Perfect Questions – Any Answers? – Prabhupadanugas Worldwide

11-bogus-gurus 2

Is the GBC willing to discuss in the spint of “glastnost” and “perestroika” the doubts which many devotees feel toward its policies of the last 19 years?
Or does the GBC consider itself above reproach when questioned by devotees about its conflicting decisions?
What is a “fallen guru”?
Why do ISKCON gurus continually fall down?
Does the bona-fide guru fall down?
Do bona-fide gurus support “fallen gurus”?
Do bona-fide gurus then renounce “fallen gurus” when their true position becomes apparent?
What actually constitutes a “fallen guru”?
How many ISKCON gurus are “fallen” long before they make the official announcement or are exposed?
Who were the “higher authorities” which the GBC consulted in 1978 when they instituted the “Zonal Acarya” system?
Was the “Zonal Acarya” system ever authorized by Srila Prabhupada?
Did Srila Prabhupada appoint “Zonal Acaryas” as the GBC claimed he did?
Why was the appointment of “Zonal Acaryas” not made until after Srila Prabhupada’s departure?
Why do ISKCON leaders claim that Srimad Bhagavatam is full of “falldowns” and use this as justification for when their appointed gurus fall down?
Is it not an offense to minimize the authority of the Vedic literatures (i.e. Srimad Bhagavatam) in this way?
Why did it take 18 years for the GBC to officially renounce the “Zonal Acarya” system?
Why are men who enforced the “Zonal Acarya” system on their godbrothers and godsisters still in positions of authority today?
Why did so many of Srila Prabhupada’s disciples leave the movement beginning in 1978 when the “Zonal Acarya” system was inaugurated?
How come one cannot take shelter of Srila Prabhupada’s books and instructions without the help of a “fallen guru”?
Why, after the guru “falls down,” must one be reinitiated?
How does reinitiation help a disciples spiritual life?
Did Sri!a Prahhupada ever mention the concept of reinitiation for his society? Why not?
Why were there reports of exceptional growth of ISKCON temples in the 1980’s, especially in Europe, through book, record and paraphernalia sales and a few years later the same temples were faced with bankruptcy and foreclosure?
Where did all the laxmi go?
Why was there never any investigation or accounting into any of this?
Why was there no plan to recover the money lost through waste and fraud?
Why did the BBT which was thriving in the 70’s and early 80’s experience serious financial problems shortly thereafter, with B G forced to close down and eventually republish with severely diminished circulation?
Why were the keeping of financial records not kept up to Srila Prabhupada’s standards?
Why does the GBC have to appoint accountants to try to set things straight like they were in 1977?
Is the GBC the ultimate managing authority for ISKCON or the ultimate ecclasiastical authority as they have stated many times?
Did Srila Prabhupada ever give the GBC such authority?
Why were Srila Prabhupada’s books changed after his departure?
Were Prabhupada’s books flawed?
If Prabhupada’s books were flawed why did he encourage every one to read and distribute them profusely?
And, if Srila Prabhupada’s books were not flawed, why were they changed?
Why were these changes considered necessary or even desirable?
Why has book distnbuuon declined since Srila Prabhupada’s books were changed?
Does the BBT hoe the authority to change Srila Prabhupada’s books after his departure?
Is this not a dangerous precedent to set for the future, to change Srila Prabhupada’s books, if not a flagrant violation of Vaishnava ettiquette?
Does the GBC issue “unpublished resolutions”?
Is the GBC afraid of “openness”?
What are these “unpublished resolutions” that the GBC has issued over the years?
In the spirit of “openness” is the GBC willing to publish these “unpublished resolutions”?
Srila Prabhupada followed one calendar during his many journeys around the world. Why did the GBC change this Vaisnava Calendar fol!owed by the world acarya?
Why are ISKCON and gurus who are found to be engaging in illicit sex-life allowed to continue their bus:ness of promoting themselves as sannvasis and/or gurus?
Why did the GBC and ISKCON’s ‘ ‘gurus” support men who were later shown to be fallen from the Vaishnava standard and who have even been convicted of serious crimes?
Why are “gurus” who supported these “fallen gurus” still in power?
Despite Srila Prabhupada’s order that ISKCON properties should “in principle” never be sold, why were there mass liquidations of his properties after his departure?
Why were successful properties and programs like New York City and Miami, Florida, among others, liquidated and replaced with inferior substitutes?
Why were millions of dollars lost on misguided and abandoned farming projects in the United States and elsewhere?
And why are men who supported and promoted these projects not being held accountable?
Why was one American devotee, Sulochana das, murdered for trying to bring to light the so-called guru appointment?
Why were devotees from Singapore beaten up at the 1994 Mayapura meetings while some ISKCON “gurus” looked on approvingly?
When are these “gestapo-like” tactics in ISKCON going to stop?
Was the GBC to be disbanded after Prabhupada’s departure? Why not?
Was the BBT to be disbanded after Prabhupada’s departure? Why not?
Was the Mayapura-Vrindaban Trust to be disbanded after Prabhupada’s departure? Why not?
And yet, the officiating acarya system, also instituted by Srila Prabhupada, was not allowed to remain after Srila Prabhupada’s departure. Why not?
