Abolition of the GBC
Hariù Oà Namaù
Clear Path Vaiñëavism
For Membership and Related Information
Contact Purusottama: email@example.com
Table of Contents
I. Prabhupäda and His Movement
II. Constitution of Association
III. Seed of Counter-revolution
IV. The Great Sinister Movement
V. A Change in Direction
VI. Abolition of the G.B.C.
Appendix One: Urgent Communiquπ
Appendix Two: Letters Applicable
Appendix Three: Opposing Splinter Groups
Appendix Four: War at the Core
“Lord Caitanya Mahäprabhu has forecast that this Hare Kåñëa mantra will be heard in every nook and cranny of the globe. He is God, so it will happen; that is a fact. . . if we take advantage, then we may take the credit. But if we do not, someone else will.”
A life dedicated to “ISKCON” is a life wasted in the service of that which is not. Lord Çré Caitanya’s Hare Kåñëa movement of Kåñëa consciousness is misrepresented by “ISKCON,” an institution without spiritual authority, shot through with the lower modes of passion and ignorance. Only the truly initiated disciples of His Divine Grace Çréla A. C. Bhaktivedänta Swämé Prabhupäda can together be empowered, through the spiritual principle of unity in diversity, to rectify the sordid situation. This would rejuvenate some semblance of genuine Kåñëa consciousness in the West. It is high time that a philosophical and unbreakable alliance–free from the influence of “ISKCON” and, in good part, dedicated to exposing it–be consummated in all sincerity and seriousness. This website, this book, and this Manifesto are dedicated to just such a transcendental and past due proposition.
I. Prabhupäda and His Movement
His Divine Grace Çréla A. C. Bhaktivedänta Swämé Prabhupäda formed two branches of the Caitanya tree, and both of them were completely bona fide at the time of their founding. In terms of success, the continuation of any such line is dependent upon the words and actions of the members representing the founder. Along with secondary factors, it is the disciples who either carry on the line, keeping a particular branch alive, or who fail to do so.
The movements that Prabhupäda founded were both non-different from Lord Caitanya’s; Prabhupäda and his movement cannot be considered separate from that of Çré Gaurahari. In India, in the first half of the previous century, His Divine Grace, an uttama-adhikäré, founded the Sarvabhauma Bhagavat Samäj, which literally translates to mean The International League of Devotees. It came to be known simply as the League of Devotees. Çréla Prabhupäda initiated his first disciple during this period as well.
That particular movement did not remain viable for very long, however, as it did not have many intensely devoted souls, working under the founder, connected to it . . . if it had any at all. The League was established with the aims and objectives suggested by well-known devotees in the state of Uttara Pradesh, personalities who were influential in that particular region at that time.
Actually, however, the association was the resultant of Çréla Prabhupäda being offered a palatial building in order to set up his first äçrama. This took place in Jhansi, but the donor did not want to sign the property over to an individual. As such, Prabhupäda formed The League of Devotees and soon thereafter requested an elder godbrother, Mädhava Mahäräj, to join him and the League, with Mädhava then being made the President of the association. This particular godbrother was close to Kuïjadä in West Bengal. These two would not affiliate with Prabhupäda unless the property was first signed over to them, free them from any obligation to the League of Devotees. His Divine Grace quite appropriately rejected this somewhat offensive counter-offer.
The first registered office of the League was located in a spacious building formerly known as Bhäraté Bhawän on Sipri Road in Jhansi, a city known for its many dacoits. Potential members interested in its cultural and spiritual activities were urged by the Founder-Secretary, Çréla Prabhupäda, to themselves request its mission statement or prospectus, which was available in both Hindi and English, for more details about the institution.
Although not incorporated (as his second movement would be), The League of Devotees was registered under Societies Act No. XXI 1860 with the Registrar of Joint Stock Companies in Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh. In February, 1955, accompanying this registration was a submission of Memorandum of Association and Rules and Regulations. This Memorandum had been signed by all the current members of the organization at a gathering, which then became known as the association’s inaugural meeting. On December 12, 1955, The League boasted twelve Executive Directors, with Pandit A. C. Bhaktivedänta listed ninth. By this time, it had also received a certificate of exemption from income tax.
However, the above-mentioned meeting was actually a rejuvenation of the association, because, by that time, the mission in Jhansi had already folded. Prabhupäda considered Jhansi to be a poor place for his effort, and the walled compound was effectively taken from him as the result of political intrigue. Çréla Prabhupäda had made repeated entreaties for government help in the matter of running the operation, which cost over one thousand rupees per month, but nothing ever came of those requests.
The League of Devotees stood to serve humanity in a noble act of Vaiñëava spirit; it was actively engaged in searching for preaching members, which it pledged to train. The news and views of this association were published with the Brahma-Madhva-Gaudéya-Vaiñëava-Sampradäya’s interest foremost, especially to protect devotees from the onslaught of man-made laws. It did not have any objection to secular statutes meant for controlling unauthorized activities of unscrupulous sädhus, but it was dedicated to protecting the transcendental ideas enunciated by the great Äcäryas connected to Çréla Prabhupäda, who was already one of them.
Eventually, The League of Devotees became little more than a vehicle by which His Divine Grace circulated Back to Godhead, which he had first had printed, and personally distributed, in 1944. In 1956, Prabhupäda now called himself Founder-Secretary of the League, Goswämé Abhay Charan Bhaktivedänta. Still, it remained a weak organization, especially in terms of finances. In 1958, Prabhupäda requested a very wealthy Indian businessman, Jugalkishore Birla, to become the president of the League. Later, in March of 1960, in the last correspondence wherein Prabhupäda mentions this organization as an active devotional entity, he requested Dr. Y. G. Naik, a famed Ph.D in New Delhi, to join the League.
The League of Devotees gradually fizzled out, and Prabhupäda walked away from it, just as he had renounced the building and initial äçrama at Jhansi. By the early Sixties, His Divine Grace had set his sights on organizing a preaching effort in America.
In 1964, Srila Prabhupäda took his residence at the Andheri House in Bombay, a colony or boarding establishment meant primarily for employees of a joint public-private enterprise known as the Scindia Steam Navigation Company. Its managing director was an elderly Vaiñëavé, Sumati Morarjee. He secured that residence for proximity, in order to persuade her to grant him free passage to the United States aboard one of the company’s trade ships. At this time, Prabhupäda alternated his domicile with a residence at the home of a wealthy Sindhi banker in the Churchgate district.
In the first half of 1965, after diligent and repeated efforts, Prabhupäda successfully managed to get Sumati Morarjee’s authorization and thus secured a ticket for the journey. He then had to negotiate with the government in order to obtain his P-Form, required for any Indian national before he is allowed to travel out of the country. He approached the State Bank of India and one Mr. Bhattachari; this man was not favorable to the proposal, because Prabhupäda had only managed to find a private sponsor and a sponsorship for one month. However, Mr. Bhattachari did not immediately make a final decision.
Prabhupäda waited for some time, but no word was coming. After Bhattachari officially denied the permit, His Divine Grace remained both adamant and persistent. Mr. Bhattachari was persuaded by Prabhupäda to move the file up to the Chief Officer of the Foreign Exchange, the top man of the Bank of India, Mr. Rao. However, even before the proposed meeting with him took place, Mr. Rao approved the P-Form and personally presented it to Prabhupäda.
From Calcutta, he departed via a sea journey to America on August 13, 1965. He carried onboard his umbrella, a small metal suitcase with some of his books, and a bag of cereal. He also had a return ticket issued by the Navigation Company, as well as forty rupees. However, since Indian rupees were not convertible to American dollars, he was actually penniless, as far as cash money was concerned, once he arrived in the United States.
At a certain point, however, such an arrival itself appeared provisional. Despite securing a proprietor’s cabin, the first-class accommodation available on these steamships, when it reached the Arabian Sea, he suffered a massive heart attack on the thirteenth day of the voyage. He survived. The Atlantic Ocean was unseasonably calm during the rest of the passage, and, after a total of thirty-five days out, the Jaladuta docked at Commonwealth Pier in Boston Harbor on September 17th, just before dawn. The next day, it sailed to New York, and Prabhupäda disembarked in Brooklyn.
For almost one year, he had no fixed residence and could procure little money to eat, sometimes enduring a kind of night starvation. In 1966, local hippies heard of his mission and a few took him seriously. Just previous to this, however, while still in New York City, His Divine Grace considered acting on that return ticket. He would visit Scindia Navigation’s East Coast office and inquire when the Jaladuta was next scheduled for India. Finally, after speaking to the clerk at that office and finding out the next scheduled departure date, he determined that he would stay one more month only and then board the ship–unless the situation changed dramatically.
Which, as we all know, it did. In the middle of 1966, Prabhupäda formed his second devotional organization. As it would turn out, he would also walk away from this one as well, although that is disputed by some who claim to still follow him. Devotional entities are not like established or organized religions; in almost all ways, they are not merely different from religions but exactly opposite. Organized religion is, by definition, mechanical, and it becomes more and more so as time goes on. Since the basic nature of the material world is also mechanical, a large, organized religion is not easily destroyed. Another way of putting this is that the world and the religion both share the same chief feature.
Genuine devotional or occult organizations, however, are not mechanical; they are spiritual or metaphysical. The material world is, by intrinsic design, meant to cover spirituality; this is its dominant or obvious motive force. However, whenever it gets the opportunity, it will destroy spirituality, rather than merely covering it up. This is a subtle material truth, and the Supreme Personality of Godhead only rarely interferes with it.
The League of Devotees was thwarted–eventually dissipated and destroyed. Nevertheless, His Divine Grace made another formative effort in the United States. He was not a man easily disappointed, and he also possessed formidable organizational skills. That fact should not be misinterpreted to mean, however, that he was even slightly inclined to create an organized religion. He came to inaugurate Kåñëa consciousness culture in the West, and an organizational format was required in order to push the mission on in an effective and widespread manner.
II. Constitution of Association
An initial preaching effort, meant to convert debauched Westerners into Vaiñëava devotees of the Lord, was conducted in an intimate setting within the Sixties bohemian counter-culture near and around Greenwich Village, just as the hippies were becoming prominent, at least to some extent, in North America. His Divine Grace believed that there was good prospect for forming a world organization within an occidental society deeply afflicted by meaningless material advancement. This international Society was meant to become a medium that could save the West from ruination.
