISKCON” showcases its beautiful Deities and supplements that with colorful initiation ceremonies. As described previously, it is a post-modern semblance of one of the thirteen classic sahajiyäs varieties, namely Neo-jäta-gosäni. It has its own covert caste system, although it never calls it that, of course.
The “ISKCON” dynasty is based upon some propped up and allegedly great men, all of whom are not spiritually special in any way. Its sannyäsés and brahmins make a show of being very pukka, but each of them, without exception, has a consciousness that is loaded with contamination from the lower modes of nature.
It leaders and members identify with the institution as being non-different from Kåñëa, but that claim is illegitimate. This has been proven beyond doubt over time. Yet, its dyed-in-the-wool loyalists and fanatics have blinders which keep them from seeing it, while people catch on and most everyone else cannot avoid the obvious realization.
“ISKCON” claims a monopoly in terms of linking itself to the guru-paramparä as Prabhupäda’s only representative, but it does not make this claim in a boisterous manner. It is made in-house, because only that way can prove effective. It’s vitiated G.B.C. tried, years ago, to claim itself as Prabhupäda’s Successor, but that back-fired spectacularly. As such, it has learned to be careful about claiming a monopoly.
“Sometimes the prakrita-sahajiyäs claim that they have heard the truth from their guru, but one cannot have transcendental knowledge simply by hearing from a guru who is not bona fide.” 8
Argument From External Results
“ . . . so-called devotees known as prakåta-sahajiyäs sometimes display devotional symptoms to exhibit their good fortune. They are pretending, however, because these devotional features are only external. . . It is not advisable to equate the prakåta-sahajiyäs with pure devotees.” 9
It is risky to be egregious in “ISKCON” for a number of reasons. Some who take the risk do so on the basis that their many disciples will cover for them, particularly financially. In other words, if a sahajiyä–one who was originally initiated by Prabhupäda–decides to blatantly exhibit his pretension, he is saying to the cult: “You need me more than I need you, and any threat of excommunication will not harm me.”
They are not wrong about that. “ISKCON” requires numbers, and the sahajiyäs brings the cult those numbers. As such, as long as each one of these great pretenders stays favorable to the Mother Ship, it will at least tolerate (if not encourage) that man absorbed in self-apotheosis to continue with his program.
When “ISKCON” high-jacked the movement in the late Seventies, that was the method used by the eleven pretender mahä-bhägavats. Since the fan of results was still spinning (from when the cult had been bona fide), each of the great pretenders would claim “Just look at our results! We have to be bona fide! Where are your results?”
TATTVAMASI
This is the argument from external results. Sahajiyäs are well-known for using this technique, especially when they have rich patrons (generally, wealthy Hindoo industrialists) and thousands of disciples. These sahajiyäs sometimes put female disciples to the front of the line. When one of Ocean’s Eleven shacked up with his disciple in San Francisco in the mid-Eighties, a G.B.C. talked to him over the phone, asking him when he was going to hit bottom. That former sannyäsé and zonal, now ostracized from the cult, replied: “It’s bottomless, isn’t it?”
“ . . . all our students must be induced to following the regulative principles. One shouldn’t think artificially he has come to the spontaneous platform. That is sahajiyäism.” 10
Responsible For Their Own Actions
The eleven great pretenders proved to be fifth class, not anywhere near first-class men following vidhi-bhakti. Yet, rationalizations abounded as to why all of those rascals got exposed for their particular brands of sahajiyäism in such a short space of time. One rationalization passed around was: They were just over-eager boys, absorbed in irrational enthusiasm, who tried to do what they thought was right. However, it turned out to be wrong—so they tried something else.
Consider that, since almost all of them were experienced middle-aged men, such naive exuberance was not applicable to any of them. They had all been heavy cult manipulators for over a decade, and they knew very well what they were doing. They couldn’t pull it off, that’s all.
