Defeating the Big Lie - 2


Back To Prabhupada, Issue 41, Autumn 2013

In the preceding article, we demonstrated how HH Bhakti Vikasa Swami ("BVKS")'s repeated claim regarding what Srila Prabhupada teaches in his books was proven to be false. There are two reasons why such false claims are able to con the masses in ISKCON. One reason is that, utilising the infamous "big lie" technique mentioned in the previous article, it is hoped that the masses will not bother to verify such repeated claims, but instead just assume that because they are continually repeated, they must be true! This relies on the laziness and blind faith of the masses to not bother to actually check what they are told by their "authorities", because it is hoped that the masses will assume that no one would be so foolish as to keep repeating an obvious lie. This is the psychology of the so-called "big lie" in action. The second reason involves using false definitions and positions regarding the issues in question, and it is this line of cheating that we will analyse below.

"Rtvik theory" bluff

In the preceding article, BVKS used terms such as "rtvik theory", "rtvik-vada", etc., to categorise the IRM's position, which he then claims Srila Prabhupada never preached in his books. It is a fact that Srila Prabhupada did not preach a "rtvik theory", or "rtvikism", or "rtvik-vada", and so on, insomuch as Srila Prabhupada never preached about these things. However, as we demonstrated in the article "Srila Prabhupada v. The rtviks" in BTP 37, it is actually those guru hoaxers who are opposing the IRM's position who are proposing a de-facto "rtvik" system, whereas the IRM is actually proposing a diksa guru system. So yes, if you search Srila Prabhupada's books for a "rtvik theory", you will not find it. But then the IRM does not propose such a "theory" either! We simply state the following facts:

a) Srila Prabhupada established himself as the diksa guru of ISKCON from the moment ISKCON was founded in 1966.

b) He established an initiation system using representatives ("rtviks") which allowed him to initiate disciples in ISKCON without needing to be physically present.

c) He never ceased acting as ISKCON's diksa guru by authorising either BVKS or anyone else to take his place.

These facts are supported by Srila Prabhupada's teachings.

"Fall-down" bluff

In one of the lectures we quoted in the preceding article, BVKS actually defines the "rtvik theory", which he claims Srila Prabhupada never preached, as follows:

"Well, Prabhupada, he couldn't have made these people gurus because Prabhupada would know that they would have fallen down, and therefore he must have wanted this."
(BVKS lecture, 4/2/2013)

This is not the IRM's position. The IRM does not:
a) Speculate regarding why Srila Prabhupada would do something;
b) Then offer that speculation as the evidence that he must have done it!
Rather, as we stated in the last section, we simply state what Srila Prabhupada actually did and ordered, ask that everyone accept this and follow such orders, and leave it at that.

Not necessary

In one of the other lectures we quoted in the preceding article, BVKS defines "rtvikism" as follows:

"there are some who say that Srila Prabhupada is the only guru for the next 10,000 years."
(BVKS Lecture, 31/8/2012)

Categorising the IRM's position in this way can then be followed with the following argumentation:

1) It is claimed that Srila Prabhupada is the only guru.
2) To support this, a quote where Srila Prabhupada states he is to be the "only" guru is needed.
3) Since Srila Prabhupada never states this, the IRM's position is defeated.

However, the need for Srila Prabhupada to state he is the "only" guru would only arise for the following reason -- to counteract an assumption that successor diksa gurus in ISKCON are supposed to follow. And if such an assumption is unfounded, then no such counter-assertions by Srila Prabhupada are required in the first place. Because if Srila Prabhupada has not authorised any other diksa gurus to succeed him, then he will automatically continue to exist as ISKCON's sole diksa guru. And, the fact is that in Srila Prabhupada's books, if read "from beginning to end" (to use BVKS's language), one will find no statement from Srila Prabhupada that:

a) He will cease to act as ISKCON's diksa guru;
b) Instead, others, such as his disciples, will act as diksa gurus in ISKCON.

Therefore, in order to accurately frame the challenge presented by the IRM, which BVKS claims to be presenting, BVKS would actually need to state:

"There are some, like myself, who say that Srila Prabhupada will be succeeded by other diksa gurus in ISKCON. And, in fact, if you read Prabhupada's books all the way through from beginning to end, you'd never, ever, get the idea for this, because there's nothing like that in there whatsoever."

And BVKS would be correct!

Assumption trick

The previous section illustrated the following trick which is used to support the guru hoax position:

1) Make an assumption.
2) Use this assumption to demand a specific counter-quote from Srila Prabhupada, which, because the original assumption was unfounded, does not actually need to exist in the first place.

Here are some more examples of this trick in action:

1) Assume that successor diksa gurus should exist in ISKCON.
2) Demand that Srila Prabhupada states "there will be no more diksa gurus after me".

Again, since Srila Prabhupada has not authorised any successor diksa gurus to start with, he does not need to make such a counter-statement.

1) Assume the spiritual master stops initiating when he departs.
2) Demand Srila Prabhupada states "I will continue to initiate after my departure".

Since the assumption here is unfounded, again Srila Prabhupada is not required to make such a declaration to counteract a non-existent restriction.

One can actually prove anything if one starts with a false assumption! Thus, if one wishes to claim that one should be a diksa guru in ISKCON, or whatever, then one actually needs to provide evidence for that. Not construct an argument which relies entirely on having implicitly assumed it to begin with.


1) The "big lie" can easily be defeated if devotees will always insist on checking and verifying all claims. The IRM has been completely successful in defeating the guru hoaxers only because it follows this simple rule.

2) If you begin by falsely defining and framing the position you are claiming to rebut, then you can "defeat" any position. It's just straightforward cheating.

Return to IRM Homepage

Please chant: Hare Krishna, Hare Krishna, Krishna, Krishna, Hare, Hare,
Hare Rama, Hare Rama, Rama, Rama, Hare, Hare.
And be Happy!