Srila Prabhupäda lived in the Bowery for some time; he also accepted periodic residence given to him by an impersonalist guru. However, Prabhupäda’s situation improved by the grace of Nitai-Gaura, and he eventually settled into an äçrama, with modern amenities, in the Lower East Side, at 26th Second Avenue. In June of 1966, His Divine Grace began negotiations with Bhakta Steve, a registered attorney, who was attending lectures and chanting on beads. The purpose was to incorporate Prabhupäda’s vision for an international Society dedicated to Kåñëa consciousness.
On July 7th, Çréla Prabhupäda and his devotees finalized the original Constitution for this Society; an initial annual meeting had taken place the previous evening. The founding document for ISKCON was officially entitled CONSTITUTION OF ASSOCIATION. It listed the name of the proposed entity as The International Society for Krishna Consciousness with its headquarters located at the Radhakrishna Temple, 26 Second Avenue, New York City, 10003, USA. The primary objectives were listed, numbering seventeen. There were also secondary objectives listed in the document.
Six days later, this Society became a corporation in accordance with statutes pursuant to the Religious Corporation Law in the State of New York. The attorney was the aforementioned well-wisher, Steven J. Goldsmith, B.Sc. M.A.B.L. There were eleven specific affirmations listed in the document, each of them numbered, all employing capital letters. The CONSTITUTION OF ASSOCIATION was neither mentioned, nor amended to, what would soon be the Articles of Incorporation of the Society. Nevertheless, its principles were reiterated in the SECOND entry of its Articles, in small-case alphabetical order. Seven such specific purposes or aims were listed. The Articles of Incorporation listed the name of the entity as INTERNATIONAL SOCIETY FOR KRISHNA CONSCIOUSNESS, INC., under the FIRST entry, and those seven purposes were then declared under the SECOND.
Under the THIRD entry, the document verified that this corporation would have all the powers granted to such organizations in the State, would act according to the law, and would limit its field to purposes that were tax exempt in accordance with the Internal Revenue code. Under the FOURTH entry, the document confirmed that this corporation was non-profit, that none of its earnings would inure to the benefit of any private person, and that it acted subject to the order of the Supreme Court of the State.
The FIFTH entry stated that the corporation’s operations would be conducted mostly within New York State. The SIXTH entry listed the address of the principal place of worship, and the SEVENTH entry stated that the number of trustees of the Society totaled nine. Its year had already begun on July 6th, the date of the first annual meeting; only three of these nine trustees were appointed for the first particular year, 1966-67. In the next two annual meetings, three of the others, and then the remaining three, would become, respectively, the new trustees of the Society; the previous trustees then would no longer hold that office.
In entry EIGHT, The Western names and addresses of these nine trustees were listed, in order, as per annual meetings. Some but not all of them would soon become initiated. Of the first batch of trustees, the first two devotees listed would be also married the following September. The NINTH entry of the original Articles stated that the first annual meeting had taken place on July 6th, beginning at 7 p.m., at the principal place of worship.
The TENTH entry was technical, declaring that everything stated in the previous eight entries was determined at the first annual meeting and in accord with the Religious Corporation Law of the State. The ELEVENTH and final entry stated that the signatories or subscribers to the Articles of Incorporation were all adults in good standing with the Society, were members of it and following its rules and regulations. Along with Çréla Prabhupäda, two of his devotees signed this document as official subscribers in the presence of the above-mentioned attorney, who then notarized it. The document was signed on July 13, 1966.
On Sept. 9th, Prabhupäda formally initiated his first Western disciples; three days later, he performed the above-mentioned wedding ceremony. On September 22nd, His Divine Grace performed his next initiation of four male followers who were not able to take part in the first initiation thirteen days previously.
His Divine Grace Çréla Prabhupäda was the Äcärya of the International Society; in that sense, it was absolute and non-different from him. He was the final authority and arbiter of everything related to his disciples and his movement. His down-line authority structure was simple and basic: A temple president was the next authority in the chain representing him, and these temple presidents were in regular contact with Prabhupäda. From the incorporation of ISKCON in 1966, it would be an idyllic four years before another authority structure would enter the picture.
One year after incorporation, Prabhupäda mailed a letter to Sumati Morarjee informing her that he had now established three thriving centers and was on the verge of creating more. All of these centers were, or were to be, located in North America. As of September, 1967, a total of six temples were operational. He did not require many devotees to open a center. Indeed, it was his opinion that a single sincere soul could alone maintain a center, just as he had done in New York before his initial disciples joined him.
His Divine Grace held the liberal view that his centers, despite each having a separate incorporation, were still part of the same institution that his godbrothers represented. He considered his preaching territory to be the Western countries, while his godbrothers opened centers in the East. He stated that his devotional and organizational activities were related to the Gaudéya Maöha—but only on the basis of Kåñëa consciousness.
In the summer of 1968, in a letter to Pope Paul VI, Prabhupäda confirmed that he had now opened eight centers. His principle was that, whenever and wherever a center was started, it must then be maintained. At that same time, Prabhupäda revealed, in a letter to some of his senior disciples, that he now thought that there could be a local governing body for each center. As part of the formulation, he thought that some kind of central management committee for managing all of the centers could also be formed.
This idea was not acted upon at that time, however.
In a letter to Shree Krishna Prasad Bhargava, dated early September, 1968, Prabhupäda confirmed that eleven centers had been established: Seven in the United States, two in Canada, and two in Europe. This number soon expanded; by the middle of that month, ISKCON had opened fourteen centers. However, at the end of that month, Prabhupäda ordered that all of the centers should become better organized before any further attempts at expansion.
In February, 1969, he sent a letter to the aforementioned Kuïjadä, then going by the name Tértha Mahäräj, to inform him that he had opened fifteen centers. He provided the addresses of each center, as well as the initiated and Western name of each temple president. It is once again clear in this important letter that the system of authority in his movement still worked through Prabhupäda directly to each temple president, with no intermediary. In a letter to India, Prabhupäda revealed that he was pressed with management work, receiving about twelve letters daily mostly from his temple presidents. He said that answering them was a heavy task, but, by the Grace of Kåñëa, it did not depress him.
Çréla Prabhupäda wanted that all devotional action taken by his leading men should be executed in terms of time, place, and the people of the locality. The principle he wanted observed was that each center function as one with, yet different from, the whole, acting conjointly for the common development but in perfect and pure freedom as well. In all such centers, he was the sole final authority, and the temple presidents represented him as authority at the next stage in this managerial succession.
Near the end of 1969, there were twenty-three ISKCON centers operational, with sixteen more in the planning stage. In a letter to Hanuman Prasad Possar, dated February, 1970, Prabhupäda reiterated the above-mentioned management scheme. He confirmed that the management of his centers was in the hands of three officers, namely, a president, treasurer, and a secretary. He stated that he was the Äcärya for all of the centers, his name was there on each checking account, but that he only signed checks himself when he was residing at a particular center. He also confirmed that he alone managed the publications and the book fund.
Very soon after this, twenty-six centers had been opened, and we can see clearly from all these details, presented chronologically, that Kåñëa consciousness was growing and thriving at a tremendous rate worldwide under this simple management arrangement that Prabhupäda had implemented from the beginning.
His mission had met with astounding success; ISKCON was doing even better than expected. The initial template for management had included the creation of ISKCON Books in Boston, where Prabhupäda’s writings became new literatures that sold well. Back to Godhead was being printed and distributed on a monthly basis. A Kåñëa Conscious Handbook had also been published. More and more centers were being started practically every month, and many checking accounts were opened along with them. The numbers of devotees at these centers, bustling with spiritual knowledge, were expanding quite nicely, and very few men or women were leaving any of his temples.
Mahämäyä devé was being defeated in the Western world, her stronghold, but she detected an opening to reverse the momentum of this upstart Society. After all, that is her duty. She knew it well that Westerners are strongly inclined towards constant change, so she convinced some of Prabhupäda’s followers that it was time for one.
III. Seed of a Counter-revolution
“As soon as he saw that his neophyte disciples were increasing in number, he immediately decided to leave this world. To accept disciples means to take up the responsibility of absorbing the sinful reaction of life of the disciple. At the present moment in our ISKCON, campus politics and diplomacy has entered. Some of my beloved students–on whom I counted very, very much–have been involved in this matter, influenced by Mäyä. As such, there has been some activity which I consider as disrespectful. So, I have decided to retire and divert attention to book writing and nothing more.”
His Divine Grace Çréla Prabhupäda started his proselytizing effort by simply chanting the Mahämantra with devotional instruments in Tompkins Square Park. He attracted his first followers there. At that small park in New York City, he was sitting alone underneath an old and large tree, chanting the Hare Kåñëa mantra for about three hours in the middle of the afternoon. A number of young men would assemble, and, gradually, some of them even danced to the rhythm. In this way, Prabhupäda made disciples, and his group quickly developed into an organization. On June 12, 1966, Çréla Prabhupäda held his first Sunday love feast for them, cooking twelve different preparations; sixteen of his devotees attended it. This meeting marked the actual beginning of the ISKCON movement.
In less than four weeks, the Society was incorporated. Just as July of 1966 had been a most eventful month, so it was exactly four years later, but in a very different way. In late July of 1970, Prabhupäda formed, as an unincorporated entity, the Governing Body Commission. It came into being in an atmosphere of crisis. Up to this point, there had only been one significant speed bump, when his first sannyäsa initiate rejected Prabhupäda’s authority, disobeyed his order, and tried to change the whole template in America. This crazy man was able to influence one other man to leave the New York temple and join him; both of these fellows had been active homosexual lovers since their college days together.
June 12, 1966 to July 27, 1970 marked the initial or ascending phase of Çréla Prabhupäda’s Hare Kåñëa movement of Kåñëa consciousness. The creation of the G.B.C. took place on July 28th, 1970, and this demarcated the beginning of the stasis phase, as its management paradigm was then significantly altered. The period of the stasis ran from July 28, 1970 to April 7, 1972. On April 8, 1972, Prabhupäda temporarily suspended the operation of the G.B.C. after eight of its members had convened an unauthorized meeting. The period of April 8, 1972 to March 22, 1978–when the G.B.C. finalized the appointment of eleven pretender uttama-adhikärés or so-called zonal äcäryas–marked the descending phase of Çréla Prabhupäda’s movement.
As of the final day of G.B.C. meetings, on March 22nd, 1978 Prabhupäda’s bona fide movement ended, having been replaced by an apa-sampradäya. The fix was in, and eleven bogus gurus—“Äcäryas of the Zone”—were then imposed upon the rest of his disciples throughout the world. In this Manifesto, that apa-sampradäya is referred to as “ISKCON.” We see then that ISKCON, in the true sense of the term and acronym, came into existence on June 12, 1966 and functioned, sometimes powerfully and sometimes imperfectly, until March 22, 1978, the day the music died.
