Autumn 2007

So, according to one of the original 11 ISKCON guru hoaxers, Satsvarupa Das, Srila Prabhupada is present before us and we can meet him everyday. Which then begs the question why he cannot still act as our diksa (initiating) Guru if he is present before us and we can meet him? Such contradictions are par for the course, when one concocts a philosophy as one goes along (and we have given many such examples in previous issues), which seeks specifically to satisfy everyone that ISKCON is "keeping Srila Prabhupada in the centre", whilst at the same time claiming that we still need to accept their all worshipful gurus.
 

Here we see that in one fell swoop, ISKCON guru HH Trivikrama Swami Maharaja has destroyed the main argument used by the GBC and himself (being a GBC voted-in guru) to justify their unauthorised guru system. "The ritvik system is without precedent, and historically everyone has always had a 'living guru'", the GBC argue. However, Maharaja is arguing here that we are currently in a completely unprecedented situation, that ISKCON is an unprecedented society, and therefore we are in "uncharted waters". Given this, it would be completely illogical to argue that precedent must be the guiding principle for an institution which itself has no precedent! Further, Maharaja also argues that it is the duty of any disciple to protest against his guru if he feels the guru is undermining Srila Prabhupada's instructions. This means that Maharaja is giving the green light to every ISKCON member to join the IRM and reject their gurus once they discover that their gurus are indeed not just minimising but actually rejecting Srila Prabhupada's instructions, since there exists no instruction for them to have become their gurus in the first place! For there is no instruction from Srila Prabhupada authorising his disciples to replace him as the Guru of ISKCON, but there are instructions from him keeping him as ISKCON's diksa Guru (see The Final Order and all previous BTP issues!).
Again we see such statements are generated by the need to camouflage the ISKCON guru system with the cover that "Srila Prabhupada is in the centre", as seen in the previous example. Therefore, do not expect Maharaja to agree with his own words and ask his disciples to return to to Srila Prabhupada anytime soon!
 

Sankarshan Das, a GBC voted-in guru, made the above pitch to convince people that the “ritvik” position is wrong, and therefore one needs to accept him as a guru because one can associate with him “personally”. However, since HE has not associated with HIS guru Srila Prabhupada for 30 years, how does he know he was pleasing Srila Prabhupada from 1977 onwards? And HE obviously has not had his guru answer HIS questions for 30 years either. So it is the height of hypocrisy for him to argue that we must accept HIM as our guru because we must have personal association with the guru to get guidance, when he himself does not believe this, having not had such personal association for 30 years. And conversely, if he has been able to adequately associate with his Guru, Srila Prabhupada, for 30 years, then why can’t anyone else do so as well? Unless Sankarshan prabhu can prove that on November 15th, 1977, the day after Srila Prabhupada departed, he was issued with a special, secret, unique two-way “spiritual” walkie-talkie, which allowed him alone to directly ask Srila Prabhupada questions and get answers regarding whether or not he was pleasing him, he would do well to stop spouting such hypocritical nonsense. It is already bad enough that he has occupied Srila Prabhupada’s position as initiating guru in ISKCON without Srila Prabhupada’s authorisation.
 

Fact 1: In 1985, Caru Das, becomes a GBC endorsed guru in 1985 as part of the Great Guru Hoax part 2:

Fact 2: A recent GBC list of their approved gurus continues to have Caru Das's name, and on April 29th, 2007, he initiates 3 devotees:

Fact 3: Caru Das attends the 2007 ISKCON North America Temple Presidents and GBC meetings as the Temple President for the Temple in Utah:

Fact 4: Bhakta Justin/Jairama Das, one of the persons initiated by Caru Das mentioned in Fact 2 above, states the following about Caru Das, and his initiation:

So this raises the following questions:

a) Are the GBC in illusion about the real "ritvik-anti-GBC" status of Caru Das, having claimed on the one hand that they wish to protect ISKCON temples from "ritviks", and on the other they happily invite him to their meetings where such matters are discussed? Or are the GBC happy now to welcome "ritviks" who do not recognize their authority to their confidential meetings, and if so could we get an invite to their meetings please?!

b) Or has Caru Das been telling different stories depending on who he is speaking to? To keep those who he is initiating happy, he tells them he is anti-GBC and is giving a ritvik initiation on behalf of Srila Prabhupada, whilst to keep in the good graces of ISKCON, and get invited along to their meetings, he portrays himself as a loyal company man?
Either way, why are we not surprised to find the air of duplicity and confusion surrounding the affairs of the GBC and their "gurus"?

