On February 10-12th, 2019, HH Bhakti Vikasa Swami (“BVKS”), an ISKCON GBC-elected initiating guru, gave a seminar titled “Understanding and Applying Srila Prabhupada's Teachings” at the world headquarters of ISKCON in Mayapur, India. The quotes in the shaded boxes below are taken from this seminar, and below we comprehensively demonstrate that, rather than explain how to understand and apply Srila Prabhupada’s teachings, BVKS consistently shows that he misunderstands even the most basic of Srila Prabhupada’s teachings. All emphases added.
BVKS asserts that Srila Prabhupada seems to contradict himself. BVKS concludes this by asserting:
“Srila Prabhupada wrote in a letter in 1972, “Cocoa and chocolate are not to be taken as they are intoxicants.” […] Srila Prabhupada wrote, “If chocolate is not an intoxicant it can be offered to the deities. […] Srila Prabhupada said, according to Rupanuga Prabhu, “Krishna doesn’t take any chocolate so we cannot offer it.” Oh oh, there seems to be some contradiction here, huh?”
BVKS, therefore, claims later:
“If we can take quotes from Prabhupada to prove one point and apparently prove or in our own mind prove one point, and if we can take quotes from Prabhupada to prove the opposite, […] Then the question arises, if Srila Prabhupada is contradicting himself then what kind of a teacher is he?”
BVKS asserted that Srila Prabhupada seems to contradict himself based on quoting the "chocolate" quotes mentioned above. But he makes multiple false assertions. BVKS asserts:
“Then there’s another quote from Srila Prabhupada which was not actually in a letter from him, but he was quoted as saying so in a letter that was sent on Srila Prabhupada’s behalf by one of his secretaries, Srila Prabhupada wrote, “If chocolate is not an intoxicant it can be offered to the deities.”
The letter BVKS refers to was written by HH Paramahamsa Swami (“PAS”), on 8/6/75, to Malati Dasi. This letter is a specific reply to a letter written by Malati Dasi to PAS on 27/5/75, which is also in the Vedabase. But this letter from PAS referred to by BVKS above does not contain any quote from Srila Prabhupada. The proof is as follows:
a) In the Vedabase there are 10 letters sent in total by PAS whilst he was a secretary to Srila Prabhupada, which are from 15/12/74 until 10/6/75. When letters were written to Srila Prabhupada’s secretaries, it was expected that all questions would be referred to Srila Prabhupada for answers. Indeed, in one letter, PAS refers to the general process of all the questions he receives having “to go before Srila Prabhupada” and how he has “to ask these questions to him” (letter to Jadurani, 3/1/75).
b) Therefore, given this state of affairs, Malati Dasi, in her letter to PAS, makes the point of stating that she is writing personally to PAS, “I am writing this to yourself”, rather than writing to PAS in his capacity as Srila Prabhupada’s secretary, because she specifically did “not wish to bother Srila Prabhupada”. A botheration which would have occurred even if she wrote to Srila Prabhupada’s secretary – as all questions would in any case be referred to Srila Prabhupada, as shown above.
c) Therefore, in *every* letter that PAS wrote, other than the letter he wrote to Malati, he stated at least one of the following phrases –
“Srila Prabhupada/Prabhupada said”
“he said/says” (referring to Srila Prabhupada)
“Prabhupada’s answer”
“Prabhupada wants”
“Prabhupada suggests”
– because PAS specifically states when he is relaying information from Srila Prabhupada. But in the letter to Malati, apart from the standard greeting “All glories to Srila Prabhupada”, PAS makes no mention of Srila Prabhupada at all, indicating that unlike all the other letters, PAS is *not* quoting Srila Prabhupada. Because, in this lone case, his answer to Malati, PAS would not have consulted Srila Prabhupada, and instead simply tried to answer the questions to the best of his own ability – because Malati Dasi specifically requested this!
BVKS continues:
“So, there’s some relaxation. Srila Prabhupada said ‘because it is an intoxicant’, then it seems he’s got some other information in the meantime that it is not an intoxicant, and then Srila Prabhupada said, “If it’s not an intoxicant it can be offered to the deities.””
As already shown, PAS, not Srila Prabhupada, states this. In addition, what BVKS has claimed above is contradictory nonsense:
a) BVKS claims that Srila Prabhupada “got some other information in the meantime that it is not an intoxicant”. But the answer given does not state this. The answer states “If it is not an intoxicant it can be offered to the deities”. If Srila Prabhupada had got information that chocolate was not an intoxicant, and it was he who gave the answer, then the answer would have stated: “It is not an intoxicant, and so it can be offered to the deities”.
b) Instead, the answer given is from a person in ignorance, who is not sure whether chocolate is or is not an intoxicant, and so has given no answer at all in regards to whether or not chocolate is an intoxicant. Rather, the “answer” simply leaves it to Malati to find out whether or not chocolate is an intoxicant, by stating that “If it is not an intoxicant”, only then can it be offered. Thus, this answer was definitely not given by Srila Prabhupada – because according to Srila Prabhupada’s letter from 1972 he already knew it was an intoxicant; and according to BVKS’s claim, by 1975, Srila Prabhupada already knew it was not an intoxicant. Therefore, if BVKS’s claim is false, Srila Prabhupada would have given the same answer as he gave in 1972 – that chocolate is an intoxicant. And if BVKS’s claim was true, then Srila Prabhupada would have stated that chocolate was not an intoxicant. But in no case would Srila Prabhupada have given an answer stating ignorance about chocolate’s status as an intoxicant. But PAS could have.
Therefore, even if we were to accept BVKS’s false assertions above, he still cannot produce evidence that Srila Prabhupada is contradicting himself, seemingly or otherwise.
Thus, in summary:
1) The "chocolate" quotes are the ones BVKS supposedly directly quotes from Srila Prabhupada as a worked example to prove his "contradiction" case against Srila Prabhupada. But the "contradictory" quote is not even from Srila Prabhupada.
2) Out of desperation to make his “contradiction” point, BVKS ends up contradicting himself by firstly claiming that Srila Prabhupada knew that chocolate was not an intoxicant, but then claiming that Srila Prabhupada replied that he was ignorant regarding chocolate’s status as an intoxicant.
As will be shown, his whole seminar, from start to finish, is full of such contradictory and faulty “reasoning”. Hence, it is BVKS, and not Srila Prabhupada, who is the person engaging in contradiction here!
