Back To Prabhupada, Issue 59, Vol 3, 2018
nlike the usual combination of rumour, gossip, hearsay and "Prabhupada said" references that is found on many "Vaisnava" websites, the IRM's publications are always 100% documented with solid proof. Consequently, even those who are supporters of the guru hoax have been forced to circulate our materials, which document ISKCON's many deviations. For example, our famous "ISKCON's 50th anniversary special" diagram – which can be seen here – summarising ISKCON's main deviations, was recently circulated on social media by those who reject Srila Prabhupada remaining as ISKCON's diksa guru. Though they were forced to agree in principle with the deviations listed in that diagram, a proviso was added that this diagram had been provided by those "whose pretense is that the eternal parampara system ends with HDG Srila Prabhupada". Of course, the only pretence here is the pretence that we actually claim this! We state that Srila Prabhupada is the diksa guru for ISKCON, not eternity! A fact even ISKCON has agreed with in their "Foundational Document" titled Srila Prabhupada: The Founder-Acarya of ISKCON, in which they accept that Srila Prabhupada is the only Acarya for ISKCON, and that the position of Acarya includes acting as diksa guru.
However, this phenomenon of agreeing that in many ways ISKCON is deviating, but still rejecting Srila Prabhupada remaining as ISKCON's diksa guru, has given rise to what can be termed the "some GBC gurus are okay" fallacy. Thus, it will be claimed that although there may be widespread deviation in ISKCON, some GBC guru is still bona fide because he opposes the deviations. We state this idea as a fallacy, because it suffers from what can be termed as the "chain of deviation". For example, in previous BTP issues we have exposed GBC guru HH Bhakti Charu Swami ("BCS") promoting demigod worship. Following our exposé, another GBC guru, HH Danavir Goswami ("DG") had issued a statement agreeing that such demigod worship was wrong. This prompted some readers to state that although BTP does correctly expose deviations in ISKCON, it does not mean all the GBC gurus are also deviant, since some, like DG, are also opposing the same deviations. However, there are many other GBC gurus who still support BCS as being a bona fide guru – call them group B. Those who agree that demigod worship is a deviation will also have to agree that BCS is not a bona fide guru, because he deviated. And thus, for them, the gurus in group B are also not bona fide gurus, because they support BCS as being a bona fide guru, even though he is actually not a bona fide guru. Because no bona fide gurus will ever err in considering that which is not bona fide, to actually be bona fide: "Therefore we must have a guru where exact knowledge is coming, without any mistake" (Srila Prabhupada Lecture, 23/7/73, emphases added).
And then if there were other GBC gurus who, though they accepted that BCS was not a bona fide guru, did accept some of the gurus in group B as being bona fide gurus, they would form another group of gurus C, who also were not bona fide gurus, by the same logic given above for the gurus in group B. Because even though the group C gurus did accept that BCS was not a bona fide guru, they still accept gurus in group B to be bona fide gurus, even though they are not. And so on:
Deviation -> guru (BCS) who deviated –> gurus B not bona fide gurus, because they incorrectly support BCS as being a bona fide guru -> gurus C not bona fide gurus, because they incorrectly support group B gurus as being bona fide gurus -> gurus D not bona fide gurus, because they incorrectly support group C gurus as being bona fide gurus -> gurus E ... -> and so on.
This is called the "chain of deviation". Therefore, from the perspective of those who do accept that demigod worship is a deviation, it cannot be enough for DG to simply oppose the deviation of demigod worship. He would also need to condemn BCS as not being a bona fide guru for deviating. And he would also need to similarly condemn all the gurus in group B, and every other single guru in the chain of deviation above, as not being bona fide gurus. Which, since all GBC gurus virtually accept all the other GBC gurus as being bona fide gurus, would effectively mean that DG would have to basically condemn every other GBC guru in ISKCON! Otherwise, he himself would be a member somewhere in the above chain of deviation, as not being a bona fide guru, since he would still be accepting as bona fide, gurus who were not bona fide. And he, and every other GBC guru who claims to oppose some deviations in ISKCON, actually are in this chain of deviation. Because DG and all the other GBC gurus do not condemn virtually all of their GBC guru colleagues as not being bona fide gurus. (Of course even if a GBC guru did do this, he would still not be a bona fide authorised diksa guru for ISKCON, since Srila Prabhupada did not authorise any successor gurus to replace him).
Thus, it is a fallacy to claim that any GBC guru is bona fide while correctly accepting that ISKCON is deviating.
Return to IRM Homepage