Why does the GBC profess to be the authority for all ISKC.ON devotees in spite of admitting to a world of mistakes and gross lapses of Vaishnava ettiquette?
How has the GBC been instrumental in creating a schism in the ISKCON community between those devotees who want to follow Srila Prabhupada’s authonty and those who do not?
How is the GBC’s “living guru theory” any different from the “gross bodily concept” of life?
What is the GBC’s definition of “living”?
Did Snla Prabhupada not say that he shall live forever in his books?
Does not the follower live with him?
Just as a computer manual is necessary to operate a computer are not the Vedic literatures, especially Bhagavad-gita, not meant to help one function peacefully in the material world?
Is it not important therefore that these literature’s be presented purely to avoid any misunderstanding?
Is not in fact dangerous to present Vaisnava philosophy and Vedic culture based on relative truths and distortions?
And if such distortions occur in presenting Vedic knowledge should they not be weeded out just as an expert gardener weeds his plot of land?
Why is the GBC not taking the time to weed the garden but has left it to others?
And why are these same gardeners (Prabhupada disciples) condemned and ostracized from the society?
Does the GBC wish to let Srila Prabhupada’s garden be overrun with weeds?
Or is the GBC willing to get its hands dirty by openly discussing in public isthaghosti the causes and solutions to our societal problems?
Why are so many former ISKCON devotees leaving for other maths?
Is this trend healthy?
Why does ISKCON institute different “Hindu pujas” not specifically prescribed by Srila Prabhupada?
Is this not simply to attract wealthy life members?
Should ISKCON not be striving to institute sanatana-dharma irregardless of whether or not it increases contributions?
Srila Prabhupada taught us to respect all legitimate schools of Vedic thought, but should ISKCON be allowed to degenerate into a hodge-podge of Hindu concepts (or Hindu-Christian concepts as is the case in New Vrindaban) or should we strictly adhere to the Brahma-Madhva-Gaudiya system?
Did not Srila Prabhupada say that the ancient Vedic culture, once predominant on this planet, was virtually lost due to the process of “vitiation” resulting from the brahmana by birth and not by by qualification concept?
Does not Lord Krishna Himself state that the orders of life are are the result of quality of work and not by birth?
Does not the brahmana class derive its powers from the fact that it follows the Vedic teachings exactly as disseminated from the acaryas themselves coming directly from Lord Krishna?
And doesn’t this require that the brahmana ciass become “expert performers of sacrifice” in order serve the acaryas without deviation?
Why does the GBC cringe whenever the concept “ritvic” is mentioned?
Isn’t “ritvic” described in Srila Prabhupada’s books as “learned performers of sacrifice”?
Why does the GBC launch a smear campaign against the word “ritvic” when the term was used by, and in fact, made known to the society by Srila Prabhupada?
Is not the track record of GBC distortions and deviations causing the “vitiation” of ISKCONQ
Perhaps the GBC feels that the complaint of distortions by them is unfair. Is it willing to clear up?
Are ISKCON gurus “Sakshad hari tvena” Acaryas or not?
Why do many devotees including their own disciples believe this is not so?
Doesn’t Srila Prabhupada state that an intermediate and even a neophyte Vaisnava can accept disciples?
And how far can these progress under his insufficient guidance?
Does the GBC wish that ISKC„ON simply be monopolized by neophyte disciples?
If any ISKCON devotee feels he is a guru “as good as Hari Himself’ why do they not create their own institutions which by the grace of Lord Hari would then be successful?
Why are many sincere Vaisnavas in ISKCON insistent on clouding up Srila Prabhupada’s pure teachings with the concept of “fallen guru”?
And why are so many ISKCCN devotees falling for it?
Is not our Brahma-Madhva-Gaudiya sampradaya a history of debate?
Did not Lord Caitanya debate openly with scholars including Keshava Kashmiri, Mohammedan philosophy with Chand Kazi, impersonalists, etc.?
Didn’t Baladeva Vidyabhusana engage in open debate to establish the Govinda Bhasya commentary on Vedanta-sutra?
And didn’t Srila Prabhupada institute the process of isthaghosti even before officially organizing ISKCON?
Does the GBC have the foresight to organize open and regular isthaghosti at all ISKCON temples beginning with this year 51 1 C.E. in order to clear up any and all discrepancies?
Or is the GBC simply willing to maintain the status quo with the result of further “vitiation”?
Will the GBC at the 1997 Mavapura meetings make a resolution to open up the debace for all devotees at all ISKCON centers to discuss the problems and solutions of our society to encourage unity under Srila Prabhupada’s leadership?
Will the GBC agree to meet responsible members of the differing camps in order to schedule and promote these debates?
Is the GBC willing to listen opposing viewpoints?
Is the GBC willing to give up this concept of their own infallibility in order present the truth regardless of material consequences?
Is the GBC willing to take the bitter medicine of accepting the fact that their appointr:ent does not give them the license to make rampant changes to Srila Prabhupada’s mission?
And are all the friends, devotees and sympathizers of ISKCON willing to make the sacrifices necessary, in their lives, to get Srila Prabhupada’s movement back on track?
Any answers?