In the previous section, we saw that BVKS claimed Srila Prabhupada was contradicting himself by claiming he was “quoting” from Srila Prabhupada, even though there is no evidence for this. BVKS actually has a long history of creating such conclusions by attributing “quotes” to Srila Prabhupada, for which there is no recorded evidence from Srila Prabhupada:
BVKS guru program - 1
"If you want to quote Prabhupada directly, Prabhupada said 'My only mistake was that I initiated so many unqualified people'.”
(Bhakti Vikasa Swami Lecture, 2/2/09)
“Srila Prabhupada, my disciples annually celebrate a function to honor me, which they call Vyasa-puja. I trust that you are satisfied with that, for you have stated, “My glory will be when my disciples are worshiped all over the world.””
(Article submitted by Bhakti Vikasa Swami in the 2012 Srila Prabhupada Tributes book)
“but then Prabhupada said that, 'You all initiate'. He told his disciples. Does that mean that Srila Prabhupada didn't know that all his disciples were ... he was unaware that they weren't all mahabhagavatas? Does that mean, or what does it mean? That's what we're discussing. So there's one kind of apparent contradiction. There are so many."
(Bhakti Vikasa Swami Lecture, 4/2/13)
By using speech marks, BVKS is claiming that he is directly quoting from Srila Prabhupada. But there is no record for any of the quotes above being directly from Srila Prabhupada. We can note that BVKS uses the last quote above to again claim that there is an apparent “contradiction” from Srila Prabhupada, of which “there are so many”.
BVKS book writing program
"Srila Prabhupada's books are the lawbooks, and everything we need to know to become fully Krishna conscious is in his books. Nevertheless, Srila Prabhupada wanted his disciples to write also. He once said that, "My disciples will write commentaries on my purports.""
(BVKS website)
“Srila Prabhupada, your books are complete and perfect, and are available to all. Nevertheless, you instructed your disciples, especially the sannyasis, to write. "My disciples will write purports to my books.""
(BVKS Vyasa-puja offering, 1997)
BVKS again, through the use of speech marks, claims he is reproducing verbatim quotes from Srila Prabhupada, but there is no record for either of the quotes above being from Srila Prabhupada. Perhaps realizing this, BVKS decided to “shore up” his claim that Srila Prabhupada instructed persons such as himself to write books which compete with Srila Prabhupada’s books, by claiming he was asked to do this in a dream!:
"Believe it or not, a few nights ago Srila Prabhupada very mercifully came to me in a dream and instructed me to write educational and philosophical books. It was the first time His Divine Grace had given me such intimate darsana, yet he did not chastise me, as he would surely have done had he been displeased with my serving as a guru in his service."
(Bhakti Vikasa Swami, 3/10/04, Text PAMHO:8817886)
BVKS guru program - 2
“It's a nice idea to have gurukula in the forest, and a guru lives with his disciples, just a few of them, but then Srila Prabhupada did say that he wanted all of his disciples should have 10,000 disciples."
(BVKS Lecture, 14/12/17)
“My Godbrother Sarvabhavana Prabhu told me that he asked Srila Prabhupada why the person Bhagavat is considered more important than the book Bhagavat. Srila Prabhupada replied, “Because he can pull your ear.”
(HH Bhakti Vikas Swami, ISKCON GBC-elected guru, PAMHO “Quotes” forum, 25/2/04)
The first quote is taken from a book of “memories” by Satsvarupa Dasa Goswami ("ISKCON in the 1970s"), and the second is relayed by someone claiming that this was what “Srila Prabhupada said”. This continues the pattern of BVKS being forced to claim “quotes” as being from Srila Prabhupada, when he actually has no recorded evidence that they are from Srila Prabhupada.
BVKS guru program - 3
On 6/6/17, BVKS presented on his website a quote which he titled “Sannyasis as gurus”. Part of the quote stated that:
“This is parivrajakacarya because our sannyasis they can begin there and then there is paramahamsa stage. When one becomes a little advanced and purified by this process he can take some disciples.”
He then gave the reference for the quote as being “From Srila Prabhupada’s lecture at the sannyasa initiation of Trivikrama Maharaja–July 27, 1971, New York”.
However, this quote that was presented as being from a lecture by Srila Prabhupada is actually not from Srila Prabhupada at all. Rather it is from a lecture by one of Srila Prabhupada’s disciples, Rupanuga Dasa, and his name is clearly marked as such before the lecture begins, and his voice can be heard on the recording for this lecture. One can see a screenshot of BVKS’s website as evidence for the misleading reference by BVKS here, and the false reference is still present at the time of publication of this article on 23/4/19.
Having attempted to set up his false ‘Srila Prabhupada seems to “contradict” himself’ thesis, BVKS then attempts to build on it by claiming this means that it can be very difficult to understand Srila Prabhupada:
“and there are many, many, many issues […] should we or should we not eat chocolate? […] Should gurus be appointed, or rubber stamped by the GBC? The book changes issue. Is the GBC to be accepted as the ultimate arbitrator of all theological issues? Should women be GBC’s and/or gurus? […] it can be difficult to understand what it means to follow Srila Prabhupada. In following, uh, basic things are very easy but there – over some doctrinal issues or if you get into the nitty gritty of various issues it can be very difficult to understand”
a) But, like his “contradiction” thesis, this is just another false creation by BVKS. Because all these “issues” are very easy to understand if we simply rely on the “Prabhupada-Only Paradigm” (POP) – which means accepting only recorded statements directly from Srila Prabhupada. So, for example:
i) Chocolate issue – as we saw in the first section, this is very easy to understand if we only rely on Srila Prabhupada’s direct recorded statements i.e. POP – for then the conclusion is that it is an intoxicant. Simple.
ii) Gurus appointed or not – again, going by POP rather than the “memories” BVKS relies on, we find Srila Prabhupada gave no order whereby he is replaced as ISKCON’s diksa guru. Hence the issue of whether or not gurus should be appointed is easily resolved, as there are to be no successor diksa gurus in ISKCON, period!
iii) Female gurus – similarly, by the facts just given, as there will be no successor diksa gurus, either male or female, the “female diksa guru” issue is also resolved.
And so on. Anyone who reads Back To Prabhupada (BTP) magazine can see that there is actually no problem understanding Srila Prabhupada on all issues as long as we stick to POP.