Only albino fanatics, frolicking in the dirty snow that covers their leaders’ footprints, claim a facsimile of this ISKCON could not actually come into existence. The “ISKCON is one” shibboleth is only technically true. Such “ISKCON” fanaticism cannot long cover what any sane person readily sees, viz., that this quasi-Eastern religion is now nothing more than a perverted reflection of something that was once real. “ISKCON” is a facsimile that operates in the name of ISKCON. We are not concerned with technicalities and thus must not allow them or their fanatics to bewilder us.
Prabhupäda’s branch of the Hare Kåñëa movement rarely attracted those who were materially successful. Instead, as per its underlying pulse—and as per the proselytizing characteristic inculcated by its initial promulgator, Lord Çré Kåñëa Caitanya Mahäprabhu—it often attracted the most fallen, the lowest. It attracted some scum as well: Womanizers, criminals, faggots, sadists, masochists, and losers. It sometimes attracted men ambitious to overlord their fellow man. It attracted the bored, and it attracted fanatics who then, more or less, simply switched allegiances. It attracted feminists, radicals, malcontents, crazies, bums, debauched students, and hippies, some of whom delved in black magic. It attracted heavy-duty rockers and drug addicts, as well as people inclined toward alternative culture. Most ominously, it attracted some envious people.
A spiritual movement can only be as good as its leaders, the ones who carry out the mission of its founder. It is a misconception to think that any of the abovementioned three phases of this movement did not manifest significant growth, because they all did. In fact, the abovementioned three-fold division of phases is based on but one category: The management of the movement below the Founder-Äcärya. As far as members and book distribution was concerned, growth was continuous throughout the whole time, viz., 1966-1978. In terms of revenue, that only increased also. The movement became more and more well-known throughout the Sixties and most of the Seventies; the West certainly felt its weight.
However, the management of the movement traversed an arc, or overall octave, different from this continuum. Management remained pure and powerful throughout the Sixties. In the early Seventies, it oscillated. After the 1972 G.B.C. scheme emerged (despite the fact that it was, at that time, aborted), management by a first-echelon and second-echelon of conditioned souls, all of whom were attempting to be representatives of His Divine Grace, experienced pronounced periods of fluctuation.
The abovementioned crisis that, at least in part, provoked the formation of the G.B.C., marked a second and more serious speed bump. Four leading disciples and preachers, soon-to-be sannyäsés, each capable of opening centers, became spiritually poisoned by what appeared to be a mysterious influence. Actually, it emanated from Prabhupäda’s envious godbrothers in India. One of these four men had flown there to rectify some shipping irregularities, and he visited with Prabhupäda’s godbrothers. They infected him with misconceptions such as that Prabhupäda was not sanctioned to do what he was doing, that he was never a prominent devotee in the Gauòéya Maöha, and that he was not authorized to accept mlecchas. They claimed that he had committed a great offense to his guru, and to them, by taking the title of Prabhupäda, which these godbrothers claimed was reserved for Çréla Bhaktisiddhänta alone.
This contagion spread when that leading secretary returned to America, combining with other nonsense. The propaganda then began to circulate that Prabhupäda was not a servitor of God, but that he was actually the Supreme Lord Himself. Along with this, the direct incarnation of God had become displeased with all of His disciples, and, as a result, He had withdrawn His mercy from them, leaving them to flounder in a state of despair—or so it came to be believed by some.
These four men grouped together and formulated a solution to this allegedly great problem. They said that the movement not only had to stop expanding, but it had to centralize. The place they selected, as could be easily surmised, was Greenwich Village. However, since Prabhupäda was not cooperative toward the idea, they locked him in his room at Los Angeles, unable to see the contradiction in that action. He called it disrespectful, but it was an outrage.
This was the tense atmosphere in which the G.B.C. was formed; the charter establishing it is called the Direction of Management. It lists a very condensed synopsis of Prabhupäda’s disciplic lineage and his arrival in America, followed by mention of the incorporation of ISKCON. After this, it lists thirty-four centers that had been established internationally in the United States, Canada, Europe, Australia, and Japan; India was not represented in this list, as all efforts there had been unsuccessful to that point.
Çréla Prabhupäda, in this charter, states that current management, in the form of president, secretary, and treasurer, was doing nicely, but he established this governing body for the purpose of even better management. There is mention of an initial ad hoc meeting at the San Francisco yatra, and then the twelve original commissioners are named in the document; eleven of them were married, with no sannyäsés included. These commissioners were called direct representatives and zonal secretaries, understood as executors after Prabhupäda left the scene.
The particular functions of this G.B.C. or Governing Body Commission are next detailed, numbering nine. The first one, obviously, is the most important. It unequivocally states that this G.B.C. would receive directions from His Divine Grace, that Prabhupäda had power of final approval in all matters, which included the Commission’s decisions and resolutions.
The next two detail a rotating plan of regular G.B.C. replacement, retirement, and retention at three-year intervals; these two particulars have become a source of considerable controversy and tension, especially in recent years. The G.B.C. charter is affixed with the signature of Srila Prabhupäda, along with three of the original twelve. The formation of this governing body took place at Los Angeles temple, the World Headquarters of ISKCON. The four leaders who had caused the upheaval back then in 1970 faced formidable opposition from both Prabhupäda and his newly-created governing body.
The Commission successfully helped check and uproot the deviant influence of those four sannyäsés, and that was a glorious accomplishment. The apa-siddhäntas they had advocated were exposed in effective ways, and the momentum of the movement turned against them. They realized their errors, repented, asked for forgiveness, and were dispersed to different states in America in order to open new centers. Yet we can see that, even from its point of emergence–represented by the Direction of Management charter–Prabhupäda had fettered the G.B.C. It was never granted absolute power nor was there any mention that it had some kind of automatic, self-corrective mechanism integral to its matrix. It was chartered according to regulations of a rotating membership. The voting mandate contained within the Direction of Management was never at any time observed. His Divine Grace removed it in a room conversation on May 28, 1977 for his own reasons. However, it remains a fact that three years passed after the G.B.C. was formed, and a voting procedure, in terms of the next set of commissioners, was supposed to have been implemented by the end of that period (by July, 1973).
That stipulation from the Direction of Management was ignored, and no G.B.C., either individually or collectively, consulted with Prabhupada in connection to this disregard of the membership stipulation and procedure. At the bare minimum, the G.B.C. had a fiduciary responsibility to have consulted him about it, but it was not done. That negligence has caused considerable turmoil amongst the remaining devotees in recent years, despite the fact that His Divine Grace, in May of 1977, did, in six words, rescind and nullify that specific stipulation of the Direction of Management i.e., the one mandating a regular election procedure in connection to periodic rotation of G.B.C. members.
IV. The Great Sinister Movement
“Once before you wanted to do something centralizing with your G.B.C. meeting, and, if I did not interfere, the whole thing would have been killed.”
In the latter part of 1972, His Divine Grace reminded one of his leading secretaries, an original member of the Governing Body Commission, that Prabhupäda’s movement came dangerously close to being uprooted by the aforementioned unauthorized meeting of April, 1972 in New York. Çréla Prabhupäda had discovered and checked the attempt, and, although the mischief did cause some setbacks, its direct impact proved minimal.
The chief motivation in the creation of the governing body was to forge a better administrative arrangement. Prabhupäda would, as a result, have more freedom to work on his translations and commentaries, without spending so much time in management. The plan included having the commissioners answer philosophical questions for the devotees, as well as tending to the individual problems of those men and women. Prabhupäda wanted to remain in the background, giving directions only when required.
The sanctioned purpose of the Governing Body Commission was to act as the instrument for the execution of the will of His Divine Grace Çréla Prabhupäda. The G.B.C. was to oversee management of ISKCON as it received direction from Prabhupäda, and His Divine Grace had final approval in everything. That was how it was supposed to have operated, but that is not how it actually played out. Çréla Prabhupäda was hopeful, as indicated in its charter, that the Commission would be able to maintain his movement in a bona fide way once he left the scene. Still–even as early as September, 1970–Prabhupäda was apprehensive about what he called the great sinister movement that had entered his Society.
In a letter to one of the commissioners, he reiterated an oft-repeated provisional theme; if an integral condition was not met, then the poisonous influence introduced by the four sannyäsés would fester. Prabhupäda confirmed that he had transferred much of the administrative power to the G.B.C., and that the poison could not act as long as his commissioners remained spiritually strong. He had invested the G.B.C. with some power to maintain the standard of the Kåñëa Consciousness Society on his behalf, but they had to remain vigilant and spiritually stout in order to do so . . . they had to, individually and collectively, not misuse free will.
Rectifying one subversive situation by replacing it with another is not a formula for success, but late 1970 was still over a year away from the centralization scheme. Prabhupäda was hopeful of the prospects of his governing body in 1970; this was evidenced in some letters. He had formed the GBC for the purpose of fulfilling the order of his own spiritual master, as well as to keep devotional standards at the highest level. He was, in 1970 and 1971, hopeful that his G.B.C. would administrate in such a way that he could be completely relieved from management and begin translating and commenting upon more and more Vaiñëava texts.
According to the protocol, whatever idea a commissioner had, he was to introduce it by letter and distribute copies to all members, along with one copy to Prabhupäda. If the majority of the G.B.C. supported the idea, then it could be carried out. When a G.B.C. majority opinion was ascertained, Prabhupäda’s vote would be “yes” or “no.” In most cases, he predicted it would be “yes,” unless the resolution was grievously against Vaiñëava principles..
In November of 1970, he made it clear that new commissioners could only become so if he appointed them, and that the body would remain constituted as per its original members. In letter after letter throughout 1970-1971, he emphasized the importance of responsibility and purity in connection to this governing body. Only if his orders and the provisions of its charter were met could it operate efficiently and successfully. He also indicated that he was still the authority of the movement, and that management at all levels must remain ever aware of that.
As such, caution was called for, and he explicitly wrote that he did not want any temple presidents having their autonomous managing capacity interfered with, reiterating that this could not happen as long as all of his managers at all levels kept the order of their spiritual master front and center. He confirmed that, in the disciplic succession of Lord Caitanya, if management simply abided by the orders of the Founder-Äcärya in disciplic succession, everything should and would proceed quite nicely.