Secondly, you do not sit on a so-called vyäsäsan and accept worship from your godbrothers (and buxom godsisters bouncing in front of you “in ecstasy”) remaining oblivious to the fact that you are nothing more than a pretender. They all knew that they were undeserving of being worshiped in any way remotely close to that:
“. . . sahajiyäs may manufacture such false statements, but no one should believe them, as they are motivated by enmity against the Vaiñëavas.” 11
Prabhupäda knew well in advance that they all had the seed of sahajiyäism, so he gave them enough rope by which they could exhibit their group pretension and hang themselves in the process.
“One should very carefully avoid associating with both the sahajiyäs, who are sometimes known as Vaiñëavas, and the non-Vaiñëavas or avaiñëavas. Their association changes the transcendental devotional service of Lord Krishna into sense gratification.” 12
Actual Truth You Can Depend Upon
There are truths to be known. When you know these truths, the next wave of sahajiyäism will not overwhelm you. The superficiality remains in place, but the nature of the service is not what it originally was.
“ISKCON” has converted spiritual to material. The zonal äcärya scam should have been seen for just what it was: A conversion of “advanced devotees,” all of them absorbed in self-apotheosis, from conditioned souls to fully liberated Äcäryas and Successorsvia G.B.C. imprimatur, imitating uttama-adhikäré when Prabhupäda had never wanted this and had enjoined, “Regular guru, that’s all.”
Here are some historical truths that you can depend upon: 1) Prabhupäda authorized only regular gurus, that’s all; 2) Prabhupäda did not recognize any of his initiated disciples as a regular guru; such official recognition is nowhere part of the record; 3) The appointment of a rittvik is not the appointment of a future initiating spiritual master; there is no çästric confirmation for this rascal idea;
4) If any of them actually were qualified to be a regular guru (after Prabhupäda left the scene), there was no need for that spiritual master to wait many months before initiating disciples; 5) Kértanänanda’s imitation of uttama-adhikäré should have been severely confronted, but it was not; 6) Instead, the G.B.C., due to being intimidated by him, did the exact opposite of what it was otherwise duty-bound to do.
These truths help you realize that ISKCON was converted into “ISKCON” by no later than the Spring of 1978. In the topsy-turvy, post-Prabhupäda world of all-pervading, pseudo devotional faithlessness and opposition, we find a veritable plethora, a kaleidoscope, of bogus gurus and their improperly initiated disciples.
The Fermi Paradox
In 1951, the Father of the Atomic Bomb, Enrico Fermi, was sitting at a lunch table in the commissary with three of his fellow scientists analyzing the immensity and complexity of the universe. They were discussing potential life on other planets. All of a sudden, out of the blue, he froze his fellow researchers by blurting out: “Where is everybody?”
When they conjectured upon the answer to this question, they touched upon it: The advanced conscious beings in the universe, numbering many thousands, do not want to be made known to humanity. They do not want to communicate with humanity, despite it spending literally billions of wasted dollars setting up satellites and other technology to detect outer terrestrial life in other regions of the universe.
The higher beings in those regions—and they would be the only ones who could do so—see humanity for what it is in Kali-yuga: Humans in this age are nothing more than two-legged animals or reptiles. Despite tech advancement, their cultures, at root, are very degraded and contaminated. They are not worth being contacted.
In the devotional context, the analogous question may be raised: Where are all the regular gurus? At bare minimum, we should have had hundreds of them by now after Prabhupäda’s disappearance from physical manifestation, but we do not.
Of course, “ISKCON” believes that there have been many, as does Neo-Mutt. In point of fact, Neo-Mutt considers many of its gurus to be uttama-adhikärés, but few outside the influence of that cult take such a belief seriously. The rittviks do not claim any gurus as initiating spiritual masters, of course, so their “rittvik-äcäryas” are back door gurus, allegedly initiating newcomers on behalf of Prabhupäda.
In the context of the aforementioned analogy, it should not at all be surprising that there are no gurus representing Prabhupäda’s branch of the Hare Kåñëa movement at this time. The contamination that exploded at the center of it in the Spring of 1978 polluted everyone.
The majority of disciples who approached Prabhupäda were very degraded entities, at least from the Vedic perspective. They were all fifth-class men, and most of his leading secretaries were former hippies. Eleven of these leaders manipulated information throughout the movement, and that created but another simulation . . . and most of the initiated congregation (your host speaker excepted) fell for it.
