6 proofs

https://www.iskconirm.com/docs/webpages/6_proofs.htm

6 Proofs

SUMMER 2005
 

The great Guru hoax: Parts 1 and 2

By 1977, Srila Prabhupada had built ISKCON into a confederation of many dozens of temples, farm communities and restaurants, and accepted 10,000 disciples. He had also authored dozens of books of spiritual knowledge of which over 150 million had been distributed in all the major languages of the world. Shortly before his passing he issued a directive to all ISKCON centres and Governing Body Commissioners (GBC the senior managers running the movement) to be implemented immediately in ISKCON.
The directive, which is reproduced here , sets out a system by which Srila Prabhupada would continue to accept disciples without the need for him to be physically present on the planet. As you will read in the directive, he names 11 senior secretaries who were entrusted with accepting new recruits into the movement as direct disciples of Srila Prabhupada. The directive clearly states:

“The newly initiated devotees are disciples of His Divine Grace A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada, the above eleven senior devotees acting as His representative.”

However, not very long after Srila Prabhupada’s physical departure in November 1977, the GBC audaciously announced that the 11 secretaries had actually been selected as full-fledged Gurus or spiritual masters, and were to accept disciples themselves, and thus replace Srila Prabhupada in this capacity.
This, of course, is in complete contradiction to the directive, wherein it is clearly stated that the 11 secretaries had been selected to remain in a representational capacity to accept disciples FOR Srila Prabhupada. The official 1978 GBC minutes, not widely seen till now, clearly document this hoax in black and white:

“…for 1978, no new Spiritual Masters shall be appointed other than the 11 selected by Srila Prabhupada.”
(GBC Resolution No.16, March 19th, 1978)

These 11 self-appointed “Gurus” then immediately carved the world up into 11 zones and began accepting daily, lavish worship on huge, ornate thrones (known as Vyasasanas). They labelled themselves the “material and spiritual successors” to Srila Prabhupada, and under the pretence of this hoax funnelled huge numbers of disciples and vast amounts of money to themselves. Soon, however, the pretence of living a blatant lie began to catch up with them.

Virtually all of these original disobedient secretaries descended into an abyss of moral degradation barely befitting a normal human being, not to speak of a Guru (please see below “The Senior Deviators: Where are they now?”). As an internal memo written by a later GBC elected “Guru” (see below ‘The great Guru hoax: Part 2’) regarding the antics of these original 11 “Gurus” stated:

FACT:ISKCON gurus have usurped and misused money, and diverted other ISKCON resources for their own personal prestige and sense gratification. ISKCON gurus have had illicit sexual intercourse with both women and men, and possibly children as well.”
(Where the Ritvik People Are Right, Jayadvaita Swami, 1996)

Given the huge embarrassment caused by the horrendous behaviour of these initial Guru imposters, one would have thought that most sane, not to speak of spiritual people, would have held up their hands and admitted to the Guru hoax which they had perpetrated. Unfortunately, instead of doing this and restoring the original representational system set up by Srila Prabhupada, all we got was the great Guru hoax, Part 2.

The great Guru hoax: Part 2

By 1986, following the spiritual and moral falldown of many of the self-appointed imposter “Gurus”, the Governing Body Commission tried to cover up their initial and highly damaging hoax that led to this state of affairs with yet another hoax. In order to pacify the movement’s members and deflect attention away from their own misdemeanours, they suddenly announced that drastic, sweeping changes did indeed need to be made.
But their proposed “changes” did not entail admitting the original hoax whereby false Guruship had been grabbed by individuals who had only been appointed as secretaries. Instead, amazingly, it was announced that not enough self-appointed Gurus had been made in 1978. They decreed that now anyone who got a majority vote from the GBC could be made a Guru:

” …any GBC can present a diksa guru candidate before the GBC body. […]
and upon majority approval of the body, he may take up the responsibilities of an initiating guru in ISKCON.”

(GBC Resolution No. 3, March 30th, 1986)

And the written authority from Srila Prabhupada for this new “Guru by-vote” hoax? Same as the last one NONE. In this way, the unauthorised Gurus in ISKCON have now expanded to over 70, with the number varying every year as more fall down into moral and spiritual degradation, and more are hurriedly added to replace them.

All the while, this “Guru mess” has completely sidelined the real and only Guru of ISKCON, Srila Prabhupada, who as we have seen authorised that he remain the Guru of ISKCON via representatives who should only act as his agents to accept disciples on his behalf. Unfortunately, these representatives decided to hijack the movement for their own ends, creating the chaos we have today.

What is amazing about these hoaxes is that they have actually been admitted by senior Guru hoaxers themselves. Even more amazing is the fact that, as the following prophetic conversation from 1977 indicates, the future Guruhoaxers had already considered the fact that some of their number were ready to illegally try and become Gurus:

Bhavananda:There will be men, I know. There will be men who want to try and pose themselves as Guru.
Tamala Krishna:That was going on many years ago. Your Godbrothers were thinking like that. Madhava Maharaja…
Bhavananda:Oh, yes. Oh, ready to jump.
Srila Prabhupada:Very strong management required and vigilant observation.
(Room Conversation, May 27th, 1977)

This was a Freudian slip by two future Guru hoaxers, who proved themselves more than ready to “jump” just a few months later. (They also allude to the fact that such a Guru hoax had also occurred with the predecessor organization to ISKCON). In the conversation above Srila Prabhupada gives a clear answer how to counteract such a Guru hoax programme:
“Very strong management required and vigilant observation.”
Back To Prabhupada magazine has been set up to provide this “vigilant observation”, and through its organization, the IRM, the “very strong management”, so that the real Guru hoax free ISKCON, with Srila Prabhupada as the genuine Guru, can once again emerge.

Srila Prabhupada’s Final signed directive on initiations
 

The Senior Deviators: Where are they now?
ksami
Kirtanananda Das:
Left ISKCON after being caught engaging in illicit activity. Imprisoned for racketeering, and following release from prison in 2004, is attempting to continue as Guru.

Harikesha Das
Ran off with his female massage therapist and cash. Now married and enjoying cash.
r
Ramesvara Das:
Left ISKCON after being caught engaging in illicit activity. Now working in real estate.

Jayatirtha Das:
Left ISKCON to start his own LSD drug cult, and had his head hacked off by one of his followers in a drug-induced attack.

Bhavananda Das:
Left ISKCON after being caught engaging in illicit activity. Now employed by ISKCON as a consultant.

Hansadutta Das:
Left ISKCON after being caught engaging in illicit activity. Later confessed to the “Guruhoax”.Trying to become active again.