There was a blip in August, 1971. Prabhupada wrote a letter to one of his temple presidents confirming that the G.B.C. was not meant to control any center but simply to see that devotional activities there were going on nicely. He specifically wrote that it is not the business of the G.B.C. to exert absolute authority, confirming that this was not within the power of the governing body. Before anything could be imposed upon any temple president, all of the G.B.C. members had to be consulted. He also wrote that the Commission was simply in an experimental stage, that much more work was required in order to bring it to the point where it could effectively oversee the administration of an international movement.
Then 1972 rolled around. In the early part of that year, without informing either Prabhupäda or another four members about it, eight commissioners convened a meeting, allegedly with a quorum of seven, in order to make changes. There were a number of votes taken. At that time, by unanimous or majority vote, these G.B.C. representatives appointed a new man to some kind of fabricated post with considerable power. This devotee held an influential job at an upscale investment firm in New York City. The rogue plan entailed centralizing all temples and revenues, the latter being then bundled and invested into an account at his firm. One of the G.B.C. commissioners who was present for these votes, and more or less duped by the whole initiative (change), wrote a letter to Prabhupada, duly informing him of the proceedings and conclusions that were scheduled to soon be enacted.
At least one of the commissioners, especially gung-ho about the arrangement, immediately acted on it. In the Upper Midwest zone, thriving centers in important preaching locations—Columbus, Cleveland, Chicago, and Madison—were all closed down by order of that zone’s commissioner. These centers were making devotees on a regular basis, were practically self-sufficient, and the movement had been expanding very nicely in those places.
However, they were shuttered, and all men, money, and machines were centralized in Detroit. Soon, collections were to be turned in there and then funneled to New York. Supposedly, this would increase profits for the movement via sophisticated and lucrative investments with monies the thirteenth commissioner thus received.
Prabhupäda nipped this thing before it could get too far. He had thought that the G.B.C. would relieve him from having to deal with complaints and problems, but, even in late 1971, he acknowledged that this new managerial arrangement had thus far proven counter-productive. Now there was this, so His Divine Grace, in early April, 1972, ordered the G.B.C. suspended.
In doing so, he sent a Memo to all of his Temple Presidents, informing them to disregard any and all orders from the G.B.C. In other words, Prabhupäda returned his movement back to the previous structure, where the order of the Lord worked directly through him and then, in turn, through the temple president at any given center.
Prabhupäda was shocked that his right-hand men could do such things without consulting him, making big, big changes within the Society without even seeking his opinion or that of the other four members. He was exasperated by it, perplexed why it had been done. He had appointed twelve senior initiated disciples and given each of them zones for administration. In one meeting, however, eight of them had changed everything. So what was this? He wrote that he did not know. He reiterated that the new man had no position in his overall plan on how to manage the Society; Prabhupäda demanded his immediate removal.
This event in early 1972 was a harbinger of what the power faction within the G.B.C. would do just a little over six years later, exploiting three words in Prabhupäda’s will as technical justification for the unauthorized creation of an äcärya board, along with the creation of eleven bogus gurus, falsely alleged to be on the highest platform of spiritual purity. Factually, this power faction did not want to be checked in anything by anyone, including the less-powerful G.B.C. representatives, but Prabhupäda did check them–back in 1972, viz., he suspended their operation and transferred all of their power back to his temple presidents.
Throughout the remainder of that year, he would refer back to the incident. In the second week of April, the wound was still raw. He wrote that he was surprised none of the G.B.C. members detected the defects in the procedure of the meeting until knowledge of it came to him. He wondered what would happen to his movement when he left the scene, and he answered this rhetorical question with another one: Shall everything be spoiled by GBC? He said that the Commission had to remain suspended until he revised its procedure.
At that time, the G.B.C. failed the spiritual master by an act of commission. They failed him, being unable to resist a temptation to create what they rationalized was an upgrade; they flunked in an unsuccessful attempt to transform the management and financial structure of the movement. By August of 1973, they would fail another test, but this would be by an act of omission. Although the Governing Body’s charter called for elections no later than July, 1973, such elections were never held then or at any later date. Prabhupäda was never consulted about this neglect, but he most definitely should have been consulted.
Indeed, except for the temple presidents who were also original G.B.C. appointees, most if not all of the other presidents in the movement were never even made aware, by the commissioners of their zones, that they had a fiduciary responsibility mandated in the Direction of Management. The fact that His Divine Grace later, in 1977, decided to grandfather in the commissioners (still on the board at that time) and to nullify the voting requirement mandated by the Direction of Management, neither condones nor justifies this falldown by the G.B.C. men, both individually and collectively, to seek confirmation of their course of action well before Prabhupäda departed—or, in this case, their self-serving course of inaction.
V. A Change in Direction
It would not be the cakewalk they expected.
In 1971, Prabhupäda had mentioned that he did not find the G.B.C. agenda actually created effective programs to reform the anarthas of its own members. As such, although the duty of the body was to help each center remain spiritually strong, how could it carry out that essential responsibility if it was not extricating its members from their own bad habits?
Indeed, after the centralization fiasco, Prabhupäda wrote one of his G.B.C. men (a member of the ill-fated quorum) that he simply wanted the G.B.C. to see how his other students were doing and then report to him as his chosen secretaries. He wondered how this commissioner, as part of the scheme, could miss so many important points that were in the Direction of Management.
In another letter to a different commissioner (also one of the eight), Prabhupäda, in February of 1973, reaffirmed that any G.B.C. conclusion had to be submitted to him in order for it to be eligible for final approval. Then, in March, he reaffirmed that the commissioners were still in training. A mere four months after that, as mentioned above, these trainees somehow or other neglected to act on a key mandate in the Direction of Management. Prabhupada appeared to let it go at that time—and, indeed, in 1977 did let it go—but that does not mean he was unaware of their failure to fulfill his order explicitly contained in the constitution of the G.B.C., the Direction of Management.
His tone changed in 1974, however. That June, he gave a lecture at the Geneva temple wherein he compared the G.B.C. men to the demigods in charge of universal administration. In this comparison, the demigod in charge of cosmic punishment had once made an error. Çréla Prabhupäda pointed out that Yamaräj, who he said was a kind of G.B.C. in charge of universal management, was punished for his neglect. Prabhupäda said that the G.B.C. men were in a similar situation; they had to be very careful.
They had to be careful to administer his movement properly. Because they had some power over the other members, the punishment for mismanagement would be great. He seemed to almost predict that they were going to be punished, indicating that they were not meeting the standard that their posts required. One month later, as we shall see subsequently, His Divine Grace acted on this warning in an official way, in a hard copy way.
He wrote a letter to another G.B.C. (also part of the quorum) wherein he expressed exasperation. He said that the G.B.C. was supposed to be giving him relief from management, but they were simply creating even more anxiety for him. He then, in his own way, reiterated a well-known maxim: As soon as someone gets power, he becomes whimsical and spoils everything. He indicated that the situation with the G.B.C. had reached this point.
In the second-to-last day of September, he made it clear that the rules and regulations of the Direction of Management were still the law by which the G.B.C. was obliged to operate. In this letter to a senior man, Prabhupäda informed him that no individual commissioner had the power to change any temple president, that only by the vote of the G.B.C. body, along with Prabhupäda’s approval, could such a change transpire, as but the final step in the process.
As of October of that year, the commissioners comprising the G.B.C. still numbered twelve, but only seven of the original members were still on the body. These changes, however, happened separate from the scheduled 1973 vote, which did not take place. There had been a change in connection to the prominent äçrama represented there as well: Most of the commissioners were, by 1974, no longer married students, but, instead, most of them had received sannyäsa.
In November of 1974, Prabhupäda wrote two letters on consecutive days to one of the original and then current G.B.C. men. His Divine Grace referred to the Direction of Management in both of these letters. This G.B.C. man wanted to replace two of the temple presidents in his zone, but Prabhupäda informed him that he could not do this unless all the devotees in each of those centers were consulted: They had to be allowed to vote on whether or not they approved that president being replaced. His Divine Grace referenced a particular rule in the Direction of Management charter which made it clear that this was the authorized procedure.
The G.B.C. had ignored the Direction of Management in July of 1973, but Prabhupäda still referenced it as the authority over a year after his commissioners had neglected to execute a key duty or particular specified in it, viz., holding a vote mandated by it. Nevertheless, he had referenced it in a much more direct way in the middle of 1974. Earlier that year, on July 22nd to be exact, His Divine Grace had created an official Addendum that was to be amended to all official documents at all of his centers. This Addendum was entitled: AMENDMENTS TO BE IMMEDIATELY ADDED TO ALL OFFICIAL REGISTRATION DOCUMENTS, CONSTITUTIONS, INCORPORATION PAPERS, ETC. Above this title were two words: TOPMOST URGENCY. This Addendum was composed of two amendments.
The first one read: “It is declared that His Divine Grace A.C. Bhaktivedänta Swämi Prabhupäda is the Founder-Äcärya of (ISKCON) International Society for Kåñëa Consciousness. He is the supreme authority in all matters of the Society. His position cannot be occupied by anyone else, and his name and title must appear on all documents, letterheads, publications, and buildings of the Society.” The second amendment stated: “There shall be a Governing Board Committee of trustees appointed by the Founder-Äcärya, His Divine Grace A.C. Bhaktivedänta Swämi Prabhupäda, according to the document Direction of Management dated July 28, 1970. The G.B.C. is to act as the instrument for the execution of the will of His Divine Grace Çréla Prabhupäda.” It was signed in New York City by Çréla Prabhupäda and two G.B.C. men.
We see then that, in 1974, Prabhupäda still considered the Direction of Management to be the document ruling over the governing body itself. We see it thus reiterated that the G.B.C. had no independent power separate from the will of His Divine Grace, the supreme authority of his Society. We see that Prabhupäda had the sole power to appoint new commissioners and/or replace others.
This affirmation may have been related to the failure of the G.B.C. to act the previous year, i.e., its failure to hold elections according to the Direction of Management charter. Coincidentally, in the same month one year later, the TOPMOST URGENCY Addendum emerged. Does its emergence indicate that Prabhupäda was pleased with the Commission? Or was he at least a bit displeased with it? Why else would such an Addendum had to have been created in the first place?
It had one element that was very new, viz., that Prabhupäda also ordered that this TOPMOST URGENCY Addendum be attached to all important legal documents. Although it would have been difficult to have attached it to some of the Articles of Incorporation in some of the states of America, it could quite easily have been attached to any individual temple’s By-Laws. As could only have been expected, in light of its abysmal track record in this connection, the Addendum was never attached to any legal or official document whatsoever.
