Autumn 2007
| ISKCON guru hypocrisy – 1 |
 |
"But in order to improve our attendance
and attitudes at the daily guru-puja, we have to realize
that Srila Prabhupada is present. We must pray for that
realization. We should know that he is present on the vyasasana; and we should know that he is pleased by our
enthusiastic participation. It is not a dull routine, but an
opportunity to daily meet and glorify Srila Prabhupada in the
most appropriate way." (Srila Prabhupada`s Pastimes, Satsvarupa dasa Goswami, Gita-nagari Press) |
So, according to one of the original 11 ISKCON
guru hoaxers, Satsvarupa Das (pictured above), 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.
| ISKCON guru hypocrisy – 2 |
| "This is the first time in Vaisnava
history that we see a functioning worldwide institution with a
committee in charge. We are in uncharted waters! But one thing
is clear. Srila Prabhupada did say we should keep the Acarya in the center. […] If one of his followers, who happens to have the duty of initiating in his ISKCON society, undermines or minimizes the instructions found in his books and lectures then how can we expect a sincere Iskcon devotee not to protest, even if the one minimizing him happens to have given him initiation?" (HH Trivikrama Swami Maharaja, 'Dandavats' website, 18/6/2007) |
 |
Here we see that in one fell swoop, ISKCON guru
HH Trivikrama Swami Maharaja (pictured above), 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!
| ISKCON guru hypocrisy – 3 |
| “It is essential to have direct
personal interaction with one’s guru so that one can make sure
that one is actually satisfying the spiritual master by one’s
attitude, one’s words, and one’s actions […] The guru therefore
needs to be physically present to directly answer the questions
of his disciples.” (Sankarshan Das, May 20th, 2007) |
 |
Sankarshan Das (pictured above), 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.
| ISKCON guru hypocrisy – 4 |
Fact 1: In 1985, Caru Das, becomes a GBC
endorsed guru in 1985 as part of the Great Guru Hoax part 2:
 |
"4. The GBC gives its blessings to
those who have begun to give formal initiations since September,
1985. They are as follows: […] 7. Caru das Adhikari - Los Angeles, Utah" (GBC Resolutions, 1986) |
Fact 2: A recent GBC list of their
approved gurus continues to have Caru Das's name (pictured above), and on April 29th,
2007, he initiates 3 devotees:
| "Then, Bhakta Blake, Bhakta Justin, and
Bhaktin Mikela were no more, but now Bharat Das, Jairam Das, and
Mekala Devi, as Caru returned them their japa beads, and
well wishing devotees tied their kunti mala around their
necks. […] A fair number of devotees from Utah have been initiated in the last 20 years, but none from Spanish Fork and nearby Payson" (Website of Utah Krishna Temple, Temple President Caru Das) |
Fact 3: Caru Das attends the 2007 ISKCON
North America Temple Presidents and GBC meetings as the Temple President
for the Temple in Utah:
| "North American Temple presidents and
GBC (Governing Board Commission) meetings were held in Houston
Thursday thru Saturday. I went to the first day and a half.
[...] Friday morning Amarendra, the attorney, explained the drafting of bylaws in progress designed to protect temple properties. …" (Caru Das, Report, 20/5/2007) |
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:
| "He (Caru Das) is not currently a GBC
approved initiating guru. He does not support the GBC and does
not recognize their authority. […] The only reason I took initiation from him was because he told me that although he was not a ritvik authorized by Srila Prabhupada he would give me initiation on his behalf. If that was alright with me. He does not allow Guru puja and he tells us all that Srila Prabhupada is our spiritual master and that we can associate with him by reading his books, listening to his lectures, and watching video footage of him." (Bhakta Justin/Jairama Das, E-mail, June 20th, 2007) |
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").
| ISKCON guru hypocrisy – 5 |
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:
| "One of the most damaging attack is his claim that he is the real successor of Srila Prabhupada. If that is the case, then why did he not make that claim for so many years? It is only recently, in the late-nineties, when the leading devotees disassociated themselves from him, that he took this stand. If all these points are clearly explained to the devotees who are naturally quite intelligent, I am confident that they will understand." (BCS Letter, June 27th, 2007) |  |
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:
| "Maharaja may be a very charismatic
personality, […] So if we remind our devotees of the importance of Srila Prabhupada's role in their life and the importance of their being sheltered by ISKCON, I am sure that many devotees will understand and will not go away, being allured by him." (BCS Letter, June 27th, 2007) |
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.
| Yet more ISKCON guru hypocrisy |
HH Bhakti Caru Swami admits he is not acting as
diksa guru
| “Generally, a guru establishes a link
between Krsna and his disciple. However, in ISKCON, I very
strongly believe that our responsibility is to help you approach
the lotus feet of Srila Prabhupada, and Srila Prabhupada, as the
pre-eminent acarya, takes you to Krsna and engages you in
His service.” (10/6/07, BCS Istaghosti, Text PAMHO:13658994) |
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.
| ISKCON guru rules out his own tape ministry |
|
 |
| Devotee #1: | Sabda-brahma is Krishna in sound vibration? |
| Gour Govinda Swami: | Yes. One has to hear. It is not that, “All right, tapes are there, I’ll hear the recorded tapes.” Sabda-brahma will never descend. |
| Devotee #2: | It doesn’t descend through transmission of tape? |
| Gour Govinda Swami: | No, no. [...] You should be
greedy. Physical contact is required. You must hear directly, not just by listening to tapes. Sabda-brahma will never descend through a tape. One must hear from a physically present Sri Guru. (HH Gour Govinda Swami, ‘Questions and Answers’, The Worship of Sri Guru) |
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?