Tamal Krishna Goswami:
Told many different stories to justify ‘Guru hoax’ before dying horribly in a car crash.

Bhagavan Das:
Left ISKCON after being caught engaging in illicit activity. Later imprisoned and now hanging out on the fringe of the movement.

Hridayananda Das Goswami:
Went back to college to get education. Still acting as ‘Guru’.

Jayapataka Swami:
Under police investigation for abetment to suicide. Still acting as ‘Guru’.

Satsvarupa Das:
Admitted having an affair with a married woman. Stopped from acting as Guru.
KEY FACTS:

1. The above 11 inaugurated the hoax by pretending to act as Gurus even though they were only appointed as representatives. As seen, their unauthorised behaviour has led to fiasco and devastation in ISKCON.

2. Srila Prabhupada’s final signed directive on initiations to the movement keeps him as the sole Guru for ISKCON.

3. No directive appointing or authorising any individual or individuals as Guru was ever issued.

4. Currently there are over 70 “Gurus” who have all either been self-elected or voted in by other self-elected or voted-in “Gurus”.

Proof 1 – Summary of evidence establishing ritvik system for ISKCON’s duration

We just saw the evidence for how the great Guru hoax was perpetrated by substituting 11 representatives with 11 ‘acharyas’. The July 9th directive signed by Srila Prabhupada proves beyond a doubt that he authorised only representatives (ritviks) for ISKCON, whose sole function was to keep Srila Prabhupada as the Guru.
What irony, therefore, that those representatives whose sole function was to enable Srila Prabhupada to act as Guru, themselves claimed to be Gurus. Below we find further evidence confirming this hoax. This evidence, put together with the July9th directive, makes a water-tight case for the fact that only ritviks were authorised for ISKCON’s lifetime, and their masquerading as “Gurus” was indeed a monumental hoax.

1) The July 9th directive, sent out to the whole ISKCON society, 120 days before Srila Prabhupada’s departure, was the final order regarding how initiations would be conducted in ISKCON henceforward. The directive states three times that those who would be initiated in ISKCON in the future, would be disciples of Srila Prabhupada only. This directive was never rescinded or replaced, nor does it state that it was issued only for a limited time, and hence it is the system to be used in ISKCON.

2) Follow-up letters issued by Srila Prabhupada’s secretary, Tamala Krishna Goswami, who also issued the July 9th directive, confirm that the directive was not a temporary measure issued only for the remaining 120 days until Srila Prabhupada’s physical departure, but a permanent system of initiation for ISKCON:

On July 11th, in a letter to one of the 11 representatives appointed as a ritvik, who would induct new recruits in ISKCON as disciples of Srila Prabhupada, Tamala Krishna Goswami writes to Kirtanananda:

“A letter has been sent to all the Temple Presidents and GBC which you should be receiving soon describing the process for initiation to be followed in the future. Srila Prabhupada has appointed thus far eleven representatives who will initiate new devotees on His behalf.”

Above we see the ritvik system described as: “the process for initiation to be followed in the future.” It does not say “the process for initiation to be followed for now”, nor “for the time being”, nor “until the ritviks turn into diksa Gurus.” On July 31st, Tamala Krishna Goswami again writes to another of the 11 appointed representatives, Hamsadutta, and repeats an instruction to Hamsadutta from Srila Prabhupada, which Srila Prabhupada had dictated to Tamala Krishna Goswami earlier on July 19th (tape available):

“Now you have a very good field. Now organize it and it will be a great credit. No one will disturb you there. Make your own field and continue to become ritvik and act on my behalf.”

Srila Prabhupada says: “continue to become ritvik”. He does not say “continue to become ritvik until I depart, and then become an initiating Guru”; nor does he say “continue to become ritvik for the time being only.” He just says “continue”. And indeed, though Hamsadutta was one of the original eleven Guru hoaxers, he has since capitulated, admitting to the hoax, and that he was only ever authorised to act and continue as a ritvik.

3) On November 14th, 1977, Srila Prabhupada departs from this world, and his Last Will and Testament comes into effect. Clause 2 of the Will states:

“The system of management will continue as it is now and there is no need of any change.”

This means that the July 9th directive, which had set out the system for managing initiations in ISKCON, and which had not been rescinded, must continue in ISKCON without change.

Clause 3 of the Will sets out the process for selecting future Executive Directors for the showpiece ISKCON Temples in India, which had been established to last for thousands of years, and states:

“The executive directors who have herein been designated are appointed for life. In the event of the death or failure to act for any reason of any of the said directors, a successor director or directors may be appointed by the remaining directors, provided the new director is my initiated disciple following strictly all the rules and regulations of the International Society for Krishna Consciousness as detailed in my books, and provided that there are never less than three(3) or more than five (5) executive directors acting at one time.”

It states that these Executive Directors for the next thousands of years of ISKCON’s potential duration could only be “initiated disciples” of Srila Prabhupada. This obviously could only occur if Srila Prabhupada continued to remain the diksa Guru for ISKCON’s lifetime, initiating more and more disciples long into the future, so that there would always be a pool of his initiated disciples from which future Executive Directors could be selected.

4) Below we see the 3 places in Srila Prabhupada’s books where the specific system for initiation to be followed in ISKCON is stated. In these quotes Srila Prabhupada states the system of initiation which was current at the time Srila Prabhupada wrote the books i.e. in his physical presence.
This system had two features a candidate was recommended for initiation by the temple president, and then automatically became an initiated disciple of Srila Prabhupada. Since Srila Prabhupada does not state here that he is only describing what will happen in ISKCON whilst he is on the planet, and since he did not issue separate books to be used in ISKCON for AFTER his departure, whatever is stated in these books regarding how ISKCON should be run must therefore apply for the whole of ISKCON’s lifetime which is the duration of applicability of these books.
Nor did Srila Prabhupada teach that the system described will be terminated soon in ISKCON and a different system applied due to his departure. Hence, the initiation system described in the books, which was used when Srila Prabhupada was present on the planet, was to be used without change throughout ISKCON’s lifetime.
Otherwise Srila Prabhupada would have written something to the effect that “currently in ISKCON this is the system …. but upon my departure, a new system will need to be introduced.” Otherwise, whatever is written in these ‘law books’ for ISKCON, will always be the law in ISKCON.

So we have clear, direct, irrefutable evidence from Srila Prabhupada’s books and signed directives, proving that the system which was set up by Srila Prabhupada for initiation in his presence was the system set up for ISKCON’s lifetime.