He was giving them a chance to come to their senses, to remember that they were not independent, to remember that they were still completely under his authority, as well as under the charter of the Direction of Management, which represented him. He was making it problematic for the power faction within the G.B.C. even in the mid-Seventies before he departed. He was planting seeds that would pass the test of time.
VI. Abolition of the G.B.C.
”A disciple should always remain a fool before his spiritual master.”
The chief issue analyzed in this Manifesto isn’t whether or not there is One Supreme Controller, acting as Omniscient Overseer, Who knows of and ultimately sanctions everything everywhere at all times. There is. The issue also isn’t whether or not His Divine Grace Çréla Prabhupäda, even while externally manifest, had a pure and unadulterated link with this Supreme Person, perfectly representing Him everywhere in everything at all times. He did. The issue isn’t the relevancy of Vaiñëava theism; it remains relevant. Vaiñëavism is the Supreme Absolute Truth. It always will be.
The chief issue in this exposπ is the deluding power of the G.B.C. narrative. Working implicitly more often than otherwise—and with a self-serving motivation that is as easy to spot as it is egregious—that narrative imposes a governing body on the devotees, particularly in the West, a Commission that is said to always represent the final order or will of Çréla Prabhupäda. In effect, that narrative is nothing less than the fantastic idea that the G.B.C. is non-different from God here in this world.
Even before the dawn of the zonal äcäryas, this was the actual issue. Although the slogan ultimate managerial authority is now a clichπ, it still packs a punch. That is due to misguided people still buying into the G.B.C. narrative. The time has come to defy that narrative, expose it, turn it against itself, and overcome it completely.
Do not attempt to beguile us with the false allegation, also part of your narrative, that all determined opposition to your G.B.C. is tantamount to, or non-different from, hatred of the Supreme Lord, of Çréla Prabhupäda, of Kåñëa consciousness. It is actually your malevolent pluto-theocratic operation–a showbottle and perverted reflection of what it was intended to be–that represents the resentment you harbor toward the Supreme.
We defy you, because you defy Him. You do so with your arrogant attitudes, nonsense resolutions, jet-set lifestyles, huge personal bank accounts, and whimsical changes to everything His pure devotee attempted to establish. Your racket has Hinduism and organized religion thrown in for good measure, since they then serve as buffers, diversions from the real issue. Hatred of “ISKCON” is neither envy nor hatred of Paramätmä; it is just the opposite.
Yes, we are at war with you, but that does not make us demons. You are at war with Lord Caitanya’s desire and prediction, as well as Çréla Prabhupäda’s attempt to bring those to quick fruition. Few people are aware of this; that, of course, is to your advantage. War, strife, and disturbance are the lot of humanity in this age, but you have done nothing to ameliorate that. In point of fact, you have only exacerbated it. The situation cannot be rectified to any significant degree until Kåñëa consciousness is again allowed to flourish. Its re-emergence in the West is being effectively checked by many philosophies, movements, and peoples, of which your cult, in a most obnoxious and insidious manner, is the most potent.
Kåñëa consciousness is the core of the esoteric meaning to human life, a rare opportunity to escape saàsära and achieve complete liberation in a spiritual world of eternal form and activity. You and your G.B.C. have wormed your way into that esoteric influence in this world, however, in order to cover this Truth. Thus far, you have been successful. Indeed, it has been rather easy for you; the West is so absorbed in strife at the exoteric level that it mostly has no idea what you have thus far been able to pull off.
When the spiritual master orders his initiated disciple to become a dékñä-guru, an initiating spiritual master, that disciple is then duty-bound to take up the sevä, to begin applying his higher intelligence in order to fulfill the transcendental order. As such, as soon as a genuine candidate comes his way and passes the tests, the disciple of Prabhupäda then acts as an initiating guru in his own right; he thus links newcomers to the sampradäya.
There cannot be any intermediary between Prabhupäda and his disciple; when he orders him to be dékñä-guru, then the disciple acts. The disciple, upon reception of this direct, personal, and specific order, is thus enlightened that he is now both qualified and empowered to initiate people, to be the via medium of their connection to the chanting of the Holy Name in disciplic succession. Thus, new people receive the bhakti-latä-béja.
The governing body has meddled in this relationship and eternal truth since 1978; that is its chief nescience. It has no right to decide who can and cannot be dékñä-guru; that decision is the sole prerogative of the spiritual master. That spiritual master is the Founder-Äcärya of ISKCON, His Divine Grace Çréla Prabhupäda. He never authorized the G.B.C. to pollute the bona fide process. He could never do such a thing to begin with, because then he would not have been genuine guru. It is the G.B.C., with a motive to imitate the spiritual master, which has injected contamination into only what now appears to be the bhakti process.
The G.B.C., the controlling node of the ecclesiastic institution of “ISKCON,” has thrown up this roadblock, an obstacle that has gone through many permutations in order to disguise what is was and what it continues to be; it has wasted valuable time in doing so. First, there was the unauthorized appointment of eleven pretender uttama-adhikärés, all of whom, in their own peculiar ways, then marched into zones—also artificially fabricated by the G.B.C.—in order to imitate Prabhupäda. These men were light years away from Prabhupäda’s status, purity, power, and authority.
However, this concerned them not at all, and thus these sahajiyäs quickly ruined everything. Their particular hoax was soon exposed, so the G.B.C. morphed through one rationalization after another, each having but one thing in common: Claim to the power to determine who can or cannot be dékñä-guru. After the zonal era, there was merely an acknowledgment that the G.B.C. had itself appointed the eleven. This admission kept everything in place but no longer pinned the scheme on an appointment that Prabhupäda was said to have made. Then there were votes to determine guru by the G.B.C. men in their annual meetings. Then there was a veto threshold that had to be overcome in order to initiate. Now there is a no-objection certificate to be secured, after waiting in queue at the behest of the G.B.C. for an assigned number of years.
All of this constitutes institutional interference with the eternal and transcendental process of bhakti-yoga. All of this is an unauthorized display of the desire to imitate the Supreme Personality of Servitor Godhead. All of this is a direct manifestation of the heart of darkness that accompanies organized religion in this age of quarrel and hypocrisy. No ecclesiastic institution can ever legitimately claim the right to determine who can and cannot be dékñä-guru.
The real process from time immemorial is based on a pact between the spiritual master and his disciple. If a spiritual organization was bona fide and had remained connected, unbreakably linked to the paramparä after the disappearance of its founder, then it could, and indeed should, step in when somebody, based on the authority of his own false ego, was found initiating foolish new people. That he was self-appointed and puffed-up would be evident in so many ways; that such a bogus guru was deviating from the philosophy and from the process could be readily seen by almost everyone. However, when the institution itself is mired in deviation, even this legitimate power—which does not entail interference with the pure process—is withdrawn from, and thus rendered inapplicable, to it.
When he receives the order to do so, any disciple of His Divine Grace Çréla Prabhupäda, having received dékñä from him, genuinely initiated by him as a brähmin, can begin initiating disciples who make the grade. Upon being qualified, it is the inalienable right of any godbrother to initiate. The order is received in a personal way from the spiritual master. The means by which the order is communicated, as well as its substance, need not be revealed to anyone and everyone. Only that disciple, now an authorized dékñä-guru, chooses to whom he wishes to reveal it.
It is the duty of all godbrothers, those who have been initiated by Çréla Prabhupäda in the true sense, to give up the envy that has now infected them–due to bad association with, and service to, the institutional delusion—and to reassert this right for themselves, as well as for all of their peers in the line. It is the duty of the godbrothers to insist upon it, free from any and all encumbrances. The Tattva Sanga has been created for this purpose.
The Governing Body Commission of “ISKCON” has proved over time that it is adamant to follow, root and branch, virtually all the other organized religions of the world. The G.B.C. insists upon a bogus right to interfere with the transcendental process, to determine–by its appointment, vote, certificate, or absence of veto–who can and cannot initiate. Their track record has been less than outstanding in so many ways. Yet, out of all of their offenses, this one, interference with the authorized process for bringing new people to the paramparä and onto the path of complete liberation, is at the crux of their desire to overlord.
They have not shown the slightest indication that they are prepared to even consider giving it up. Kåñëa consciousness cannot spread to every town and village of the globe as long as this particular nescience, and this governing body that pushes it, survives. It must be challenged, and its falsity must be exposed. The G.B.C. is the agent, very near the core of the esoteric level, that is today covering Kåñëa consciousness, perpetuating a wholesale atmosphere of opposition and faithlessness onto the exoteric sphere—and their claim to the power to determine guru is the means.
The godbrothers can no longer allow this particular version of Kali-yuga institutionalism to stand; as such, they are obliged to do everything in their power to resist this G.B.C., which has gone rogue for well over thirty years. The spiritual power of the godbrothers will increase if they now choose to act, in cooperation, through the principle of unity in diversity. They must exert the power of their initiation, of transcendental knowledge combined with action, to create a situation where the majority—nay, the totality—of all sincere and serious seekers of spiritual life see not only the foibles of the Governing Body Commission but also demand its abolition.
OM TAT SAT
Areëunandan däs (Vic LeMott)
1933 Çakäbda, Phälguné Pürëimä
Cable to All Presidents
April 6, 1972
YOUR MATERIAL LEGAL FORMULA WILL NOT HELP US STOP ONLY OUR SPIRITUAL LIFE CAN HELP US STOP HAMSADUTTA MUST RETURN GERMANY IMMEDIATELY AND DON’T LEAVE AGAIN STOP ATREYA RISHI HAS NO AUTHORITY FROM ME TO MANAGE ANYTHING STOP REMOVE HIM STOP I HAVE NO APPROVAL FOR ANY THESE PLANS STOP DON’T CHANGE ANYTHING STOP
Memo to All Presidents
April 8, 1972
I beg to inform you that recently some of the Governing Body Commission members held a meeting at New York on 25th through 28th March, 1972, and they have sent me a big, big minutes, duplicated, for my consideration and approval, but, in the meantime, they have decided some appointments without consulting me. One of the items which struck me very much is as follows:
“Ätreya Åñi däs was selected to be the Secretary for G.B.C. and receive all correspondence, including monthly reports.”
I never appointed Ätreya Åñi member of the G.B.C., and I do not know how he can be appointed Secretary to G.B.C. without my sanction.
“He was also appointed to be on the Management Committee with Karandhara for the purpose of supervising ISKCON business and implementing the decisions reached by G.B.C.”