Enclosed please find one discussion document which we are humbly submitting for your consideration.

It contains some of the many questions which devotees are asking regarding the current situation in Prabhupada’s ISKCON.

We hope that you can take the time to go over questions in the near future.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

[signature appears on original]

PANCAJANYA DAS

SECRETARY

PRABHUPADANUGAS

INTERNATIONAL

P.O. BOX – 146

BADGER, CALIFORNIA

93603 USA.

PRABHUPADANUGAS INTERNATIONAL

Headquarters:

P.o. Box 146

Badger, California 93603 USA

Tele: 209-336-2358

Is the GBC willing to discuss in the spint of “glastnost” and “perestroika” the doubts which many devotees feel toward its policies of the last 19 years?

Or does the GBC consider itself above reproach when questioned by devotees about its conflicting decisions?

What is a “fallen guru”?

Why do ISKCON gurus continually fall down?

Does the bona-fide guru fall down?

Do bona-fide gurus support “fallen gurus”?

Do bona-fide gurus then renounce “fallen gurus” when their true position becomes apparent?

What actually constitutes a “fallen guru”?

How many ISKCON gurus are “fallen” long before they make the official announcement or are exposed?

Who were the “higher authorities” which the GBC consulted in 1978 when they instituted the “Zonal Acarya” system?

Was the “Zonal Acarya” system ever authorized by Srila Prabhupada?

Did Srila Prabhupada appoint “Zonal Acaryas” as the GBC claimed he did?

Why was the appointment of “Zonal Acaryas” not made until after Srila Prabhupada’s departure?

Why do ISKCON leaders claim that Srimad Bhagavatam is full of “falldowns” and use this as justification for when their appointed gurus fall down?

Is it not an offense to minimize the authority of the Vedic literatures (i.e. Srimad Bhagavatam) in this way?

Why did it take 18 years for the GBC to officially renounce the “Zonal Acarya” system?

Why are men who enforced the “Zonal Acarya” system on their godbrothers and godsisters still in positions of authority today?

Why did so many of Srila Prabhupada’s disciples leave the movement beginning in 1978 when the “Zonal Acarya” system was inaugurated?

How come one cannot take shelter of Srila Prabhupada’s books and instructions without the help of a “fallen guru”?

Why, after the guru “falls down,” must one be reinitiated?

How does reinitiation help a disciples spiritual life?

Did Sri!a Prahhupada ever mention the concept of reinitiation for his society? Why not?

Why were there reports of exceptional growth of ISKCON temples in the 1980’s, especially in Europe, through book, record and paraphernalia sales and a few years later the same temples were faced with bankruptcy and foreclosure?

Where did all the laxmi go?

Why was there never any investigation or accounting into any of this?

Why was there no plan to recover the money lost through waste and fraud?

Why did the BBT which was thriving in the 70’s and early 80’s experience serious financial problems shortly thereafter, with B G forced to close down and eventually republish with severely diminished circulation?

Why were the keeping of financial records not kept up to Srila Prabhupada’s standards?

Why does the GBC have to appoint accountants to try to set things straight like they were in 1977?

Is the GBC the ultimate managing authority for ISKCON or the ultimate ecclasiastical authority as they have stated many times?

Did Srila Prabhupada ever give the GBC such authority?

Why were Srila Prabhupada’s books changed after his departure?