“In our Krsna consciousness movement, the requirement is that one must be prepared to give up the four pillars of sinful life: illicit sex, meat eating, intoxication and gambling. In Western countries especially, we first observe whether a potential disciple is prepared to follow the regulative principles. Then he is given the name of a Vaisnava servant and initiated to chant the Hare Krsna maha-mantra, at least sixteen rounds daily. In this way the disciple renders devotional service under the guidance of the spiritual master or his representative for at least six months to a year. He is then recommended for a second initiation, during which a sacred thread is offered and the disciple is accepted as a bona fide brahmana.”
(Sri Caitanya-caritamrta, Madhya-lila 24:330, purport, A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada)
“Due to the necessity of these activities, we do not immediately initiate disciples in the International Society for Krishna Consciousness. For six months, a candidate for initiation must first attend arati and classes in the sastras, practice the regulative principles and associate with other devotees. When one is actually advanced in the purascarya-vidhi, he is recommended by the local temple president for initiation. It is not that anyone can be suddenly initiated without meeting the requirements. When one is further advanced by chanting the Hare Krsna mantra sixteen rounds daily, following the regulative principles and attending classes, he receives the sacred thread (brahminical recognition) after the second six months.”
(Sri Caitanya-caritamrta, Madhya-lila 15:108, purport, A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada)
“Thus in the beginning the students of our Krsna consciousness movement agree to live with devotees, and gradually, having given up four prohibited activities illicit sex, gambling, meat-eating and intoxication they become advanced in the activities of spiritual life. When one is found to be regularly following these principles, he is given the first initiation (hari-nama), and he regularly chants at least sixteen rounds a day. Then, after six months or a year, he is initiated for the second time and given the sacred thread with the regular sacrifice and ritual.”
(Sri Caitanya-caritamrta, Adi-lila 17:265, purport, A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada)
Srila Prabhupada’s Last Will and Testament:

“a successor director or directors may be appointed by the remaining directors, provided the new director is my initiated disciple”
 

Letters issued on July 11th and July 31st, 1977 by Srila Prabhupada’s secretary:

“the process for initiation to be followed in the future”

“continue to become ritvik and act on my behalf”

Proof 2 – GBC reveals it does not know how its Gurus were authorised

In the Srimad-Bhagavatam Prabhupada states:

“One should take initiation from a bonafide spiritual master coming in the disciplic succession, who is authorised by his predecessor spiritual master. This is called diksa-vidhana.”
(Srimad-Bhagavatam, 4.8.54, purport)

The following are just some of the many different stories the GBC and their followers have told regarding how the authorisation necessary for their Guru system was given:
 

WHEN were the Guru hoaxers authorised to become Gurus?

1) May 28th, 1977

“The present paper will show that on May 28th, 1977, Srila Prabhupada ordered his disciples to become initiating spiritual masters.”
(Disciple of My Disciple, p2, Badrinarayana Das, Umapati Swami et al., 1997)

2) July 8th, 1977

“The appointment of July 8th which is the only appointment on record is the appointment of ritviks… Most devotees who have studied this transcribed conversation agree that it is reasonable to conclude that Prabhupada expected those who officiated as ritviks in his presence would continue after his disappearance as diksa-gurus under his order.”
(‘Under My Order’: Reflections on the Guru in ISKCON, Ravindra Svarupa Das, 1985)“On July 8th. Prabhupada gave the list of those he “chose”. The process was already clear. First on his behalf, then regular guru.”
(Continuing the Parampara, Sivarama Swami, p20, 1994)

3) July 9th, 1977

“Thus the July 9 letter was not, as falsely claimed by the author, a “final order,” a “policy statement on how he wanted initiations to run within ISKCON,” but merely an interim order which got the named persons functioning as gurus even in his own presence yet while still observing the etiquette.”
(Prabhupada’s Order, Appendix 3, GBC 1998)
HOW were the Guru hoaxers authorised to become Gurus?


1) By Srila Prabhupada directly

“Here Prabhupada says to the entire leadership of the Krishna consciousness movement (the GBC, sannyasis, and presidents gathered at Mayapur) that he expects them to become acaryas (gurus) who will initiate their own disciples…So it is abundantly clear that Prabhupada is speaking throughout the April 6, 1975 lecture of acaryas who will initiate disciples”
(The Phantom Order, Drutakarama Das, 1998)
“The day Srila Prabhupada gave sannyasa to Bhakti Caru Swami, he told him, ‘Now that you are a sannyasi, you can give initiation. But as long as the spiritual master is alive one doesn’t give initiation. That is the etiquette.'”
(Gurus and Initiations in ISKCON, GBC, 1995)


2) By the GBC

“Srila Prabhupada wanted the GBC to decide who would initiate”
(Bhakti Caru Swami Letter, 24 September 1993, New Mayapur, France)
“Your diksa guru is giving you diksa because the institution of ISKCON decided that he should give diksa.”
(Bhakti Caru Swami, Text PAMHO6829041, Monday 19 May 2003)
WHO was authorised to be Guru?


1) 11 devotees authorised to be Guru

“Srila Prabhupada named eleven devotees to give diksa” [as initiating gurus]
(Sivarama Swami, Siksa Outside ISKCON?, p.28, Lal Publishing, 2002) *

* “Almost immediately after Srila Prabhupada’s departure, devotees he had requested to give diksa fell down.
(Of the eleven he named, only four have not fallen).”


2) No one authorised to be Guru

“Srila Prabhupada did not want to name anyone as his successor or successors”
(Bhakti Caru Swami Letter, 24 September 1993, New Mayapur, France)
Was Guru authorisation clear?


1) It was very clear

“Srila Prabhupada made it quite clear that they would initiate after his disappearance”
(Bhakti Caru Swami Letter, 24 September 1993, New Mayapur, France)
“But there never has been any doubt that Srila Prabhupada clearly ordered his followers to carry on the parampara as regular gurus.”
(Ritvik Catechism: Questions and Answers on Ritvik, GBC, 1998)


2) It was very unclear

“Srila Prabhupada’s statements in this issue appear to be somewhat vague, which is very unusual for Srila Prabhupada”
(Bhakti Caru Swami Letter, 24 September 1993, New Mayapur, France)
“I must also admit that Srila Prabhupada did not say anything very clearly about how the initiation system in ISKCON should be after his disappearance from this planet.”
(Bhakti Caru Swami, Day 3, LA Seminar,’ Questions and Answers’, Published on June 11, 2000)
Conclusion

From the foregoing it is plain to see that ISKCON’s topmost leaders have never been able to give one clear answer for when, how or who was authorised to be Guru. Neither are they even clear if the authorisation was clear! There cannot be many versions of the truth; by definition there can only be one. This version has been given consistently in The Final Order, as well as repeated here in the pages of BTP; and here it is:

“Srila Prabhupada alone shall be the diksa (initiating) Guru for as long as ISKCON exists. This is supported both by the last written directive on the subject of initiations issued to all ISKCON GBC’s and Temple Presidents, and also by his Last Will and Testament.”