This has very much disturbed me. Çrémän Ätreya Åñi däs may be very expert, but, without my say, he has been given so much power, and this has upset my brain. I also understand that immediate actions are going to take place even prior to my permission, and that, also, “without divulging to the devotees(!)” I do not follow exactly what is the motive of the so-called G.B.C. meeting, therefore I have sent the telegram, which you will find attached herewith, and I have received the replies as well.
Under these circumstances, I AUTHORIZE YOU TO DISREGARD FOR THE TIME BEING ANY DECISION FROM THE G.B.C. MEN UNTIL MY FURTHER INSTRUCTION. You manage your affairs peacefully and independently, and try to improve the spiritual atmosphere of the centers more carefully. I shall be very glad to know the names of your assistants, such as Secretary, Treasurer and Accountant. Finally, I beg to repeat that ALL G.B.C. ORDERS ARE SUSPENDED HEREWITH BY ME UNTIL FURTHER NOTICE.
Aug. 23, 1968
“In my idea, there should be one central body of trustees for directing all the different centers as well as New Vrindaban, but there must be a local governing body for each center; that is my idea.”
Aug. 6, 1970
“Now I have set up the Governing Body Commission to handle management, questions of philosophy, and personal problems. These things are too much botheration for me, I simply want time to write books to satisfy my Guru Maharäja.”
Aug. 16, 1970
“So now the factual administration will depend on the Governing Body Commission, and the sannyäsés are entrusted for making propaganda work. I wish to remain in the background to give you some directions.”
Sep. 2, 1970
“I think in the same paramparä system that the poison administered to our Society will not act if some of our students are as good as Prahläda Mahäräja. I have therefore given the administrative power to the Governing Body Commission. . . If you remain strong on the spiritual platform, then your progress will not be checked . . . You are also one of the members of the G.B.C., so you can think over very deeply how to save the situation. It is a fact, however, that the great sinister movement is within our Society.”
Sept. 14, 1970
“I am very glad to know that the G.B.C. is actively working to rectify the subversive situation which has been weakening the very foundation of our Society. All you members of the G.B.C. please always remain very vigilant in this connection, so that our Society’s growth may go on unimpeded by such poisonous elements. . . Now you G.B.C. consult them and get clear and strong idea, then there will be no disturbance. . . There is every evidence that they are influenced by some of my fourth-class godbrothers.”
Sept. 19, 1970
“So, if our G.B.C. members remain strong, strictly following the regulative principles, everything will be all right.”
Feb. 16, 1971
“The future hope of solid standing of our mission is on the proper management of our governing body.”
July 9, 1971
“G.B.C. members are simply to see that things are going on. Other centers have got president, secretary, etc. and they are managing separately. That is the formula. So how is it that the G.B.C. are the final authority? They are simply to examine that things are going on nicely, that is all.”
Aug. 12, 1971
The president, treasurer, and secretary are responsible for managing the center. G.B.C. is to see that things are going nicely but not to exert absolute authority. That is not in the power of G.B.C. . . . The G.B.C. men cannot impose anything on the men of a center without consulting all of the G.B.C. members first. A G.B.C. member cannot go beyond the jurisdiction of his power. We are in the experimental stage, but, in the next meeting of the G.B.C. members, they should form a constitution how the G.B.C. members manage the whole affair. . . the local president is not under the control of the G.B.C..”
Aug. 14, 1971
“I set up the G.B.C. with hope that I shall get relief from administration of the mission, but, on the contrary, I have become the center of receiving so many complaints. So it is not a relief for me; rather it is becoming a little troublesome.”
Aug. 20, 1971
“You happen to be a member of the G.B.C., so whatever you want to do or whatever ideas you want to introduce in the management of our Society, please write in a letter and distribute the copies to all the G.B.C. members, along with one copy to me also. Then collect the opinions of each and every G.B.C. member and, if the majority supports the idea, then it should be taken as a fact for being carried out in our Society. The majority vote and my opinion should be taken. When the majority opinion is present, my opinion will be ‘yes’ or ‘no.’ In most cases it will be ‘yes,’ unless it is grievously against our principles.”
Sept. 9, 1971
“I am glad that you have admitted about the G.B.C. members not very appropriately discharging their duty. . .We are now growing in volume all over the world, dealing with public money. People have respect for our movement. Now it is time for G.B.C. members to be very, very careful, so that people may not point out any black spot in the behavior of our Society.”
Apr. 2, 1972
“I have just now received one letter which has described your G.B.C. meeting of nine men in New York, and I have cabled Rüpänuga the following message: ‘G.B.C. Meeting irregular. My strong disapproval. Make no changes. Inform others. Letter follows.’’’
Apr. 4, 1972
“I had no intimation that you all G.B.C. members have met and decided such big, big issues without consulting me. So I have issued one letter in this regard to all of you, and you may take note that I consider that both the meeting and the resolution is irregular and immediately there should be no change. Again, I am so much burdened by this administrative work that I feel great difficulty. I was very anxious to return to my Los Angeles home to sit down for translating work. But if you all, my right-hand men, are doing things without consulting me and making such big, big changes within our Society, without getting my opinion and the opinion of all the G.B.C. members, then what can I do?
I am so much perplexed why you all had done this. I have appointed originally twelve G.B.C. members, and I have given them twelve zones for their administration and management, but simply by agreement you have changed everything. So what is this? I don’t know. You mentioned that you are taking great help from Ätreya Åñi, but Ätreya Åñi is not a member of G.B.C. nor has he any position in my scheme to manage the whole society.”
May 4, 1972
“I think it is best thing if the G.B.C. members always travel . . . in their zone and go from one village to another and visit the temples to see how the students are learning–and do my work. In this way, they will avoid the propensity to sit down and plot and scheme how to eat and sleep.”
May 9, 1972
“This is most irregular. I am trying to retire from the administrative affairs, but if the presidents and G.B.C. men make such disturbances, then how I can be peaceful?”
June 22, 1972
“. . . now you all leaders, especially the G.B.C. members, must become very much responsible and do the work that I am doing to the same standard. . . On this platform, you shall be able to carry on the work satisfactorily, but if there is lack of knowledge, or if there is forgetfulness, everything will be spoiled in time.”
Aug. 11, 1972
“The meeting of the G.B.C. appeared to be very unconstitutional, because all the men were not informed or invited. Çyämasundara was not invited, Sudämä was not invited, Kåñëa däs was not invited, Tamäla Kåñëa was not invited, neither I was informed. Why? You cannot hold meeting of eight persons without inviting the others. Seven may be a quorum-–that’s all right-–but you cannot convene without a general announcement to all the members and myself, giving a proposed agenda, like that, the topics to be discussed, why the meeting is being called, etc. . . . the whole thing appeared to be giving all power to Ätreya Åñi. I cannot understand why, instead of one G.B.C. man, a person outside the Commission was given so much power. And there was to be immediate action without divulging the matter to the devotees. And I am surprised that none of the G.B.C. members detected the defects in the procedure. It was detected only when it came to me. What will happen when I am not here, shall everything be spoiled by G.B.C.?”
Sept. 18, 1972
“The standards I have already given you, now try to maintain them at all times under standard procedure. Do not try to innovate or create anything or manufacture anything; that will ruin everything.”
Nov. 4, 1972
“So, in the G.B.C. agenda, I do not find any such programs for reforming our past bad habits.”
Dec. 13, 1972
“Of course, my authorities and so-called officers, they sometimes also order in such a way that everything becomes topsy-turvy. So you may write to me your grievance. What can I do?”
May 9, 1974
“I cannot close my eyes when there are big management difficulties. So, when I see things going wrong, money misspent, things not used properly, then I have to take part. But if you can relieve me of worry of management . . . it will be a great relief for me.”
Sept. 12, 1974
“I made the G.B.C. to give me relief, but if you do like this, then where is the relief? It is anxiety for me. This is the difficulty, that, as soon as one gets power, he becomes whimsical and spoils everything. What can I do?”
Nov. 1, 1974
If they cannot solve this problem, then what is the meaning of G.B.C?”
Nov. 12, 1974
“I very much appreciate that G.B.C. or X.Y.Z. you are always servant of Kåñëa. That is wanted.”
Dec. 16, 1974
“But the difficulty is that our G.B.C. men are falling victim to Mäyä. Today, I trust this G.B.C., and tomorrow he will fall down. That is the difficulty. . . If the G.B.C. men can ever manage properly, then I shall get some time for writing my books.”
Aug. 21, 1975
“. . . why it is mentioned my 79th birthday. It is my 80th birthday. That is correct. You do not know this? One of the G.B.C. articles says 79th birthday. Big G.B.C. man, so many editors, and it is not detected? You are all müòhas, what can I do?”
Sept. 29, 1975
“What can I do? I have appointed the G.B.C. not to fight amongst yourselves but to manage. If there is fighting, then how will you manage?”
Oct. 16, 1975
“I appoint G.B.C. for peaceful management of affairs, and now you are creating disturbances amongst yourselves. So how can I be peaceful to translate my work?”
“My only grievance is that I appointed G.B.C. to give me relief from the management but, on the contrary, complaints and counter-complaints are coming to me. Then how my brain can be peaceful?”
“If I have to be involved in every dispute, then what is the need for the G.B.C.?”
Nov. 10, 1975
“Now has the G.B.C. become more than Guru Mahäräja? As if simply G.B.C. is meant for looking after pounds, shilling, pence. The G.B.C. does not look after spiritual life. That is a defect. All of our students will have to become guru, but they are not qualified. This is the difficulty.”
Nov. 13, 1975
“But, if you disturb me, then my mind will be disturbed. I want that what I have established may go on nicely, but I see that some of the devotees are reviving their old ‘good’ qualities. That is the difficulty. If the old habits come back, then everything is finished. If my mind becomes disturbed in this way, then how can I concentrate on book writing? It is not possible.”
Sept. 8, 1976
“It will be very nice if you G.B.C. men can relieve me from the heavy burden of management.”
Opposing Splinter Groups
As the saying goes: Even in the heavens, war is hell.
As you may have understood after reading the previous chapters and appendices, “ISKCON” has, for some time, gone its own way. This has created a hellish situation for the devotees, particularly in the West. If this was the end of it, that would be bad enough—but it’s not. A movement that was supposed to have created a divine atmosphere on earth, leading far beyond the elevated sphere of svarga to an eternal reward in the transcendental world, has instead warped into a broken arrow, cheating many sincere and serious devotees who previously had joined and dedicated their lives to it. As a result, there is now a kind of war going on. It rages between those who have realized “ISKCON” for the counterfeit it is and those who maintain that, despite what they call its inevitable growing pains, the cult is still cent-per-cent bona fide.