Referring to the IRM’s position, that Srila Prabhupada remains ISKCON’s diksa guru, BVKS claims that rather than understand what Srila Prabhupada wanted in regards to guru succession, the IRM’s position was “made up” as a reaction to the fall of ISKCON’s gurus:
“It’s not that you see, oh what are all of Srila Prabhupada’s teachings on this and then you try to understand what he wanted, although actually there was no problem to understand what Srila Prabhupada wanted, until ISKCON gurus, some of them, many of them, started to wobble, shake, and fall. But this whole idea was made up”
But we just quoted BVKS specifically using examples to do with guru succession, such as how gurus are made, and whether or not they can be females, as evidence that it can be “very difficult to understand” Srila Prabhupada on certain issues. Now here he claims the exact opposite, that on this subject of guru succession there was actually “no problem to understand what Srila Prabhupada wanted”! Thus, he again contradicts himself, all just so he can have an excuse to attack the conclusion that Srila Prabhupada remains ISKCON’s diksa guru.
“Srila Prabhupada said, I’m paraphrasing, he said he doesn’t make a mistake. We should understand that he is sabde pare ca nisnatam brahmany upasamasrayam, he is immersed in sastric knowledge and realised in that, and therefore what he states comes from a different platform of understanding altogether, which we may not be able to understand. Therefore, we should accept what the guru says, and that makes things very easy. What makes it not so easy is when we have an institution with many gurus.”
Inadvertently, BVKS reveals what is actually the source of any possible confusion and problems of understanding in ISKCON – dozens of unauthorised successor gurus such as himself! As BVKS correctly states, all we need to do is accept whatever the bona fide guru, Srila Prabhupada, states and then that makes things “very easy”. But this gets complicated because in addition to Srila Prabhupada, we have dozens of rival competitor gurus, such as BVKS, all giving their own conflicting understandings, whereby these 80-odd ISKCON GBC gurus will often contradict both Srila Prabhupada and each other. For example, as we show here in this rebuttal, BVKS’s seminar, which was specifically meant to “clear up” such problems of “understanding”, merely adds to the problem due to him inventing “contradictions” and “misunderstandings” which did not exist in the first place.
“So, one who is expert in harmonising all the statements of sastra, understanding the ultimate goal behind it all, is a topmost devotee. So, there is a need for this, for harmonising sastra and the statements of Srila Prabhupada and the tradition. We have guru, guru for us means our own initiating guru, and Srila Prabhupada, guru in ISKCON means one who follows Srila Prabhupada, right? Should be obvious.”
1) In previous sections, we saw that BVKS tried to falsely build a picture of Srila Prabhupada seemingly contradicting himself and being “very difficult” to understand. The reason for BVKS trying to do so is now revealed. For BVKS can now falsely claim that there will be a “need” to “harmonise” such “very difficult to understand” and seemingly “contradictory” teachings of Srila Prabhupada with sastra. BVKS then states that a person who can do this “harmonizing” is a “topmost devotee”, and that this will be the “initiating guru” in ISKCON, i.e. himself! Hence, all these attacks by BVKS on Srila Prabhupada’s teachings, claiming they are very difficult to understand and seemingly contradictory, are simply a ploy on his part to promote himself as being the “topmost devotee” who is here to save the day by being this “harmoniser”.
2) However, this naked ploy of BVKS for glory at the expense of Srila Prabhupada’s teachings fails, because as we showed earlier, no such “need” exists, since Srila Prabhupada’s teachings are not contradictory or difficult to understand. Further, as the bona fide guru, Srila Prabhupada’s teachings are already and always in harmony with sastra:
“A bona fide spiritual master does not mention anything not mentioned in the authorized scriptures.”
(SB, 4.16.1)
3) In addition, BVKS’s arguments here are contradicted by himself:
a) We just quoted BVKS in the last section stating that the actual cause of confusion in ISKCON is the existence of so many GBC “initiating gurus”. Hence, it makes no sense for BVKS to then claim that it will be these same GBC initiating gurus who can clear up this confusion, since he accepts that it is their very existence that has contributed to this problem.
b) BVKS also claimed, as quoted in the last section, that one of the “issues” where Srila Prabhupada is supposedly very difficult to understand is how the ISKCON “initiating gurus” arose in the first place – whether they can be appointed or voted in by the GBC. Hence, since one of the issues which needs to be cleared up is whether or not initiating gurus in ISKCON were legitimately created, he cannot then assume the existence of such persons as being the “guru” who will clear up such issues, as they may not even be bona fide gurus in the first place!
Thus, BVKS’s argument can be defeated by BVKS’s own arguments!
“We should just follow Srila Prabhupada, isn’t that right? What does Srila Prabhupada say about this? […]
“If a spiritual master does not speak according to the revealed scripture he is not to be accepted. […] The sastra is the centre for all.” (Cc., Madhya-lila, 20.352)
[…]
We should accept what Srila Prabhupada said, is it not? But Srila Prabhupada himself states that a spiritual master is not a spiritual master unless he accepts the sastra, and Srila Prabhupada always established that his authority is sastra, […] So, all of Srila Prabhupada’s teachings should be understood in this way as he taught us to understand them.”
Srila Prabhupada, as quoted by BVKS above, is simply stating that we must accept that he, Srila Prabhupada, the bona fide guru, does speak according to sastra. Thus, all Srila Prabhupada is stating here is the *fact* that he always speaks according to sastra. It was already stated in the previous section that we should accept and understand that Srila Prabhupada’s statements are already in line with sastra:
“A bona fide spiritual master does not mention anything not mentioned in the authorized scriptures.”
(SB, 4.16.1)
So understanding and accepting this fact does not conflict with, or change the fact, that “we should just follow Srila Prabhupada” and that “we should accept what Srila Prabhupada said”. Because Srila Prabhupada does not state that everything he states must be understood by first “checking” with or “consulting” sastra. Srila Prabhupada only states that we should just understand and accept that his statements are already sastric.
“We have in ISKCON our own tradition, which is, according to Srila Prabhupada’s own teachings, somewhat faulty. We have this tradition of quoting what Srila Prabhupada said in various circumstances and accepting what Srila Prabhupada says as the truth without trying to understand the sastric basis of what Srila Prabhupada said.”
BVKS claims the system of just “accepting what Srila Prabhupada says as the truth” is “faulty”. BVKS claiming this shows just how deviant ISKCON has become today. There was a time when just “accepting what Srila Prabhupada says as the truth” would be seen as evidence of “unflinching faith” in Srila Prabhupada, a badge of honour of fidelity to Srila Prabhupada:
"One who has got unflinching faith in the Supreme Lord and similar faith in his Spiritual Master to him only the imports of Vedic knowledge become revealed.''