Simple. One Fact. One Truth. One Guru. One united and glorious ISKCON.
The very fact that the Guru hoaxers have had to concoct many contradictory and different stories to support their Guru system is one of the strongest evidences that we are dealing with a hoax. Just as with any complex fraud involving more than one perpetrator, the criminals usually struggle to get their ‘story straight’ between them, and due to the propensity of the conditioned soul to make mistakes, discrepancies in their story will naturally occur.
If Srila Prabhupada really had authorised diksa Gurus to replace him in ISKCON, why can’t the GBC simply state, with one voice, for all time, when, how and who was authorised? Why haven’t they been able to state it for almost 30 years now? Simple, because no such Gurus were ever authorised!

So this is proof that no such Gurus were ever authorised, for if the truth of Guru authorisation existed, the GBC would be able to state that one truth. But they can’t and haven’t, which means the truth of Guru authorisation does not exist.

Proof 3 – GBC admits its Guru systems are false


ISKCON admits Guru hoax, Part 1 (1978-1986):
 

No Gurus appointed
“Actually Prabhupada never appointed any gurus. He appointed eleven ritviks. He never appointed them gurus”
(Tamala Krishna Goswami [1946-2002], Pyramid House Confessions, Topanga Canyon, 3 December 1980)
“Srila Prabhupada did not appoint anyone to be guru for the future”
(Jayadvaita Swami, ISKCON-elected Guru, video, San Diego debate, 1990)
“Srila Prabhupada never said ‘here are the next eleven acaryas, and they are authorised gurus for the movement’. He did not do that.”
(Ravindra Svarupa Das, ISKCON-elected Guru, video, San Diego debate, 1990)
“By the influence of maya, illusion, a different idea soon evolved that Srila Prabhupada had appointed eleven “pure devotees” to serve as the only gurus after him… This zonal guru system, as it came to be called, prevailed in ISKCON for about ten years, until its falseness became clear… In 1986, ISKCON’s Governing Body Commission formally dismantled the system.”
(‘An Apology’, Back To Godhead, #25-01, 1991)

The first Guru hoax was where the 11 devotees selected to act as agents (ritviks) masqueraded instead as Gurus. Even though the GBC admit here that this system was incorrect, the basis of this system, that the 11 were in some way authorised to act as diksa Guru, still remained intact, since whichever of these original 11 Guru hoaxers were still in ISKCON in 1986, were allowed to stay in their diksa Guru posts to take full part in part 2 of the Guru hoax.
 

ISKCON Guru hoax, Part 2 (1986-present) – Exposed:
 

Guru-by-vote is false
“You cannot simply elect a person to the post of the most exalted sainthood”
(‘Notes from the Editor’, Back to Godhead, #13-01/02, 1978)
“Like in 1987, although we had a reform, after so many gurus fell down, there was a fifty man committee was formed, and there was reform; it was not actually, at least my perception is that it was not actually a reform. It was kind of watering down the same misconception and continuing. Like what we did was we appointed some more gurus and opened up the world for anybody to initiate wherever he wanted. Whereas previous to that it was a kind of zonal acarya. So that I think is the main mistake where we started, that took place after Srila Prabhupada’s disappearance that has never been properly rectified. […]
Yes, I agree, to begin with, I think at the beginning I said our main problem was introducing a defective initiation system. And that defective system may have been watered down to some extent but it’s still prevailing. After Harikesa fell down in 1998, in 1999 I proposed that it’s obvious that we are going in the wrong direction. Now, when you go wrong, when you know you’re going in the wrong direction, what do you do? You stop to find the right way. So for the time-being, let’s stop giving initiation and find out what actually the problem is and what is the solution to this problem, whether we can find a solution and until then, let us stop.”
(Bhakti Caru Swami, Toronto Meeting, July 20th 2003)

Part 2 of the Guru hoax, was where now anyone and everyone was suddenly allowed to act as diksa Guru, provided they simply got a majority vote from the GBC. Yet it is admitted that even this was not and cannot be correct. Obviously, replacing one Guru hoax with another does not in anyway solve the problem, and the fact that the original Guru hoax is admitted to be wrong merely confirms what is stated in the July 9th directive  – that the “11” were appointed to only ever act as ritviks for ISKCON.
As GBC-elected Guru Bhakti Caru Swami himself states above, when you are going in the wrong direction, you stop to find the way. That way was given by Srila Prabhupada himself on July 9th, 1977, via the ritvik system he authorised for ISKCON. So if it is admitted by the Gurus themselves that both their Guru systems were indeed not authorised, then how does any single Guru in ISKCON today have authority to act as Guru?
On the previous page we saw the GBC conceding that they don’t know exactly how they were authorised as Gurus, and now they have admitted that the process by which they became Gurus was itself false. This is yet another proof that they were never authorised to replace the ritvik system for ISKCON, as authorised in the July 9th directive, with their false Guru systems.

Proof 4 – One Guru falls = no Gurus authorised

We have just seen three different proofs, based on the words of Srila Prabhupada and the GBC themselves, proving that only a ritvik system of initiation for ISKCON was authorised.
In addition, the historical operation of the Guru system which replaced the ritvik system also gives practical evidence proving that it was unauthorised. In the Nectar of Devotion it is stated that:

“But sometimes, if a spiritual master is not properly authorized and only on his own initiative becomes a spiritual master, he may be carried away by an accumulation of wealth and large numbers of disciples.”
(Nectar Of Devotion, Chapter 14, A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada)

This states that if a spiritual master is not authorised, then sometimes it is evidenced by the fact that he will fall down due to an accumulation of wealth and a large number of disciples. From this we can conclude that if a Guru does get carried away by an accumulation of wealth and large numbers of disciples, then he was never authorised.
The original Guru hoaxers who perpetrated the great Guru hoax are profiled. Here we have plenty of evidence that more than one Guru has been “carried away by an accumulation of wealth and large numbers of disciples”. This proves the Guru in question was “not properly authorised and only on his own initiative” became a spiritual master. But since all of the 11 individuals who took part in the Guru hoax part 1 became Guru in exactly the same way, this proves that actually none of them were properly authorised.