Cause and effect are factually one, because the cause is always present in the effect. Çréla Prabhupäda, on a couple of occasions, called the commissioners his right-hand men. Other devotees considered them to be spiritually advanced, pure, and powerful—although this was not a view universally held by all of the real workers. Esteemed as great, whatever action leaders take, the lower echelon attached to them will naturally follow; whatever standard they set by their acts, such admirers will pursue in one way or another. Those who were not at the topmost level of leadership saw that the commissioners, most then in the sannyäsa order, were doing their own thing. As such, these first and second echelon admirers—although they did not remain so for very long—imitated them, but in their own way. When the “right-hand men” took the left-hand path, they naturally concocted a new standard.
This led to the first of three later schisms; since the G.B.C. consummated the first split, this was the splintering of one schism into a second. Some background is called for here. A most influential delegation of the G.B.C., in March of 1978, approached the Gauòéya Maöha for advice and, at least indirectly, direction and authorization. This was done in Navadvépa. A senior member of the Gauòéya Maöha there, considered one amongst only a few of Prabhupäda’s godbrothers favorable to him, was approached for guidance.
He gave quite a bit of it, and thus we had the apocalypse known as the zonal äcärya era. Written by one of the eleven zonal äcäryas, a position paper was soon released throughout the world. It referenced that a new program had been determined, in consultation with higher authorities. Although one other Maöha leader in Mathurä had also been briefly consulted, the authority thus referenced was this senior Gauòéya Maöha guru in Navadvépa.
If the media makes you, the media can break you. As clashes emerged in the late Seventies—all of them connected to the so-called appointment of gurus–the Navadvépa mahant eventually transmogrified into the source to be approached for explanations of, and answers to, all such problems. This undermined the G.B.C., but the motives of those men (who thus supplicated to him) were far from pure. They had now realized that the power of the G.B.C. was under the de facto control of the äcärya board. It remained adamant not to expand. These other men, however, wanted to be gurus, so they created agitation, using the Gauòéya Maöha.
Based on the specifics of their activities provided to him, the Navadvépa mahant made it clear that he did not approve of what the eleven were doing. Still, and despite having to suspend or even revoke the spiritual master title from three of their own, the renegade äcärya board kept itself as the sole power determining initiations in “ISKCON,” and this precipitated the first schism.
There is no need to provide the details of how it went down; we are looking to understand it from a deeper perspective. A significant number of first and second-echelon men–presidents of major centers, sannyäsés, and the like–defected from “ISKCON” to the Gauòéya camp, and thus emerged the initial splinter group. This bunch has gone through permutations over the decades, but, right from the gate, it was very different not only from its nemesis (“ISKCON”), but also from Prabhupäda’s movement.
Ironically, in terms of siddhänta, “ISKCON” has not deviated that much from Srila Prabhupäda, if it has deviated at all. Its differences with him are primarily these: 1) not following his orders; 2) wrecking the genuine initiation process of the yoga system; 3) incorporation of the Governing Body in the Nineties; 4) unauthorized changes to his books; 5) recognition of an arbitrary hierarchy; 6) establishment of a massive bureaucracy, and 7) historical malinterpretation and disinformation of what has transpired since 1972.
When many senior “ISKCON” men defected to the Gauòéya Maöha in the early Eighties, they adopted that group’s mood, its scriptural conclusions, its offensive view of Prabhupäda, its historical interpretation of everything connected devotional service, and, of course, the Gauòéya Maöha style. All of these were irreconcilably opposed to what His Divine Grace had given us.
Again, the specifics connected to siddhänta and apa-siddhänta will not be presented here; we are simply concerned with the overview. Every honest devotee—and even some die-hard adherents of “ISKCON”—will admit that Gauòéya Maöha style, mood, siddhänta, etc., neither matches nor harmonizes with Prabhupäda’s presentation. The idea that Prabhupäda actually apologized for offenses to his godbrothers, when taken literally, is itself gurvaparädha. A madhyama-adhikäré does not commit any kind of offense, what to speak of an uttama-adhikäré, the çaktyäveça-avatära or World Äcärya. The idea that Prabhupäda was historically little more than a point man for bringing seekers to the Gauòéya Maöha stinks to a degree intolerable to his real devotees.
Although the first schism has what it calls a World Vaiñëava Association that assembles annually in Mathurä, the so-called äcäryas of the group all operate on their own. They sometimes take disaffected and bewildered people from “ISKCON” and initiate them into their own camps. They do not recognize the hierarchy of “ISKCON,” and, in one key area of siddhänta, they make big counter-propaganda. They work against “ISKCON” on the exoteric as well as intermediate plane, but none of these men is eligible to cooperate with the Tattva Sanga. Virtually all of them would have no interest in doing so, despite favoring the idea of “ISKCON” sliding into an abyss of its own well-deserved oblivion.
That does not mean, however, that the Tattva Sanga will make any compromise. How the Westernized version of Gauòéya Maöha exposes “ISKCON,” as well as the reasons by which they consider it bogus, do not match that of the Sanga. The new Gauòéya facsimile has abandoned Çréla Prabhupäda; it is a splinter group that will never approach the size of “ISKCON,” despite the fact that these groups previously made futile attempts to work together.
We are fully aware of what the new Gauòéya Maöha motive would be in any kind of so-called cooperation offer, and we abhor the parent Gauòéya Maöha, which abandoned Çréla Prabhupäda, never significantly cooperated with him, and always held him in disdain. That first schism of the early Eighties has simply increased the complexity of the situation. As such, the Sanga will never accept an alliance with it, even at the basic level. That schism is a Westernized version of a repugnant Gauòéya Maöha, which Prabhupäda condemned in both his purports and letters to his disciples, forbidding association with it.
The final schisms are not deserving of any extensive examination, as, at their roots, the deviations underlying them are rather obvious. About two decades ago, four words in two different places from Çréla Prabhupäda’s Will were misused to screw out a new process for carrying on the bhakti-sampradäya. As his movement expanded, Prabhupäda was unable to conduct all of the ceremonies for new disciples approved by him for initiation. As such, he appointed officiating äcäryas to conduct the ceremony on his behalf. This was not actually an innovation, because, for Vedic sacrifices, it is a common and standard procedure, even with the yajamäna present; indeed, Prabhupäda, their dékñä-guru, was present at some of these initiation ceremonies conducted by his åtviks.
However, following in the footsteps of their former “ISKCON” leaders–who had taken three other words out of context and disregarded the chief aim of the Will in doing so–another apa-sampradäya sprung up, almost out of nowhere. It cited “henceforward” and “my initiated disciples” from the Will to concoct a fabulous interpretation that Prabhupäda, even after having left external manifestation, remains the dékñä guru for everyone initiated thereafter. Some of these groups opine that this idea is to be implemented for thousands of years, others say it stays in place only until the next Äcärya appears.
Then, near the middle of the first decade of this century, cyberspace became home to the fourth schism, as could only be expected. This one emanates from an online daily newspaper, which, in the name and under the guise of free speech, posts so much garbage as legitimate Vaiñëava opinion. Even worse, the sophisticated manipulator behind this website’s agenda, a former first-echelon wannabe who was frustrated in that ambition, himself pushes no less than four self-serving and killer apa-siddhäntas.
Most who regularly post on his site—rather, who are allowed to post on it, because his much-ballyhooed first principle of free speech is withdrawn from those who call him on his wrong conclusions—kowtow to him and swallow whatever he writes. The intricacies of this continuous complex of inconclusive chatter will not receive any trenchant analysis here. Despite that site’s mixed animus regarding the previously mentioned deviations, it is also engaged in misleading everyone who foolishly considers it a spiritual alternative to the institutional madness now oppressing us.
The program of the ruling class of “ISKCON” is not threatened by any of these schisms; they are all part of the same hypocrisy. “ISKCON” is instead aided by each of them. The darkness and pain “ISKCON” continues to bring to the planet—acutely for those who step into its labyrinth—can be readily dissipated if and/or when its nescience is seen clearly on a large scale. However, such a vision by the many is effectively occluded by these other deviations, as they act as buffers for the G.B.C. and its “ISKCON” extension. They engage in this disservice despite the attacks each of them regularly makes against the parent cult in a variety of incompetent ways.
None of those splinter groups damages “ISKCON” at the profound level; indeed, there they all serve to shield it. The G.B.C. effectively uses these nonsense groups as foils, and “ISKCON” chelas, unable to understand the forest for the trees, cower at the prospect of not swallowing the pabulum that the commissioners and the cult’s “gurus” spoon feed them, fearing victimization, in the form of joining one of these other deviations, as punishment.
Like heavenly butterflies, the many gentle and peace-loving young men and women who joined Çréla Prabhupäda back in the late Sixties and early Seventies now recoil in horror and disillusionment at what is going on. The Tattva Sanga must point out the facts, however. Shining a light on them, lifting the rock to see what is going on underneath it, is necessary. Spiritual life is undoubtedly difficult, but such an exposπ helps to liberate us.
The Sanga is not going to waste valuable time going after any of the latter-day schisms nor will it cooperate with any of them in bringing “ISKCON” down. Only when the pseudo-devotional recrudescence is finally exposed, can genuine Kåñëa consciousness once again re-emerge. The message is not all peaches and cream–not at this stage, anyway. The scream of the butterflies notwithstanding, we cannot abandon the battlefield; we must fight this war.
Tattva Sanga wants to re-establish—and that for a much longer duration–a brief moment in time when Çréla Prabhupäda, through the purity of his unprecedented aura, gave us a taste of heaven on earth. First, the institutional imposition must be confronted, exposed, and defeated. Some innocent and sincere people—although not sincere enough—are still being duped by the thing, and that has got to stop. The “ISKCON” racket must be known for just what it is. This message, despite being factual and timely, is irreconcilably brutal and unpalatable, but only the unintelligent choose to attack the messenger for delivering it.
The War at the Core
“The mahätmäs receive transcendental messages from the realized devotees and thus gradually develop devotional service in Kåñëa consciousness . . .”
In terms of understanding this Manifesto, let us review humanity’s aspirations, as well as its plight in Kali-yuga. Its progressive movement toward the goal of life culminates in Kåñëa consciousness, which is at the very center of the esoteric sphere. All real hopes, beliefs, and ideals can only be attained in Kåñëa consciousness. Much to its chagrin, humanity sees that its current ideals, actuated by feelings for justice, freedom, equality, and security, play out as wars between factions. Atheists and theists, conservatives and liberals, socialists and capitalists, democracies, republics, communists, and fascists all compete to fulfill some version of these ideals.