(Srila Prabhupada Letter, 21/6/70)
Whereas now, such “unflinching faith” to Srila Prabhupada is considered faulty. BVKS claims the reason is because Srila Prabhupada has told us to first “understand the sastric basis of what Srila Prabhupada said”. But, as was just shown, this does mean just “accepting what Srila Prabhupada says as the truth”, because what he says is always in line with sastra, and in this way we have already understood the sastric basis of Srila Prabhupada’s teachings. As already established, nowhere has Srila Prabhupada stated that every one of his statements must first be “checked” or “harmonised” with sastra in order understand their “sastric basis”. Rather, it is the sastra which is understood through the guru, and not the other way around:
“Narottama dasa Thakura states that one has to ascertain the right path for his activities by following in the footsteps of great saintly persons and books of knowledge under the guidance of a spiritual master (sadhu-sastra-guru-vakya).”
(SB, 4.21.28-29)
“So our process is that sadhu, guru, sastra. We have to accept everything through saintly persons, confirmed by the scripture, and described or explained by guru. Then it is perfect. The scriptures are already there, and we have to see how the scriptures are being followed by saintly persons. And if there is any difficulties, they should be explained by the spiritual master. Then it is confirmed: sadhu-sastra-guru vakya [cittete koriya aikya]. Scriptures you cannot understand directly. Then you have to see how the scriptural injunctions are being followed by saintly persons. Even if you cannot understand, then the spiritual master will explain to you.”
(Srila Prabhupada, Philosophy Discussions - Henri Bergson)
“So, my point here is that, everything that Srila Prabhupada said can be harmonised, even if it’s apparently contradictory, if we employ the principles of understanding that he himself taught, and which he himself declared, gave him the authorisation to teach that a guru has to be understood in reference to the previous acaryas”
So now BVKS attempts to use his false “contradictory” and “harmonising” theses debunked above to claim that Srila Prabhupada has to be understood “in reference” to the previous acaryas”. But in an egregious display of just how ignorant BVKS is of Srila Prabhupada’s teachings, BVKS here has got everything back to front, and stated the opposite of what Srila Prabhupada taught. It is not that Srila Prabhupada is understood in reference to the previous acaryas, but rather that the previous acaryas are understood in reference to Srila Prabhupada:
“Suppose I have heard something from my spiritual master, so I speak to you the same thing. So this is parampara system. You cannot imagine what my spiritual master said. Or even if you read some books, you cannot understand unless you understand it from me. This is called parampara system. You cannot jump over to the superior guru, neglecting the next acarya, immediate next acarya.”
(Srila Prabhupada Lecture, 8/12/73)
“You cannot jump over. You must go through the parampara system. You have to approach through your spiritual master to the Gosvamis.”
(Srila Prabhupada Lecture, 28/3/75)
This is a basic concept called the “parampara” system, which forbids one to “jump over”.
“Within the Astha Matha, later formed by Sri Madhva Acarya, […] Now that system rests on one guru at the top. Srila Prabhupada instituted ISKCON in which the GBC should oversee everything. Not that there’s one guru, and who is the ultimate authority, but the GBC is the ultimate authority.”
1) The GBC is only the ultimate managing authority, rather than the ultimate authority:
“The Governing Body Commission (GBC) will be the ultimate managing authority of the entire International Society for Krishna Consciousness.”
(Srila Prabhupada’s Declaration of Will, First Point)
2) In ISKCON, there is “one guru” who is the ultimate authority, and his name is Srila Prabhupada:
“His Divine Grace A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada [...] the International Society for Krishna Consciousness of which He is the Founder-Acarya and supreme authority.”
(GBC Resolution 1, 1975)
“His Divine Grace A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada [...] He is the supreme authority in all matters of the society.”
(Topmost Urgency, Amendments to registration documents, 22/7/74, approved by Srila Prabhupada)
Despite BVKS having declared himself as being learned enough to give a seminar at ISKCON’s World Headquarters to teach everyone else how to understand Srila Prabhupada’s teachings, he does not even know very basic facts about Srila Prabhupada’s teachings.
“Various issues which are on the table at the moment, hot issues at the moment within our ISKCON society are; should disciples initiate in the presence of their gurus or not? Traditionally it seems to have been the norm, it’s there in the Hari Bhakti Vilasa, there’s indications that Srila Prabhupada was strongly against it. Seems to be a need for it at the present time, so there are pros and cons.”
1) BVKS makes a startling admission here that Srila Prabhupada “was strongly against” that which “traditionally it seems to have been the norm”. We say “startling admission” because this completely undercuts the argument that Srila Prabhupada cannot remain as the diksa guru of ISKCON because it would be against “tradition” – as BVKS accepts that Srila Prabhupada can be “strongly against” that which is “traditionally the norm”. Hence, such “tradition” arguments, according to BVKS, would be irrelevant in determining what Srila Prabhupada actually ordered.
2) Having accepted that Srila Prabhupada was “strongly against it” (initiating in the presence of one’s guru”), then there can be no question of it being a “hot issue”, or something for which there is a “need” or which has “pros and cons”, as the only “pro or con” which should matter in ISKCON is whether Srila Prabhupada is strongly for or against it. The fact that BVKS does not just point out this obvious fact, demonstrates his lack of understanding and acceptance of Srila Prabhupada’s supreme authority in ISKCON – which, as we saw, was also the case in the previous statement of his that we quoted.
“So on the basis that actually it’s not something that Srila Prabhupada directly said, or there’s not anything that we can find in sastra, it’s not in any tradition”
BVKS here refers to the IRM’s position that Srila Prabhupada continues to be ISKCON’s diksa guru, and offers as one of the arguments against this conclusion that “it’s not in any tradition”. Thus, BVKS here cites “it’s not in any tradition” as being relevant. But we have just quoted BVKS stating that Srila Prabhupada was “very strongly against” that which was “traditionally” done (in the case of disciples initiating in the presence of their gurus), thus establishing that BVKS accepts that tradition has no relevance to establishing the validity of Srila Prabhupada’s orders. And hence, BVKS has once again contradicted himself!
“Srila Prabhupada actually criticised his godbrothers in the Gaudiya Matha, who he said, after Bhaktisiddanta Sarasvati Thakur passed away, he had said to have a GBC for, a managing body for overseeing all the affairs of the Matha, but the followers of Bhaktisiddanta Sarasvati Thakur, they decided, no, we need one acarya, so Srila Prabhupada said that this was a mistake that they made and from the, when the first appointed acarya had serious problems, left the Matha, and that, the idea that there should be one sannyasi in charge, continues to the present day”
This is incorrect. Srila Prabhupada only criticised them for nominating/appointing the one acarya. But, the fact is that there should have been one acarya in charge. The GBC was simply to be the vehicle by which this one acarya would emerge through selection rather than nomination, but it was not set up because instead the acarya was nominated at the outset:
“His idea was acarya was not to be nominated amongst the governing body. He said openly you make a GBC and conduct the mission. So his idea was amongst the members of GBC who would come out successful and self effulgent acarya would be automatically selected."