Similarly, after hoax part 1, a further 93 individuals have been authorised by the GBC to become Guru, and out of this number, at least 26 of them have been discovered to have been carried away by an accumulation of wealth and a large number of disciples, i.e. have fallen down. And again, every one of these 93 individuals became Guru in exactly the same way (via the Guru hoax part 2), proving that every one of these 93 Gurus was “not properly authorised and only on his own initiative” became Guru.

Hence the continuous fall down of the Gurus, in whatever system the GBC have adopted for manufacturing them, is itself proof positive that the whole operation is unauthorised. Thus, the fact that some ISKCON Gurus have not fallen down (visibly at least) does not in any way indicate they were authorised the fact that their fallen colleagues were authorised via the same process is all the evidence we need that they were also not properly authorised, even though they may have not yet externally exhibited signs of gross sense gratification (which we know of ).

For the record, the actual statistics of ISKCON’s Guru system, taken as a whole, is that from 1978-2004:

104 Gurus Made
34 Fallen Down 33%
14 Censured (by GBC or Guru colleagues) 13%
56 Standing (without fall down or censure) 54%

So even by the GBC’s own impaired understanding, nearly half of all the Gurus they have authorised – 46% have so far proven unreliable. This analysis is only the official record that is, it only reflects what the GBC are willing to admit and what has actually come to light. When to this is added the fact that the GBC have a history of cover ups, and also that the Gurus themselves have become expert at keeping their indiscretions secret (e.g. Prithu Das, a fallen voted-in ISKCON Guru, admitted in his resignation letter that he had not been following the regulative principles for “a good while”), the picture is likely much worse.
Indeed, when the above figures are carefully analysed based on how long someone has been acting as a Guru, a much worse picture does emerge. Breaking down the above figures into 3 batches those who have been Gurus for longer than 25 years, those who have been Gurus for longer than 18 years, and the rest, the picture below emerges (see table-Figures are from GBC records, and are only up until 2004).

When Gurus madeNumber of Gurus madeNumber of Gurus fallenCensured by GBC
(or other Gurus)
Standing
(without censure)
Less than 18 years ago
(most made in last 10 years)
457 (16%)6 (13%)32 (71%)
More than 18 years ago4819 (40%)5 (10%)24 (50%)
More than 25 years ago118 (73%)3 (27%)0 (0%)

The disturbing picture that emerges is that the longer someone acts as a Guru, the more likely they are to fall down or be censured for deviant conduct (suspended etc). The figures below indicate that eventually fall down or censure will catch virtually all of the Gurus. And that’s only going by the official statistics, where fall downs and indiscretions have actually been admitted. But as mentioned above, how many Gurus survive is irrelevant. It only needs one Guru to fall, and it proves that none of them were authorised, the same system.

(Also, please note that even if no Gurus had ever fallen, it would not mean they were authorised. For fall down is simply one evidence of a lack of authorisation; but lack of falldown is not in itself evidence of authorisation, for one could be unauthorised but careful to avoid external gross sense gratification just as there are so many “Gurus” in India from so many bogus sects who never externally fall down. The quote itself states only that the unauthorized spiritual master may fall down. Of course, this refers only to gross fall downs the very fact that one has falsely occupied the position of Guru without authorisation, is in itself evidence of a much greater falldown philosophical deviation via disobeying the orders of the spiritual master).

So in summary, the system has not had very good results. But whether the system is bad or good, the fact that we have had at least some Gurus fall means that we have proof that no Gurus in ISKCON were ever properly authorised.
Which once again leaves the ritvik system given in the July 9th directive as the only authorised method for how initiations in ISKCON should be conducted. Here is the proof recapped:

a) Nectar of Devotion states that when not properly authorised sometimes the Guru falls.
b) Hence if the Guru falls, then he was not properly authorised.
c) But all other Gurus authorised in exactly the same way.
d) Thus all Gurus not properly authorised.
e) Ritvik system authorised by July 9th directive remains.

Proof 5 – Definition and application of diksa

From Srila Prabhupada’s definitions of diksa and initiation given below, we shall prove conclusively that diksa is a process involving the continuous transmission of knowledge. This process begins with initiation, which itself is not defined as a ceremony, but as the serious determination on the part of the prospective disciple to begin following the orders of the Guru. This beginning, which is normally accompanied by a ceremony, is usually mistaken for being the sum and substance of diksa.
Hence, since diksa does not depend on, or is fulfilled, by a one-time event such as a ceremony, there cannot be any link between diksa and the physical presence of the Guru. Otherwise the process of diksa would have had to stop for all of Srila Prabhupada’s disciples in 1977 after Srila Prabhupada departed from the material world:  

Diksa given by transmitter of transcendental knowledge

“In other words, the spiritual master awakens the sleeping living entity to his original consciousness so that he can worship Lord Visnu. This is the purpose of diksa, or initiation. Initiation means receiving the pure knowledge of spiritual consciousness.”
(Sri Caitanya caritamrta, Madhya-lila, 9.61, purport, A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada)

Diksa actually means initiating a disciple with transcendental knowledge by which he becomes freed from all material contamination.”
(Sri Caitanya-caritamrta, Madhya-lila, 4.111, purport, A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada)

Diksa is the process by which -one can awaken his transcendental knowledge and vanquish all reactions caused by sinful activity. A person expert in the study of the revealed scriptures knows this process as diksa.”
(Sri Caitanya-caritamrta, Madhya-lila, 15.108, purport, A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada)

Initiation is the beginning of following the process of Krishna Consciousness – It is not a ceremony

“So anyway, from 1922 to 1933 practically I was not initiated, but I got the impression of preaching Caitanya Mahaprabhu’s cult. That I was thinking. And that was the initiation by my Guru Maharaja.”
(Srila Prabhupada Lecture, Hyderabad, 10/12/76)

 “Initiation is a formality. First of all you have to decide whether you will abide by the rules and regulations and become Krsna conscious. That is your consideration. You have to decide for yourself whether you are going to take this Krsna consciousness seriously. That is your decision. Initiation is a formality. If you are serious, that is real initiation. If you have understood this Krsna philosophy and if you have decided that you will take Krsna consciousness seriously and preach the philosophy to others, that is your initiation. My touch is simply a formality. It is your determination. That is initiation.”
(Srila Prabhupada Conversation, ‘The Search for the Divine’, Back to Godhead, # 49)

“…disciplic succession does not always mean that one has to be initiated oficially. Disciplic succession means to accept the disciplic conclusion.”
(Srila Prabhupada Letter to Dinesh, 31/10/69)

“The chanting of Hare Krsna is – our main business, that is real initiation. And as you are all following my instruction in that matter, the initiator is already there.”
(Srila Prabhupada Letter to Tamala Krsna, 19/8/68)