How can anyone possibly believe that madhyam-adhikärés and regular gurus could emerge from this all-pervading milieu contagion? Where are the gurus? Where is everyone? Same principle applies analogously. Lower living entities in the universe do not have the power, desire, or technology to contact humans on Earth, and this applies to humans here.
Humans here are very low in the eyes of the higher universal beings. Similarly, gurus cannot emerge from an organization loaded with contagion from top to bottom, one which opened Pandora’s Box in 1978 in order for even more contamination to escape and proliferate from the lower regions of sub-humanity.
Ultimately, there is no paradox to either alleged conundrum. Cheap gurus, institutional gurus, wild-card gurus, and back-door gurus cannot produce genuinely initiated disciples. Instead, those improperly disciples spread even more nescience via their individual and group identification and contaminated emotions, which they parade as pure bhakti.
“One should always remember that a person who is reluctant to accept a spiritual master and be initiated is sure to be baffled in his endeavor to go back to Godhead. One who is not properly initiated may present himself as a great devotee, but in fact he is sure to encounter many stumbling blocks on his path of progress toward spiritual realization, with the result that he must continue his term of material existence without relief. Such a helpless person is compared to a ship without a rudder, for such a ship can never reach its destination.” 13
Lies Always Embedded in Sahajiyäism
“Half of what they say is lies,
And the other half ain’t true.” 14
The Absolute Truth is infused with only truth, but the exact opposite is the case in the material world. The brähmin here in this world is an honest man, and he speaks truth. Most everyone else, especially in this age, is a two-legged animal situated in the lower modes. They lie constantly. As such, some call people in this age nothing more than lying animals, and we cannot disagree with that.
When you come into contact with devotees of Kåñëa consciousness, you are supposed to be contacting fountainheads of honesty. They are supposed to represent the highest level of the Absolute Truth, which is the eternal realm of the Supreme Person, the perfect emblem of truth.
However, sahajiyäs are different.
Sahajiyäs may be considered devotees by some, but they have a strong tendency to lie. This is to be known, and their lies must be exposed. Any sahajiyä group has its intrinsic existence based upon at least one lie, and the progressive transcendentalist is enjoined to search out how that nescience is working in order to avoid falling victim to it.
vidyäà cävidyäà ca yas
tad vedobhayaà saha
avidyayä måtyuà tértvä
vidyayämåtam açnute
“A person who simultaneously knows both factual knowledge and nescience, transcending the culture of nescience and death by culture of that knowledge, enjoys the nectar of immortality.” 15
The bona fide guru gives that which is transcendentally positive. He gives vidyä. He gives sevä. He gives the çästra as it is. His protocols are absolute, because they are fully linked with the Supreme Absolute Personality of Godhead. His disciples, if they stick to him and do not distort his teachings and injunctions, become eligible to enjoy the nectar of immortality in the spiritual world of form and activity.
On the other side of the coin, there are the agents of nescience, and they come at us in many forms. These are bogus gurus and their improperly initiated disciples, of course. They present a semblance of the Vaiñëava system of guru and disciple, as well as a semblance of an institution allegedly formed on the basis of the pure devotee’s teachings, instructions, and direct orders. They warp these orders. They warp existing protocols (while he was physically manifest) and create new ones.
There are many manifestations of sahajiyäism at this time, although none of them are of the classic variety from the past. They are semblances of Kåñëa consciousness, and they are also semblances of a known variety of sahajiyäism from a previous century. Without going into each and every group, we are only concerned with three of them that claim to represent Prabhupäda’s branch of the Hare Kåñëa movement. Or, in the case of one of them, claim to have an initiation from Prabhupäda as part of the lineage or so-called disciplic succession they falsely represent.
By now, it is likely that you already know these three, and, according to the Éçopaniñad, it is incumbent upon you to especially know the avidyä that “ISKCON” represents. It is the big kahuna. Another way of saying the same thing, is that ”ISKCON” is based upon a big lie and has many other lies supplementing that big lie.