(Srila Prabhupada Letter, 28/4/74)
"He asked that "You form a governing body of twelve men and go on preaching, and Kunja Babu may be allowed to remain manager during his lifetime." He never said that Kunja Babu should be acarya. None, none of them were advised by Guru Maharaja to become acarya. His idea was "Let them manage; then whoever will be actual qualified for becoming acarya, they will elect. Why I should enforce upon them?" That was his plan. "Let them manage by strong governing body, as it is going on. Then acarya will come by his qualification." "
(Srila Prabhupada, Room Conversation, 21/9/73)
Again, it would be helpful if BVKS did some basic reading of Srila Prabhupada’s works before rushing forth to give seminars on Srila Prabhupada’s teachings and simply misleading everyone.
“No one in between, there’s you and Jesus and the Bible and that’s it. Ever heard of anything like that in ISKCON? There’s you and Prabhupada and his books and that’s it.”
1) As a disciple of Srila Prabhupada, BVKS should know that there is no one “in between” Srila Prabhupada and himself. This is the basis of the guru-disciple relationship. Though the guru may connect one to Krishna, and can be said to be “between” the disciple and Krishna, the guru and disciple are directly connected and there is no one “in between” them. Other devotees may help the disciple, but they are not “in between” the disciple and Srila Prabhupada. And that was the system in ISKCON from the day it was founded in 1966 until Srila Prabhupada’s physical disappearance in 1977. So, never mind having “heard of anything like that”, BVKS, and everyone else, will have experienced that in ISKCON, pre-1978.
2) Similarly, Srila Prabhupada’s books are the basis for all teachings in ISKCON, and they will supply all answers:
“So utilize whatever time you find to make a thorough study of my books. Then all your questions will be answered."
(Srila Prabhupada Letter, 7/1/76)
"Every one of you must regularly read our books at least twice – in the morning and evening, and automatically all questions will be answered."
(Srila Prabhupada Letter, 24/1/70)
"In my books the philosophy of Krishna Consciousness is explained fully so if there is anything which you do not understand, then you simply have to read again and again. By reading daily the knowledge will be revealed to you and by this process your spiritual life will develop."
(Srila Prabhupada Letter, 22/11/74)
Thus, again, there is nothing “in between” Srila Prabhupada's books and the reader receiving all necessary transcendental knowledge in order for his spiritual life to develop. Hence, although today, due to the proliferation of some 80 “successor” gurus like BVKS and their deviant teachings, ISKCON may look very different – pre-1978, ISKCON did not have anything “in between” Srila Prabhupada, his books, and his disciples. BVKS therefore needs to “remind” himself of the glorious ISKCON which existed before Srila Prabhupada was “replaced” by the many “successor” gurus such as himself.
“When Srila Prabhupada named eleven who were first to initiate on Srila Prabhupada’s behalf, and I remember in 1977 I was in England and our GBC was Jayatirtha Prabhu who was one of the eleven who had been named, he came back from Vrindavan and said that Srila Prabhupada has appointed eleven persons to initiate on his behalf with the understanding that when Srila Prabhupada’s passed away they will continue to initiate. That was the understanding, they will initiate and be gurus in their own right as Srila Prabhupada said.”
1) This appointment of 11 ritviks that BVKS mentions Jayatirtha speaking about here happened on July 9th, 1977, when Srila Prabhupada issued a directive to all temples and GBCs where these eleven were named. In that directive it states about these eleven that:
“The newly initiated devotees are disciples of His Divine Grace A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupad, the above eleven senior devotees acting as His representative.”
(July 9th, 1977, directive)
However, there is no “understanding” given in this directive that Srila Prabhupada appointed these eleven men “with the understanding that when Srila Prabhupada passed away they will continue to initiate”. Indeed there is no mention of these eleven doing anything other than what is stated above – initiate only on behalf of Srila Prabhupada. Hence, “this understanding” that BVKS speaks of has just been made up.
2) BVKS then goes further and claims that “Srila Prabhupada said” that “they will initiate and be gurus in their own right”. This is another fabrication which can easily be verified as such by simply noting that there is no statement from Srila Prabhupada where he states, after appointing the eleven as ritviks, that they will be “gurus in their own right”. As has been common throughout this seminar, BVKS makes wild claims which, if they were actually true rather than just “fake news”, would be easy to substantiate with recorded quotes from Srila Prabhupada. But he never presents such quotes. Instead, he only makes the wild claims.
“Another big issue at the present time is should women initiate? It’s pretty straight forward one, isn’t it? I mean on the spiritual platform everyone’s equal so it’s a no brainer, right? […] We may ask them then why did Srila Prabhupada when he had named eleven then to be the first ritviks, who later became gurus, why were they all men?”
1) As we noted under an earlier section, this is a non-issue because Srila Prabhupada did not authorise successor gurus, male or female, to replace him as ISKCON’s diksa guru.
2) Though this is a non-issue and therefore not relevant, we can still note that BVKS does not even understand how to present an argument for this non-issue:
a) These eleven “first ritviks” went and “became gurus” without any authority, as we just explained in the previous point. Thus, BVKS is not even speaking of valid gurus anyway, whilst discussing who can become a valid bona fide guru.
b) Further, arguing on the basis of the characteristics of persons appointed is irrelevant unless they represent some spiritual principle. Otherwise one can just as easily ask in regards to the same eleven “first ritviks”, “why were they all Americans?”. Which is an irrelevant question since there is no underlying spiritual principle which states that only Americans can become gurus. Similarly, if there is an underlying spiritual principle that only men can become gurus, then BVKS just needs to state that, and the matter is over. Of course, in this case it does not matter one way or another due to point 1) above, but it just reflects BVKS’s overall inability to reason logically, which has been demonstrated throughout this paper.
“The Final Order, although there actually was no final order of Prabhupada, there wasn’t that Prabhupada his last order was said, ‘Okay, ritvikism.’ There’s no such thing. It’s an imagination.”