By the way, one practice that Caru Das does share with ISKCON, highlighted repeatedly in BTP, is the trend towards demigod worship, for Caru Das advertises himself as a "Priest" able to perform pujas (worship rituals) for "Lakshmi", "Shiva" and "Ganesh", as well as for "New Business", "Prosperity", and even for "New Vehicles"! (see also BTP 11 for further evidence of ISKCON issuing "automobile blessings").
 

HH Bhakti Caru Swami ("BCS") recently made the following comments about Narayana Maharaja, a Gaudiya Matha guru who is competing with the ISKCON gurus to take devotees away from Srila Prabhupada:

But exactly the same can be said about GBC voted-in guru Gaura Govinda Swami's ("GGS") claim, made for the first time in 1989, as detailed in BTP 15, that Srila Prabhupada had appointed him guru by a secret whisper in 1977. And this claim was only made in 1989 because by then so many gurus had fallen and the system was in turmoil, and he saw an opportunity to stake his claim. But BCS never criticised GGS for doing this, but rather glorifies him as an "exalted disciple of Srila Prabhupada" (see BTP 14, back page). A clear double standard. And, as BCS says, anyone who is "intelligent" will "understand" the dubiousness of such belated "claims", whether made by "gurus" outside or inside ISKCON. BCS also states:

So to counteract a guru from outside ISKCON, Srila Prabhupada is suddenly reeled out, and for ISKCON members "the importance of Srila Prabhupada's role in their life", is emphasised; but to promote themselves as "living guru successors" to Srila Prabhupada, the ISKCON gurus have de-emphasised "Srila Prabhupada's role in their life" for ISKCON members, otherwise they would have not a guru role. So we cannot take a guru outside ISKCON because we need Srila Prabhupada, but we must take a guru inside ISKCON because Srila Prabhupada is not enough! How long do the GBC think people will buy such hypocrisy? They should either return ISKCON to Srila Prabhupada and thereby save it, or continue promoting that "we need a living successor to Srila Prabhupada" and watch people leave ISKCON for better and more "charismatic", "living successors" than ISKCON can offer.
 

HH Bhakti Caru Swami admits he is not acting as diksa guru

When Srila Prabhupada was physically present on the planet, the job of everyone in ISKCON, even if he was just a bhakta (new devotee) was the same, and this was to help people approach Srila Prabhupada’s lotus feet, who then as the Guru would take that person to Krishna as his disciple. Above Bhakti Caru Swami (BCS) admits:

• That a Guru takes a disciple to Krishna.
• That Srila Prabhupada does this in ISKCON.
• That everyone in ISKCON only helps bring people to Srila Prabhupada.

Yet BCS, as a GBC voted-in ISKCON guru, concludes from the above facts that:

• BCS is the Guru.
• The people he takes to Srila Prabhupada are BCS’s disciples.
• And Srila Prabhupada is not the Guru.

Therefore, even though BCS admits that Srila Prabhupada’s physical departure has not resulted in any change to how he functions, he has however decided to change Srila Prabhupada’s position as the diksa Guru, and instead occupy that position for himself and claim Srila Prabhupada’s disciples as his. It is one thing to usurp Srila Prabhupada’s position and steal his disciples. But to openly admit that one has no justification for doing this, and still continue, requires a level of cheating and hypocrisy that can only flourish in Kali-Yuga, the Age of Hypocrisy.
 

A GBC voted-in guru, His Holiness Gour (Gaura) Govinda Swami (GGS), who died in 1996, is eulogized by ISKCON today as a great saint, with his murti (effigy) installed in ISKCON temples, and his books sold in ISKCON temples and at ISKCON festivals. To afford GGS such a high level of awe and reverence would require the GBC to, of course, also fully endorse all the teachings of GGS. One of his teachings is the following:

This raises the following obvious points:

a) Why then did GGS allow his talks to be recorded on tape for his disciples to hear? Why are they still listening to, and distributing such tapes now?

b) Why are the GBC disobeying the teachings of this person who they have proclaimed as a great acarya (guru), by promoting the distribution of tapes of Srila Prabhupada, and their own voted-in gurus, which give no value? How can the GBC claim to be preaching the absolute truth, if they cannot even decide a simple point such as whether or not sabda-brahma can delivered through recorded sound vibration?