Were Prabhupada’s books flawed?

If Prabhupada’s books were flawed why did he encourage every one to read and distribute them profusely?

And, if Srila Prabhupada’s books were not flawed, why were they changed?

Why were these changes considered necessary or even desirable?

Why has book distnbuuon declined since Srila Prabhupada’s books were changed?

Does the BBT hoe the authority to change Srila Prabhupada’s books after his departure?

Is this not a dangerous precedent to set for the future, to change Srila Prabhupada’s books, if not a flagrant violation of Vaishnava ettiquette?

Does the GBC issue “unpublished resolutions”?

Is the GBC afraid of “openness”?

What are these “unpublished resolutions” that the GBC has issued over the years?

In the spirit of “openness” is the GBC willing to publish these “unpublished resolutions”?

Srila Prabhupada followed one calendar during his many journeys around the world. Why did the GBC change this Vaisnava Calendar fol!owed by the world acarya?

Why are ISKCON and gurus who are found to be engaging in illicit sex-life allowed to continue their bus:ness of promoting themselves as sannvasis and/or gurus?

Why did the GBC and ISKCON’s ‘ ‘gurus” support men who were later shown to be fallen from the Vaishnava standard and who have even been convicted of serious crimes?

Why are “gurus” who supported these “fallen gurus” still in power?

Despite Srila Prabhupada’s order that ISKCON properties should “in principle” never be sold, why were there mass liquidations of his properties after his departure?

Why were successful properties and programs like New York City and Miami, Florida, among others, liquidated and replaced with inferior substitutes?

Why were millions of dollars lost on misguided and abandoned farming projects in the United States and elsewhere?

And why are men who supported and promoted these projects not being held accountable?

Why was one American devotee, Sulochana das, murdered for trying to bring to light the so-called guru appointment?

Why were devotees from Singapore beaten up at the 1994 Mayapura meetings while some ISKCON “gurus” looked on approvingly?

When are these “gestapo-like” tactics in ISKCON going to stop?

Was the GBC to be disbanded after Prabhupada’s departure? Why not?

Was the BBT to be disbanded after Prabhupada’s departure? Why not?

Was the Mayapura-Vrindaban Trust to be disbanded after Prabhupada’s departure? Why not?

And yet, the officiating acarya system, also instituted by Srila Prabhupada, was not allowed to remain after Srila Prabhupada’s departure. Why not?

Why does the GBC profess to be the authority for all ISKC.ON devotees in spite of admitting to a world of mistakes and gross lapses of Vaishnava ettiquette?

How has the GBC been instrumental in creating a schism in the ISKCON community between those devotees who want to follow Srila Prabhupada’s authonty and those who do not?

How is the GBC’s “living guru theory” any different from the “gross bodily concept” of life?

What is the GBC’s definition of “living”?

Did Snla Prabhupada not say that he shall live forever in his books?

Does not the follower live with him?

Just as a computer manual is necessary to operate a computer are not the Vedic literatures, especially Bhagavad-gita, not meant to help one function peacefully in the material world?

Is it not important therefore that these literature’s be presented purely to avoid any misunderstanding?

Is not in fact dangerous to present Vaisnava philosophy and Vedic culture based on relative truths and distortions?

And if such distortions occur in presenting Vedic knowledge should they not be weeded out just as an expert gardener weeds his plot of land?

Why is the GBC not taking the time to weed the garden but has left it to others?

And why are these same gardeners (Prabhupada disciples) condemned and ostracized from the society?

Does the GBC wish to let Srila Prabhupada’s garden be overrun with weeds?

Or is the GBC willing to get its hands dirty by openly discussing in public isthaghosti the causes and solutions to our societal problems?

Why are so many former ISKCON devotees leaving for other maths?

Is this trend healthy?

Why does ISKCON institute different “Hindu pujas” not specifically prescribed by Srila Prabhupada?

Is this not simply to attract wealthy life members?

Should ISKCON not be striving to institute sanatana-dharma irregardless of whether or not it increases contributions?

Srila Prabhupada taught us to respect all legitimate schools of Vedic thought, but should ISKCON be allowed to degenerate into a hodge-podge of Hindu concepts (or Hindu-Christian concepts as is the case in New Vrindaban) or should we strictly adhere to the Brahma-Madhva-Gaudiya system?

Did not Srila Prabhupada say that the ancient Vedic culture, once predominant on this planet, was virtually lost due to the process of “vitiation” resulting from the brahmana by birth and not by by qualification concept?

Does not Lord Krishna Himself state that the orders of life are are the result of quality of work and not by birth?