BVKS introduces the IRM’s position paper, titled The Final Order (TFO), and labels the conclusion of TFO that Srila Prabhupada is ISKCON’s diksa guru as “ritvikism”. TFO is so titled in recognition of the fact that Srila Prabhupada’s final order in regards to initiations in ISKCON was the July 9th, 1977 directive which enabled initiations to continue in ISKCON through the use of representatives, or “ritviks”. That this was the final order for initiations is established by the fact that no other order for how initiations would be conducted in ISKCON was issued by Srila Prabhupada after this date, nor was this final order subsequently terminated by Srila Prabhupada. Hence, the only “imagination” at play here is BVKS imagining that the July 9th, 1977 directive, which appointed ritviks, was not the final order for initiations in ISKCON issued by Srila Prabhupada.
“Okay, put up the great ritvik quote. This is a quote from The Final Order, a book written by Krishnakant Desai:
“The important point is that, although the ritvik system may be totally unique, it does not violate higher order sastric principles. It is testament to Srila Prabhupada’s genius that he was able to mercifully apply such sastric principles in new and novel ways according to time, place and circumstance.’”
BVKS has the quote above from The Final Order read out, and he then makes a number of points about this quote which will be covered below, and we will thus be referring back to this quote.
“Hmm. So here it’s stated that the ritvik system is unique, it’s never been seen before, which gives the idea that it doesn’t conform to sastra.”
1) BVKS here claims that if something is unique, that is, it has “never been seen before”, then it “doesn’t conform to sastra”. But Srila Prabhupada has never taught that if something has not happened before, then it must “not conform to sastra”. Unless BVKS can quote Srila Prabhupada stating this, then he is not presenting Srila Prabhupada’s teachings. Which means this whole seminar, which is supposed to be about how to “understand and apply Srila Prabhupada’s teachings”, becomes self-defeating, because he is not presenting Srila Prabhupada’s teachings to begin with!
2) Further, by making this point, BVKS is demonstrating what a hypocrite he is, for the GBC accept that even the guru system by which BVKS himself became a guru is “unique”:
“ISKCON’s ethos of multiple diksa- and siksa-gurus serving under the auspices of a global managerial board is unique in the history of Vaisnavism.”
(GBC Resolution 318, 2014)
Indeed, it is a historical fact that no such “global managerial board” (Governing Body Commission/“GBC”) has ever existed before, much less one to which multiple diksa gurus were subordinate, since no global Vaisnava society, such as ISKCON, has ever existed before. Hence, if BVKS truly believed that unique things were unsastric, then he would have to reject himself for being an “unsastric” guru via such a unique GBC system, which hypocritically he has not done!
“but it claims to, that it does not violate higher order sastric principles, in other words, there’s nothing we can find in the sastra about this, but there is some higher order which, we can’t find it, or, but it’s higher, so, we can’t find it.”
Unfortunately, BVKS simply reveals his illiteracy in not even being able to read the quote from The Final Order, which he just had quoted to him. The quote simply states that Srila Prabhupada continuing to remain the diksa guru of ISKCON through using representatives (“ritviks”) to conduct initiation ceremonies – “the ritvik system” – does not violate “higher order sastric principles”. It states nothing about “some higher order” which cannot be found because it is “higher”.
“If you say, well we’re gonna introduce, or Srila Prabhupada wanted to introduce this, he didn’t explicitly say it, no previous acarya has introduced this, there’s nothing in sastra about this, but it’s Prabhupada’s genius that he didn’t say it, but we understood it, that it doesn’t conflict with higher order spiritual principles.”
BVKS has already admitted that Srila Prabhupada introduced the “ritvik system” for ISKCON. We quoted him earlier stating:
“Srila Prabhupada when he had named eleven then to be the first ritviks”
Hence, neither we, nor BVKS, are even claiming that Srila Prabhupada “didn’t explicitly say it”, because clearly he did explicitly introduce the ritvik system.
Thus, it is up to BVKS and others who claim that this system is against sastra to state those “sastric” principles the system supposedly violates.
“But they, they give this idea that actually it, there’s nothing in sastra about it but it’s not, actually it’s not against sastra. So stating this you could bring out anything, isn’t it?”
1) This is more illiterate nonsense. There are many sastric principles, obviously, since sastra exists, setting out … sastric principles! And one cannot do anything which would violate them. Hence, you could not “bring out anything”, as anything which violated sastric principles would be forbidden. But simply using representative (“ritviks”) to conduct initiation ceremonies does not violate any sastric principle – otherwise Srila Prabhupada would not have done it!
2) BVKS contradicts himself (again!) because he already accepts that his very guru position, which comes about due to the GBC rubber-stamping gurus, is something for which there is “nothing in sastra”:
“Obviously sastra does not state what the GBC should do, so it is silly to ask "Where does Sastra say that a group of GBCs can rubber-stamp Gurus?" In fact, sastra gives little or no guidelines for organization of religious groups.”
(BVKS article, 19/1/13)
Hence, if BVKS truly believed that if there is “nothing in sastra” about something it should not be done because otherwise you could just do “anything”, the first thing he should have attacked is the GBC’s voting-in guru system. But instead of attacking it, he happily lined up to become voted in by it!
“Well, that’s the reason we have sastra, to make everything clear, and we have, if it’s not clear then the acarya clarifies it.”
So then let BVKS state that “clear” sastric principle which is violated by Srila Prabhupada continuing to remain the diksa guru of his own society, for which he is the Acarya and founder. Yet, he has never been able to do so, simply proving that no sastric principles are violated.
“And if you say that well, actually this is, we’ve come up with something, we didn’t come up with it, it’s actually Prabhupada, we can understand, when he said that ‘I want all my disciples to initiate,’ he didn’t really mean that, or he was just encouraging his disciples who were ambitious, but the real thing he wanted was this ritvik system.”
BVKS here invents a fake quote from Srila Prabhupada: “I want all my disciples to initiate”. No such quote exists from Srila Prabhupada.
“Is there any statement of Srila Prabhupada’s like that? ‘I’m –‘, with ritvikism, ‘I’m now instituting a new system of initiation’? He didn’t say such a thing. Why do the ritvikvadis say it?”
Is there any statement in TFO like that – “instituting a new system of initiation”? TFO does not say such a thing. Why does BVKS say we do? We saw above BVKS having the courage to directly quote a sentence from TFO and attempt to answer what was stated there. Though we saw that he fails miserably in attempting to do this, at least he is dealing with what TFO actually states. So instead of just making up what we supposedly say, he should have the courage to directly quote what we say and attempt to answer that. Otherwise he is answering nothing other than his own imaginations.