“Well, initiation or no initiation, first thing is knowledge… knowledge. Initiation is formality. Just like you go to a school for knowledge, and admission is formality. That is not very important thing.”
(Srila Prabhupada Interview, Chandigarh, 16/10/76)

So unless every disciple of Srila Prabhupada completed the process of diksa in Srila Prabhupada’s presence, and stopped receiving the “pure knowledge of Krishna consciousness”, and “vanquished all reactions caused by sinful activity” before Srila Prabhupada’s departure, the process of diksa continued post-Srila Prabhupada’s departure.
Hence, since the process of diksa continues in the absence of the spiritual master, there is nothing in its definition preventing other, newer devotees from following this same process. Since the definition of diksa does not mention that the process has to have commenced during Srila Prabhupada’s physical presence in order for it to continue working post-physical departure, the physical absence of the spiritual master cannot be a reason to deny diksa to newer devotees.
Of course, the Guru must first accept the prospective disciple, but in the ritvik system set out in the July 9th directive, this acceptance was done by the ritvik on Srila Prabhupada’s behalf without any consultation, even in his physical presence, since the ritvik system operated for over 4 months before his physical departure. This is confirmed in a conversation held just before the July 9th directive was issued, wherein Srila Prabhupada gives the ritviks full power of attorney to accept disciples on his behalf without any referral to himself: 

Srila Prabhupada:So without waiting for me, wherever you consider it is right… That will depend on discretion.
Tamala Krishna:On discretion.
Srila Prabhupada:Yes.
Tamala Krishna:That’s the first and second initiations.
Srila Prabhupada:Hmm!
(Conversation on appointment of ritviks, Vrindavana, July 7th, 1977)

Therefore Srila Prabhupada continues acting as diksa Guru of ISKCON for ALL devotees, pre and post his departure. This is confirmed by the fact that Srila Prabhupada set up the ritvik system via the July 9th directive to facilitate this giving of diksa to all persons who would join ISKCON in the future a directive whose operation did not require the physical presence of Srila Prabhupada, but instead specifically employed the use of ritviks to accept disciples on his behalf without consultation with Srila Prabhupada.

Proof 6 – GBC defeated by The Final Order

All the evidence and proofs presented so far are taken from a book called The Final Order, which was commissioned by the GBC itself when they asked Krishnakant, the BTP editor, to present a response to the GBC’s position on Gurus, which at the time was encapsulated in a paper called On My Order Understood:

“The GBC approves of the paper entitled ‘On My Order Understood’ which establishes as ISKCON law the final siddhanta on Srila Prabhupada’s desire for continuing the disciplic succession after the departure of His Divine Grace.”
(Gurus and Initiation in ISKCON, p.1, GBC, 1995)

The Final Order (TFO), the definitive position paper of the IRM documenting Srila Prabhupada’s position as the diksa Guru for ISKCON, was therefore written specifically by Krishnakant in response to the above GBC paper, their official “final siddhanta” on this subject, taking it as its reference point. TFO comprehensively showed that the conclusions and arguments of that paper were false. The GBC have finally agreed with this, in that they have now withdrawn the very paper TFO was commissioned to respond to, admitting it is full of lies:

409. Continuing the Disciplic Succession [Statement] WHEREAS:
The paper “On My Order Understood” contains assumptions and assertions that, in numerous places, do not match the available evidence from the statements of Srila Prabhupada, And the GBC desires to make a more concise statement,
RESOLVED:
“On My Order-Understood” is replaced as official GBC policy by the following statement[…]:
(GBC Resolution 409, 2004)

Whilst submitting the reasons for ditching their official paper, Sivarama and Jayadvaita Swamis, the persons behind the above resolution, actually said that this “final siddhanta” GBC paper contained “lies”, and that it “stretches the truth and contains poor logic”.
The GBC resolution goes on to say:

“The GBC officially accepts the following conclusions about continuing the disciplic succession:
Srila Prabhupada consistently said that his disciples would themselves become spiritual masters. Guru, sadhu, and sastra all support this standard way of continuing the disciplic succession. Srila Prabhupada said that his disciples would become “regular gurus” and that each of their disciples would thus be a “disciple of my disciple.” On the strength of our Vaisnava tradition and the statements of Srila Prabhupada, the GBC concludes that Srila Prabhupada intended his disciples to become “regular gurus” after he physically departed.”
(GBC Resolution 409, 2004)

Thus whilst admitting that their paper is basically a fabrication, the GBC have not replaced it with another paper, but only a re-statement of the same conclusions given in the paper they are replacing, i.e. we want to be Gurus; only without any supporting evidence. The resolution states the GBC have reached their conclusions on the strength of “the statements of Srila Prabhupada”, but they do not go on to say what these statements are.

This is to be expected, since they admit their previous attempt to justify their conclusions led to them making “assumptions and assertions that, in numerous places, do not match the available evidence from the statements of Srila Prabhupada”. Hence they have now simply skipped the messy business of presenting any arguments or evidence for their conclusions, and instead replaced their previous position paper by jumping straight to the conclusion they would like to see: ‘Srila Prabhupada did make us Gurus.’ Rather, they simply allude to one line which Srila Prabhupada speaks on a tape, which was the only time Srila Prabhupada ever used the term “regular Gurus” the term highlighted by the GBC in their resolution which does not even state what the GBC claim. Srila Prabhupada states on May 28th, 1977 the following:

“When I order you become guru, he becomes regular guru. That’s all. He becomes disciple of my disciple.”

Srila Prabhupada here clearly states that Gurus will emerge only when he gives an order to that effect “When I order you become guru” and as the GBC seem now to concede, such an order was never given. For this reason the GBC have had to fabricate the following account:

“Srila Prabhupada said that his disciples would become “regular gurus” and that each of their disciples would thus be a “disciple of my disciple.”

Please spot the huge difference between what Srila Prabhupada says and the GBC fabrication. Srila Prabhupada does not say that his disciples “would become regular gurus”. He states that only when he orders them to become Guru, do they become Guru, not that they would become Guru. And the authors of this latest GBC resolution have the cheek to say the paper it replaces contained “assertions that, in numerous places, do not match the available evidence from the statements of Srila Prabhupada”, yet we see their latest effort is no better.