All of them come up short. Religion is a factor at the exoteric level, but it does not trump realpolitik there. No lasting solution is to be had in the triumph of mundane ideals; the wars produced amongst and between the factions, both hot and cold, proliferate. Thus, the specter of incessant conflict, possibly culminating in nuclear conflagration, hangs over humanity like a Damocles sword.
In both the West and the East, the next level is also contaminated. Ecclesiastic religions on one side claim that, in whatever form they manifest, they are institutional intermediaries of the Supreme, required by all atomized souls in order for them to receive divine forgiveness and deliverance. Without such intercessions, scattered souls are said by organized religion to be on their own, unable to overcome an intrinsically evil self. The spiritual status of everyone who affiliates with the institution–and thus is said to still have a chance–can only be determined by its hierarchy.
The darkness of ecclesiastic institutionalism in the West has had its influence from ancient times; it originally came from the Middle East, as Zarathustra introduced the seed of this Persian night into the Zendavesta. There we first find the idea of two Supreme Controllers. As the Manichean and Zoroastrian philosophies of Eternal Great Combatants spread, in due course Satan appeared. Belief in more than one Supreme Controller then worked its way into the religion of the obnoxious Talmudists, and, after that, into Islam.
The religion attributed to Éça Kåñöos took the speculation a step further: There we find the idea of three Gods, in the form of a Trinity, combating a fourth Great Controller, the emblem of evil, Lucifer, the Light Bearer. Christianity, the chief religion of the West, has been influenced by this duality, which it picked up from the Persians via the Talmudists, despite the fact that the Christian system, especially in some of its more grotesque symbolism, is rooted in deep resentment against that Talmudic rival.
At this mesoteric level, with some effort, we see a counter-force, also stemming from ancient times, one that represents the exact opposite of everything ecclesiastic. This side is highly personal and individualistic; it includes mystic systems and a perspective represented by various lines of occult thought and teaching. It values the intrinsic power of the individual to make his or her independent connection with the Supreme, variously defined, free from obligation to any kind of institutional intermediary. In this mystic orbit, rarely do we find any emphasis on hierarchy; if there is one, it is limited within a loose-knit organization. If and/or when such a group becomes rigidly organized, ecclesiastic, and stratified into hierarchy, then it converts to the other side.
This intermediate level influences the exoteric, but the real battle between these two forces rages in this mesoteric sphere. That does not mean, however, that this level is inactive in the material world; most certainly it is present here. However, how its influence is felt requires the ability to see which factions in the outer sphere, with their corresponding sets of ideals, are tied to one of these forces at the mesoteric. Warring outer forces often are mixed in terms of these connections, and that muddies the picture.
The core of the levels is the esoteric. As the mesoteric influences the exoteric, so the esoteric influences both the mesoteric and the exoteric. This is not, however, simply a movement from subtle to gross; the exoteric can change the trajectory of the battle within the mesoteric, and this can influence the esoteric.
The esoteric should be entirely transcendental, composed of spiritual and devotional influences alone. However, in Kali-yuga, the esoteric also becomes contaminated at its outer sub-levels. The battle that thus rages there is sometimes considered a conflict between personalism and impersonalism. Actually, the real war at this time is taking place within the personalist stratum itself, the struggle between the sub-level closest to the core and the core itself.
That true core is the Hare Kåñëa movement, inaugurated by Lord Caitanya and brought to the West by His Divine Grace Çréla Prabhupäda. That core is the Absolute Truth, the uncontaminated core of every other sphere. The Western power, its host culture, has almost completely defeated its exoteric manifestation at this time. That tragedy, however, could not have transpired without potent assistance from impure levels within the esoteric.
The West is apparently great in its manifestation, but such a sophisticated power should not have triumphed like this. It could not have triumphed as it has without help from within what was supposed to be an institution representing the core of the esoteric. There are many reasons why that representation became impure, but one of them has not been given the consideration it deserves. This leads us to a very important question: While it was still genuine, who came to Prabhupäda’s movement?
There may have been one or two people living in the dhämas who came to his movement from the esoteric sphere. However, the majority of his disciples certainly did not fall into this category. Some came for superficial reasons, others by accident. Still others came for better reasons, from a sphere deeper than the exoteric. They were suffering very acutely, experiencing the dark night of the soul. In the late Sixties and early Seventies, who were most of Prabhupäda’s recruits in the West? This is not at all a difficult question to answer: Almost all of them were hippies, his best customers.
These hippies were men and women in different situations. Many of them were superficial enjoyers and malcontents, situated only on the exoteric plane. Nevertheless, some of them were true spiritual seekers. Although it can be argued that there was not much that all hippies held in common, there were still some conceptions that everyone in this counter-culture shared.
Their ideals harkened back to another era, as the hippies were throwbacks from the Romantic epoch. They were discontented with the modern world, especially in its inhuman and standardized modes of behavior and dealing. They were often drawn to the supernatural or the occult, attracted to a pensive mood. They believed, like the Romanticists, that humanity was naturally good but corrupted by modern institutions. It is practically a contradiction in terms for someone to have been a hippie, and, at the same time, a dedicated member of any religious institution.
Hippies rejected the legitimacy of ecclesiastic hierarchies, and they did not come to Çréla Prabhupäda, and did not take up his process of bhakti-yoga, in order to join any such arrangement. They came in order to liberate themselves from suffering, to secure transcendental knowledge and realization, to become individually powerful and self-situated, and to be able to do things that they were unable to do—and, just as importantly, to stop doing things that they knew were against their real self-interests.
In other words, Prabhupäda’s sincere, serious, and intense devotees approached him from the mystical side of the mesoteric. They considered that Prabhupäda represented the perfection of what they were searching for; they were delighted to find that he indeed was. His Divine Grace was not attempting to convert them to another religion. He was not representing ecclesiastic institutionalism. They surrendered to him and engaged in his service because he offered them, in its pristine form, exactly what they were looking for in the realm of mysticism and the supernatural.
As such, in this connection, it is much more than a mere irony that “ISKCON” has turned Prabhupäda’s movement topsy-turvy—it is a travesty of the worst form imaginable! What the G.B.C. and its “ISKCON” extension are doing is not what His Divine Grace offered, not what he represented, not what he approved, not what was authorized by him, and is not at all connected to the legitimate reasons that most of his disciples approached him.
“ISKCON” is a dangerous version of contaminated religion coming from the wrong side of the intermediate plane; it is now working its dark designs very close to the core of the esoteric. It has to be stopped, and it can initially be checked by a combination of genuine knowledge, spiritual power, and the ability to act. To act means to act in Kåñëa consciousness. The time has come for the godbrothers, those genuinely initiated by Çréla Prabhupäda, to step up and act to eradicate the pretension that is holding back Lord Caitanya’s perfect movement of topmost mysticism and divine love. The Tattva Sanga exists for this purpose and transcendent result, the supreme goal, the very center of the esoteric sphere.
The essential condition for the influence of “ISKCON” is its continuous expansion. This depends upon it being considered the vanguard for fulfilling Lord Caitanya’s prophesy. Its controlling node is the vitiated G.B.C. The misconception that the G.B.C. is legitimate is the essential condition for maintaining that control. The Society both creates and depends upon a regular turnover of manpower, which can only be garnered by a dazzling show of Deities, only some of which are installed, along with fearsome preaching by the cult’s fanatics. Those triumphalists require reassurance that the G.B.C. possesses the qualities of authority, invincibility, and inevitability. Exposing the G.B.C. explodes these qualities for the hoax that they are, and it is a direct threat to the racket.
The cult requires a regular and substantial revenue stream in order to maintain itself, what to speak of expanding. In good measure, it has come to rely on the Western Hindu for this revenue, and that income is in jeopardy if the fallacies of its authority claims are exposed to the extent that these Hindus are mocked for subsidizing it. Their attraction to “ISKCON” rests almost exclusively on Deities and caretaker “brähmins,” but these pujärés will also no longer be held in esteem if the cult becomes too degraded.
With the advance of communication, the knowledge of just what is underpinning this deviation will become assimilated on a widespread basis. This will produce an environment, particularly in the States, where it is rejected; that is already taking place.
Still, “ISKCON” cannot be thoroughly exposed as long as its governing body is considered legitimate. As such, the linchpin to all of this is a thorough and profound exposπ of just what the G.B.C. is, what its actual history is, along with the fact that it is not actually connected to the sampradäya. The G.B.C. will defend itself with vigor and vitriol if and/or when its underpinnings are so exposed; such a counterattack will create a fog so thick that, at a certain point, only genuinely initiated disciples of His Divine Grace will be able to cut through it. As such, dismantling the “ISKCON” depends entirely upon godbrothers taking knowledge with action based on spiritual character, the most important of which will be real courage in the face of this inevitable onslaught or backlash.
The fall of “ISKCON” and the victory of Lord Caitanya’s movement, although ultimately inevitable, are not so in either the short or medium term; fate has not destined this. It will not simply happen—effort, underpinned by unbreakable intelligence, is a prerequisite in order to avoid a material destiny no sane individual could possibly appreciate. The time has come to make that effort.
If the G.B.C. is effectively exposed, eventually its expansion will be checked. The triumphalists will then begin to doubt, and the Hindus will fall away. The G.B.C. will thus war within itself in order to recapture the Hindu money and the energy of those fanatics. When that ultimately fails, an impending defeat of the Commission, along with imminent punishment for its remaining members, will loom. As a result, some of them will act in such a way that the miasma is dismantled. Such an abolition will mark a major victory for Lord Caitanya’s movement, which will then, within a short span of time, blossom once again throughout the West.
 This references a previous letter by Prabhupäda, dated Aug. 12, 1971, which is included in Appendix Two. There he said that a G.B.C. member cannot go beyond the jurisdiction of his power. He indicated that, at the next meeting of the G.B.C., they should form a constitution in order to manage the Society more effectively. In other words, he wanted improvement, although such improvement would neither change nor negate the particulars already present in the Direction of Management.
Prabhupäda often employed nouns in a generic sense. The only constitution ever approved by him was in July of 1966, the Constitution of Association. When referencing the 1970 Direction of Management in terms of a constitution, he was not indicating the 1966 document; he was indicating the particulars already present in the Direction of Management. We must understand everything in context. Just as some key words or phrases from his final Will are to be understood in the context of what was the chief aim of that document, any and all references to a constitution relating to the Direction of Management should be understood as referring to that charter’s original particulars.