“When it was seen that gurus in ISKCON were falling down, it was presumed that Srila Prabhupada could not have wanted this, and therefore he must have wanted something else, although he didn’t say that, or write it, but he must have wanted something else. […] But this whole idea was made up, invoking Srila Prabhupada’s authority, supposedly”
BVKS speaks here of TFO’s conclusion that Srila Prabhupada remains ISKCON’s diksa guru. However, he is caught doing exactly what he claims to be exposing and criticising. Because it is he who “presumes” that the conclusion that Srila Prabhupada remains ISKCON diksa guru was “made up” in response to guru falldowns. This is a presumption because he does not present any evidence for his claim. Whereas, on the contrary, The Final Order presents this conclusion solely on the basis of Srila Prabhupada’s orders without any reliance on the falldown of ISKCON gurus to make its case. Anyone who reads TFO will see this. One may disagree that the orders presented there mean that Srila Prabhupada remains ISKCON’s diksa guru, but one cannot disagree that the conclusion is based on those orders alone, without any reliance on guru falldowns. Indeed, TFO specifically accepts that ISKCON devotees can even be pure and still have to follow the ritvik system, (see page 57 – online PDF version), thereby making the qualification of the ISKCON gurus, or lack thereof, irrelevant.
“So, the idea comes first, and then the interpretation comes later.”
The evidence, and history, has shown that this actually applies only to the ISKCON guru system which replaced Srila Prabhupada as ISKCON’s diksa guru. ISKCON’s leaders first started with the idea that somehow or other Srila Prabhupada must be replaced as ISKCON’s diksa guru by themselves. And then to support this they made up various ever-changing and contradictory theories over the years. Here are just some examples:
a) Initially they claimed Srila Prabhupada appointed 11 successors to take over from him – the zonal acarya hoax, or Great Guru Hoax Part 1 (see GBC Resolution 16, 1978).
b) They then claimed that this did not actually happen, and instead everyone and anyone can become a guru, as long as the GBC gives the necessary votes of approval (see GBC Resolution 3, March 30, 1986). This was the system that BVKS took advantage of to himself become elected as a diksa guru.
c) They also first claimed that such a GBC guru system is necessary due to the “law of disciplic succession”, which necessitates both that the disciple succeeds his guru to become a guru himself (see GBC Resolution 73, 1990), and also that this succession must take place only after his guru has physically disappeared (see GBC Resolution 60, 1993). They subsequently reversed both these stipulations, and allowed disciples to both initiate in their own gurus’ physical presence and at the same time that their gurus continued to initiate, with no succession taking place.
d) In 1998, the GBC’s Ministry of Protection issued a paper titled “Prabhupada’s Order” which supposedly answered TFO. In this paper, they presented quotes from Srila Prabhupada which specifically addressed all his disciples e.g. “boys and girls” (Lecture, 22/8/73), and claimed that these quotes were thus orders for all his disciples, both male and female, to become diksa gurus. Currently they have reversed this, and stated that there is a “moratorium” on females becoming diksa gurus (GBC Resolution 308, 2018), and that the subject still needs to be “researched”.
e) In 1995 (GBC Resolution 66), they stated that the paper “On My Order” established the “final siddhanta”, or final philosophical conclusion, regarding Srila Prabhupada’s orders for continuing the disciplic succession. In 2004 they reversed this, and stated that “numerous” times this paper contained “assumptions and assertions” that did “not match the available evidence from the statements of Srila Prabhupada” (GBC Resolution 409, 2004).
Thus, the GBC will say virtually anything, including the exact opposite of what they have already stated, to try to support their original idea that somehow, by any means necessary, they must become diksa guru successors to Srila Prabhupada. Hence, though BVKS may simply claim what he believes happened, we are able to prove that it was the GBC, and not TFO, which did what he claims, with documented evidence, rather than just the fake empty claims that BVKS provides.
“we have in ISKCON also our, uh, oh not in ISKCON, well they say it’s ISKCON, ritvikism. Now if you read Srila Prabhupada’s books day and night, all your life, you’ll never come up with any idea of ritvikism”
1) If you read Srila Prabhupada’s books day and night the only conclusion you can come up with is that Srila Prabhupada explains everything by quoting and referencing the sastras.
2) The other conclusion that one will come to by reading Srila Prabhupada’s books day and night, is that BVKS is not explaining anything, because he is not mentioned at all in Srila Prabhupada’s books.
Hence, because of the fact that it is the guru who explains the sastra –
“Narottama dasa Thakura states that one has to ascertain the right path for his activities by following in the footsteps of great saintly persons and books of knowledge under the guidance of a spiritual master (sadhu-sastra-guru-vakya).”
(SB, 4.21.28-29)
– then by points 1) and 2) above, we will conclude that Srila Prabhupada is the guru, rather than BVKS. So, actually the one idea you will never get from reading Srila Prabhupada’s books day and night is that somehow it is BVKS, and not Srila Prabhupada, who is explaining the sastra, and thus acting as our guru. And, as already explained, “ritvikism” is just BVKS’s label for the simple notion that Srila Prabhupada, and not he (and others), is always the diksa guru for everyone in ISKCON.
“And therefore, we have, uh, ritvikism, is a major split. […] No, it’s not died down, there’s a whole world of ritvikism going on, all around us at the present moment.”
BVKS acknowledges that the influence of The Final Order is still strong. This is not surprising, since BVKS has already stated that:
"The Final Order by Krishnakant Desai has been perhaps the most influential post-1977 publication in the Vaisnava world.”
(BVKS article, 12/1/13)
The reason for this is that, as we have seen from BVKS’s statements in this seminar, it cannot be defeated!
BVKS gives severe criticisms of ISKCON’s leaders in the seminar, stating that:
a) “they don’t accept Srila Prabhupada’s statements”, and thus, “this has very deep ramifications”.
b) they “don’t like what Prabhupada said” and “don’t accept his authority”.
c) they want to institute things which are “highly speculative”.
d) they are “against” and “don’t follow his (Srila Prabhupada’s) orders” on “a major issue”; that “following his (Srila Prabhupada’s) instructions” has “been dropped” by them, and that all this is “very inauspicious”.
1) Almost 2/3rds of ISKCON’s leaders, the GBC, are also GBC-authorised successor diksa gurus. Thus, these criticisms would also apply to many of these gurus.
2) These criticisms make it clear that these persons, far from being fit to be such gurus, are not even qualified to be disciples, since they refuse to accept the authority, or follow the orders, of their spiritual master Srila Prabhupada. Yet, despite such persons not even being qualified to be disciples, never mind gurus, BVKS still accepts that such leaders who are gurus should be worshipped every morning as those who are “assisting the gopis”, as is the system in ISKCON for the GBC gurus. Because, despite all these valid criticisms, at no point does BVKS ever call for such deviants to immediately be stripped of their guruship.