Thus in ditching their “final siddhanta” paper the GBC have simply said: ‘Our previous arguments were wrong, we are not offering any new arguments, but we still want to say the previous conclusion that we be allowed to operate a Guru programme replacing Srila Prabhupada – is correct.’ Thus the GBC’s programme is simply to be “Gurus at all costs”. First they tried to do it by instituting the Guru hoax part 1 the “Zonal Acharya” system. When that failed they tried the Guru hoax part 2 the “everyone-and-anyone can be Guru” programme justified by the now discarded On My Order Understood paper. This continual changing of position papers to try and keep the “Guru business” on the road was thoroughly condemned by Srila Prabhupada:

“So these rascals will change every year their theology”.
(Srila Prabhupada, Morning Walk, 21/12/73)

Thus the GBC’s official position on their Guru system is admitted to have been wrong and has been withdrawn, and has not been replaced with another paper which even attempts to document precisely how, when and who was authorised to replace Srila Prabhupada. Rather, we are simply given a conclusion that Srila Prabhupada made us Gurus. However, this is not proof, and therefore the GBC does not have a position paper which currently rebuts the arguments in TFO. In the absence of this, the conclusions of The Final Order are once again upheld.

Myth-busters

We have thus far presented 6 different proofs, showing that the only authorised system of initiation in ISKCON is the ritvik system as detailed in the July 9th directive, and that the GBC Guru system introduced as a replacement is unauthorised. This makes the case for Srila Prabhupada as the diksa Guru of ISKCON irrefutable. Below we will briefly address some of the myths thrown around by Srila Prabhupada’s opponents to try and distract devotees from the proofs presented.  

1) “The Guru must be ‘living’ .”

a) Srila Prabhupada never states this.

b) Srila Prabhupada never physically met the vast majority of his disciples, yet they were initiated. Thus initiations can not require the physical presence of the Guru.

c) Neither have the very persons claiming we must accept them as Gurus, simply because they are ‘living’, had a ‘living’ (physically present) Guru for over 25 years. So if they have not needed a ‘living Guru’ for more than 25 years, why do their disciples?  

2) “The ritvik system has never happened before.”

a) Srila Prabhupada never states that if something has not happened before it must be rejected.

b) If we rejected something simply on the basis that it has not happened before, then the first thing we must reject is the GBC’s Guru system, with its voted-in, non-Indian Gurus; a system which has never been practised before.

c) There is no historical precedent for a disciple to reject an order of his Guru purely on the basis that it has no historical precedent, therefore the argument is self-contradictory.  

3) “Srila Prabhupada said that everyone must ‘become Guru’.”

Yes, he did, many times. But we should “become guru” in the way he asked us to, not in the way we want. When asking us to “become Guru”, Srila Prabhupada would invariably invoke Lord Caitanya’s instruction from the Caitanya-caritamrta “amara ajnaya guru hana”. Explaining this most famous verse, Srila Prabhupada instructs: “It is best not to accept any disciples.” (Sri Caitanya-caritamrta, Madhya-lila, 7.130, purport). Also, in describing this type of Guru Srila Prabhupada said: “‘How can I become guru?’ There is no need of qualification… Whomever you meet, you simply instruct what Krsna has said.” (Lecture, 21/5/76); and also: “Anyone can do. A child can do.” (Conversation, 11/5/77). So clearly he was not ordering his disciples to accept their own disciples, but merely to preach, act as siksa or instructing Gurus and initiate on his behalf.

4) “The ritvik system will stop the disciplic succession (parampara).”

a) Conducting initiations with Srila Prabhupada as the diksa Guru cannot stop the disciplic succession, otherwise it would have already stopped when Srila Prabhupada was initiating from 1966 to 1977. It didn’t stop then, and therefore it will not stop now, unless it is stated that initiations can only be conducted in the physical presence of the Guru for the parampara to continue. But Srila Prabhupada never states this.

b) Srila Prabhupada never defined the disciplic succession in terms of physical bodies. He has defined the disciplic succession (parampara) as follows: “Parampara means to hear the truth from the spiritual master.” (Srila Prabhupada Room Conversation, 20/12/76)
So clearly this “hearing the truth from the spiritual master” is continuing even today with Srila Prabhupada in the same manner as it did from 1966 to 1977.  

5) “How can Srila Prabhupada not have made even one pure devotee to succeed him?”

There is no connection between the number of pure devotees made and whether or not Srila Prabhupada established a ritvik system. Since it is not compulsory for all pure devotees to act as diksa Gurus, Srila Prabhupada may/could have made many such pure devotees who would humbly serve him under the ritvik system he established. For if they were pure devotees, they obviously by definition would not deviate from the order of their spiritual master.  

6) “So this means then we can even take initiation from Rupa Goswami?”

No. The ritvik system was set up specifically to connect new devotees joining ISKCON not to Rupa Goswami but to Srila Prabhupada, who is the current link or representative in the chain of disciplic succession. Initiation can only be taken from the current link. One cannot jump over that current link and try and take initiation from a predecessor acharya:

“As already stated, Brahma is the original spiritual master for the universe, and since he was initiated by the Lord Himself, the message of Srimad-Bhagavatam is coming down by disciplic succession, and in order to receive the real message of Srimad-Bhagavatam one should approach the current link, or spiritual master, in the chain of disciplic succession.”
(Srimad-Bhagavatam, 2.9.7, purport)

That current representative is Srila Prabhupada (since he did not authorise any successors) and he established the ritvik system to enable all devotees to continue connecting to him in ISKCON as their diksa Guru. Rupa Goswami has not given us a ritvik system to connect newcomers in ISKCON to him.  

7) “It is the “law of disciplic succession” that in the presence of the Guru one does not take disciples, but in his disappearance, the disciple can accept his own disciples without limitation.”

a) But the GBC themselves do not accept this “law” since they allow the disciples to initiate in the presence of their Guru.

b) Srila Prabhupada merely states that it is only possible to be Guru in his absence, and not in his presence. Srila Prabhupada never states that in his absence all his disciples will automatically succeed him or that they are being ordered to become Gurus as soon as he departs. Hence the statement of when it is possible for a disciple to be Guru is not the same as an order for the disciple to actually be Guru at that time.

The great Guru hoax: History repeats itself

One of the hardest points for devotees to grasp regarding such a monumental Guru hoax, is how so many people could have all got it wrong for so long. Indeed, this is another one of the main arguments used by the GBC to distract devotees from the 6 irrefutable proofs which have already been presented. However, trying to determine the truth on the strength of numbers is not valid, and instead we must simply go by the evidence. For a Guru hoax similar to what happened in ISKCON had already occurred, with the very institution which preceded ISKCON. This was the Gaudiya Matha, or the society founded by Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Maharaja, the spiritual master of Srila Prabhupada. Here again, a society of many supposedly ‘advanced devotees’ deviated wholesale from the order of their Guru as soon as he departed. And on paper, these devotees from the Gaudiya Matha had much better credentials than the current ISKCON Gurus, with many of them having being trained as devotees of Krishna from birth, chanting 64 rounds of the Hare Krishna mahamantra every day etc. Though in this case Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Maharaja did not decree a permanent ritvik system, but rather declared that a self-effulgent acharya would emerge in the future, who, as it turned out, was Srila Prabhupada (who did decree a permanent ritvik system with only himself as the Guru for ISKCON). We shall see that a similar mechanism was used to cover up the truth and deny the real Guru – who in both hoaxes was to be Srila Prabhupada!