Let us consider the specifics of these. The big lie was that Prabhupäda appointed initiating spiritual masters. There is no official record that he did so. The official record is that, in the second week of July, 1977, he appointed eleven rittviks to conduct initiating ceremonials on his behalf. It had always been the case before, where all new disciples were initiated and connected to the guru-paramparä as Prabhupäda’s initiated disciples . . . with the rittviks merely stand-ins.
The next big lie is that, by appointing rittviks, Prabhupäda appointed, covertly, future dékñä-gurus. There is no çästric verification of this idea. There is no statement of Prabhupäda validating this rascal idea. There is no example from bona fide sampradäyas of implementing this idea.
The third big lie is that they were already qualified gurus, but, due to etiquette, they could only act as rittviks until Prabhupäda left the scene. However, this conjecture had been overturned years previously when, in two similar letters to two of his leading men, 14 he made it clear that he wanted his disciples to initiate (in his presence) disciples for themselves by no later than 1975. He was hoping for it. It was his program. It never got actuated, because no one became qualified as guru.
The next big lie(s), once the appointment that never was got exposed, is that the G.B.C. was non-different from Prabhupäda after he left physical manifestation. As such, it had the power to appoint initiating spiritual masters. Although it turned out Prabhupäda did not appoint any (, however, this was not known until the summer of 1980), they were authorized to act as dékñä-gurus, because the G.B.C. appointed them and had the power to do so.
There are two threads here. First, Prabhupäda never recognized the G.B.C. as the ultimate spiritual authority of his movement. Only he was this ultimate authority while manifest. After his disappearance, he remained so via guru-väëi, and such authority could only be passed to gurus.
A governing body commission can never be the embodiment of that for many reasons, not the least of which is phalena-paricéyate: Judge by the results of what went down in his movement when the G.B.C. took over post-1977. What went down turned into a disaster!
Secondly, the G.B.C. did not appoint them. It wrongly recognized that Prabhupäda had allegedly appointed them. It authorized ridiculous zones (read, playgrounds) for them to enjoy in as mahä-bhägavats, so it—at least indirectly—recognized them as uttama-adhikärés. This recognition has been proven a falsity for many decades now.
A few years later, the G.B.C., on its ISKCON Wikipedia page, claimed that it was the Successor to Prabhupäda. Previous to that, it allowed its eleven great pretenders to claim that they were all Successors, but that big lie crashed and burned. It was replaced by another lie, namely that gurus pretending to be uttamas can be busted down and then automatically, if they remained loyal to the G.B.C., were converted into madhyams and could keep their improperly initiated disciples.
Sahajiyäs do not become madhyams when exposed.
Give or take, we have just listed eight lies propagated by the vitiated G.B.C., the power node and hand within the glove of “ISKCON.” There are more than these, be assured. After Prabhupäda left the scene, the vitiated G.B.C. opened Pandora’s Box. Everyone should now be able to see that the whole “ISKCON” scheme, loaded with so many prevarications, was nothing more than an explosion of sahajiyäism.
It is not bona fide. It is loaded with lies. It cannot produce a transcendental result for anyone. Therefore, we are against its sahajiyäism, and we invite you to join us in opposition to it.
SAD EVA SAUMYA
Endnotes
1 Caitanya-caritämåta, Madhya, 19.160, purport;
2 Caitanya-caritämåta, Madhya, 24.330, purport;
3 Letter to Original Disciple, 8-21-68;
4 Caitanya-caritämåta, Madhya, 24.330, purport;
5 Caitanya-caritämåta, Adi, 7.48, purport;
6 Letter to Original Disciple, 6-3-69;
7 Caitanya-caritämåta, Madhya, 19.160, purport;
8 Caitanya-caritämåta, Madhya, 8.312, purport;
9 Caitanya-caritämåta, Antya, 20.28, purport;
10 Letter to Leading Secretary, 4-28-74;
11 Caitanya-caritämåta, Adi, 17.230, purport;
12Caitanya-caritämåta, Antya, 6.278, purport;
13 Caitanya-caritämåta, Adi, 1.35, purport;
14 Valdez, “Here Comes Valdez”;
15 Translation by Kailäsa Candra däsa;