3) Thus, despite his conducting a seminar to teach the rest of us how to “understand” Srila Prabhupada, and other lofty topics such as “harmonising” sastra and so on, he is himself unable to figure out that 2 + 2 = 4. Which is that if one is not even a disciple, as he correctly claims about the whole of ISKCON’s leadership, then one cannot possibly be a guru. He is unable to figure out that if one is a deviant who has rejected Srila Prabhupada’s authority and instructions, then it means that one is not also to be accepted and worshipped as the highest spiritually advanced “good as God” diksa guru.
4) Therefore, BVKS is urging others to follow and listen to him, even though he is unable to figure out the most basic of conclusions to his own points! Or worse, he actually fully understands this conclusion, but refuses to state it because his main interest is not speaking the truth, but to not endanger his own GBC-authorised guru position. And thus if he claimed that ISKCON basically has no bona fide gurus (other than himself and others who agree fully with him), then it could lead to his own GBC guru position coming under threat.
“The GBC body, objectively speaking, has made mistakes, serious mistakes, they admit to that themselves, so, to make a major change like this, which will affect the whole future course of the Vaishnava society, […] it is inappropriate for the GBC body to venture into a domain of this nature that has momentous and far reaching implications of a permanent nature for the Krishna Consciousness movement”
This refers to the GBC’s earlier proposal to allow female diksa gurus, and BVKS is here quoting ISKCON managers in India who are opposed to this, and with whom BVKS agrees. The quote goes on to state that due to this change being so far-reaching –
“ “in-depth discussion on the topic can take place with representatives of both views pro and con” ”
– before the matter is decided. BVKS then continues:
“So this is my position, minimally that there should be in-depth discussion before any major change of this nature takes place. I am certainly on one side of the spectrum in this regard, but I’m willing to listen to what others have to say but the point is there should be some discussion and it would seem to be very disrespectful of the GBC body to just ignore the Indian leaders’ request for an in-depth discussion before they make such a massive change. It’s going to be a major change.”
If just female diksa gurus is considered to be such a massive change that would affect ISKCON, then the whole GBC guru system of both male and female diksa gurus who are voted in by the GBC is an even bigger change. For such a system would unleash potentially thousands of gurus onto ISKCON for thousands of years, and would permanently remove Srila Prabhupada’s Acarya status in ISKCON by disabling the Acarya’s function of accepting disciples (Cc. Adi-lila, 1.46). Further, such a change:
a) Is stated by the GBC’s own advisory body, the Sastric Advisory Committee (SAC), to not be in accordance with “guru, sadhu and sastra”:
"Our present system has institutionalized a process of senior devotees voting or offering no-objection to prospective gurus. But we do not find that this institutionalized blessing seeking process is mentioned by guru, sadhu or sastra as the way that one is authorized to become a guru."
(Balancing the Roles of the GBC and the Disciple in Guru Selection, SAC)
b) As quoted earlier, BVKS has himself admitted that sastra does not speak at all about gurus being made by an organisation like the GBC:
“Obviously sastra does not state what the GBC should do, so it is silly to ask "Where does Sastra say that a group of GBCs can rubber-stamp Gurus?" In fact, sastra gives little or no guidelines for organization of religious groups.”
(BVKS article, 19/1/13)
c) It is accepted by the GBC that the current GBC guru system was not given by Srila Prabhupada. Directly referencing the current GBC guru system, HH Jayadvaita Swami (“JAS”) stated:
“Is this an outright fabrication or not? That Srila Prabhupada “personally detailed the procedure for increasing the number of initiating guru[s]” is something we can only wish. Or falsely tell the Society he did.”
(JAS, 13/12/03)
The above forms part of a submission by JAS that led to the current GBC position on guru succession, as given by GBC Resolution 409, 2004, mentioned earlier.
Hence, if female diksa gurus are considered by BVKS to be a massive change deserving in-depth discussion between representatives of both sides, then the whole GBC guru system of both male and female diksa gurus, which is admitted to not be according to guru, sadhu and sastra, should also by the same standard, have deserved such an in-depth discussion before being introduced. But BVKS was not calling for any such in-depth discussion. Rather, he was too busy lining up to get rubber stamped himself to become a “good as God” guru by such a system. Thus, this displays how Kali-yuga is the age of hypocrisy. That change which gives one power and suits one is considered to warrant no further discussion, even though it may result in major change and has no support from guru, sadhu and sastra. But that change which does not suit one must deserve an in-depth discussion!
“How do you convince a person who does not have or agree to discuss on the basis of that seemingly very rare commodity called common sense? […] How do we solve such issues? Is it just by brute force, you make a roar, ‘boom’, finished? ‘We are the managing authority and you just do what we say.’ That’s not the way brahmins should do things, maybe Stalins, but not brahmins.”
Yet, this was exactly what was done in regards to the issue of Srila Prabhupada remaining the guru of ISKCON. With brute force, those not accepting the GBC’s version, particularly Temple Presidents who had accepted The Final Order, were kicked out of ISKCON and “finished”. BVKS supported such an approach and was not calling for any “brahminical” discussion. This despite the fact that “On My Order”, the very GBC paper The Final Order was addressing, was withdrawn by the GBC after TFO was released, and no subsequent official GBC paper has ever directly addressed TFO’s actual points by quoting and answering them. This is proven by the desperation which forced BVKS to point only to a non-GBC paper as being a document which he claims answers TFO, even though this paper states that he himself is a deviant guru (see here)! Thus, this is more evidence of how Kali-yuga is the age of hypocrisy. One whines about the heavy-handed manner in which the GBC ram through issues, brooking no opposition, having already supported the exact same approach when it suited oneself. Maybe BVKS should familiarise himself with the law of karma!
BVKS states in his seminar that:
“In Kali-yuga truthfulness will be ascertained by whoever is the most audacious, […] people are stupid, and just by asserting something people tend to accept it. There’s this whole concept of fake news, if you put something out […] and repeat it again and again and again, […] So, fake news, making fake news and people believe it”
Yet as proven by the in-depth documentation provided above, BVKS’s seminar from start to finish consists of:
- Contradiction
- Hypocrisy
- Fake claims
- Fake quotes
And thus, it is he who is guilty of putting out “fake news” by just asserting various nonsense, and then relying on people being “stupid” and not checking the facts for themselves, and instead just swallowing his made-up nonsense.
Return to Bhakti Vikasa Swami Index
Return to IRM Homepage