Great Guru hoax – Part 1

As we have noted, before his departure Srila Prabhupada nominated no one as a Guru to succeed him. However, his leading secretaries who had been appointed only as ritviks, or his representatives, made plans to unauthorisedly install themselves as successor acharyas (Gurus).

This was the Guru hoax part 1. The Gaudiya Matha did the same thing, except they installed one acharya for the world, whereas in ISKCON they divided the world up into 11 zones, and installed 11 acharyas:

“Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakura, at the time of his departure, requested all his disciples to form a governing body and conduct missionary activities cooperatively. He did not instruct a particular man to become the next acarya. But just after his passing away, his leading secretaries made plans, without authority, to occupy the post of acarya, and they split into two factions over who the next acarya would be. Consequently, both factions were asara, or useless, because they had no authority, having disobeyed the order of the spiritual master.”
(Sri Caitanya-caritamrta, Adi-lila, 12.8, purport)

“In the latter days of my Guru Maharaja he was very disgusted. […] Still he requested his disciples to form a strong Governing body for preaching the cult of Caitanya Mahaprabhu. He never recommended anyone to be acarya of the Gaudiya Math. But Sridhara Maharaja is responsible for disobeying this order of Guru Maharaja, and he and others who are already dead unnecessarily thought that there must be one acarya. If Guru Maharaja could have seen some one who was qualified at that time to be acarya he would have mentioned. Because on the night before he passed away he talked of so many things, but never mentioned an acarya. 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 […] So Sridhara Maharaja and his two associate gentlemen unauthorisedly selected one acarya and later it proved a failure.”
(Srila Prabhupada Letter to Rupanuga, 28/4/74)


Great Guru hoax – Part 2

Subsequently with the failure of foisting 11 acharyas on the movement, ISKCON responded by allowing many others to also have a shot at posing as unauthorised Gurus. So today we have over 70 different Guru cults all vying for a piece of the ISKCON pie. This was the great Guru hoax part 2.

Most of these Gurus are satisfied simply with expanding their own Guru cult. The Gaudiya Matha also split up into many different mathas, each with their own unauthorised Guru in charge, following the failure of their acharya programme, with all these mathas also simply being satisfied with strengthening their own Guru cult:

“Why this Gaudiya Matha failed? Because they tried to become more than Guru. […] They declared some unfit person to become acarya. Then another man came, then another acarya, another acarya.”
(Srila Prabhupada Room Conversation, 16/8/76)

“The result is now everyone is claiming to be acarya even though they may be kanistha adhikari with no ability to preach. In some of the camps the acarya is being changed three times a year.”

(Srila Prabhupada Letter to Rupanuga, 28/4/74)

“All are satisfied with a place for residence in the name of a temple, they engage disciples to get food stuff by transcendental devices and eat and sleep. They have no idea or brain how to broadcast the cult of Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu.”

(Srila Prabhupada Letter to Rupanuga, 28/4/74)

Like Srila Prabhupada, Srila Bhaktisiddhanta
was also betrayed by his leading secretaries.


Conclusion

So the idea that large numbers of devotees, who externally appear to be “fixed-up” and “following”, cannot all be wrong and deviate from the order of the Guru, is not true, having happened not once, but twice. And both occasions coincided with the acharya in our line leaving the planet, i.e. two out of the last two times, or a 100% record of deviation! So we should only be guided by the actual orders of Srila Prabhupada, and not by what the majority appear to be following. Also, the fact that this Guru hoax happened previously in the Gaudiya Matha shows that taking shelter in that institution, as unfortunately many from ISKCON have done, is also not a guarantee against being misled. Rather, shelter must only be taken at the lotus feet of Srila Prabhupada, the true acharya for the predicted golden age (duration another 9500 years), via the ritvik system he set up.

Those who ignore the lessons of history are condemned to repeat the same mistakes. Hence, there is no need for us to again ignore the actual orders of the acharya, under force of following the opinion of the majority.

We must be guided by the truth and not the force of numbers.

Please check the facts for yourself!

We know the following for certain:

* The current Guru system in ISKCON is a hoax.

* It was founded on a previous hoax that substituted self-appointed Gurus for ritviks (representatives).

* 6 different proofs show Srila Prabhupada remains as sole diksa (initiating) Guru for ISKCON. Each proof on its own is more than enough to establish the case, but to have not 2 or 3, but 6 proofs, makes Srila Prabhupada’s permanent diksa Guru status for ISKCON irrefutable and irrevocable:

  • Proof 1: Written documentary evidence that only ritvik system instituted for ISKCON.
  • Proof 2: GBC does not know how, when or who was authorised as Guru – since there was no authorisation!
  • Proof 3: GBC themselves admit to Guru hoax parts 1 and 2.
  • Proof 4: Operation of Guru system with falldowns proves that the whole system is false.
  • Proof 5: Definition of diksa shows Srila Prabhupada continues giving diksa in ISKCON.
  • Proof 6: GBC have no position paper to offer in the face of The Final Order.

* Great Guru hoax happened before also, so let’s stop this one now!
* IRM recognised by academia and media as working to expose Guru hoax .

CONCLUSION: Many people have felt for some time now that something was not quite right with ISKCON. With negative media coverage and regular high profile scandals, there is a growing sense of unease at the way the Society is being managed. At the same time, no one questions the enormous integrity, purity and achievement of His Divine Grace A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada, and the wonderful philosophy given in his books. Thus it hasn’t always been easy to reconcile this paradox and put one’s finger on exactly what the problem was. We hope now that you have been given an insight into not only the cause of the problem, but also the solution. The good news is that Srila Prabhupada lives, and is just as available today as he has always been, to accept us as his disciples and give us his mercy. And therein lies the solution to present day ISKCON’s woes – we need to get “Back To Prabhupada”! If you care about Srila Prabhupada and the wonderful movement he started, then please find out the truth and what you can do to help. The Guru hoax may still be alive and kicking, but it doesn’t have to go on for you any longer.

Take action – discover the truth – live the truth.

“Know the truth, and the truth shall set you free”

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *