Iskcon Law Book

BY MAHADEVA DASA ADHIKARI

In the ISKCON law Book, the GBC body has created "laws" by "very mercifully" undertaking the great task and trouble of jumping over statements and standards set up by our own Founder Acharya, Srila Prabhupada. This they did by coming up with many ludicurous and foreign statements, never spoken of even once by Srila Prabhupada, or ever found in writing in all of Srila Prabhupada's Books (About Eighty of them ) or all of his letters or ever found in Srila Prabhupada's actions.

By carefully studying the ISKCON "LAW" Book,one sees through the faulty hypocritical ways of the GBC who have created the most strangest laws governing a religious society, never found in the history of Bonafide Vaisnava religious tradition,, what to speak of such laws being able to even govern common sense ordinary moral behavior to be followed in human society.

(1) The ISKCON "LAW" BOOK states in Page 69,Text 6.5.1.3. as follows: "If a guru is engaged in sense gratification, violating one or more of the regulative principles, but there is hope that he can be rectified, then his disciples should not reject him but should allow time for such rectification to take place, and they should take shelter of Srila Prabhupada and senior Vaisnavas as siksa gurus".

By the above statement or "law" we can understand the following points: (A) ISKCON leaders and GBC body openly and shamelessly claim that conditioned souls with the tendencies to commit gross sinful activities in the form of breaking not only one but more of the regulative principles can also function as initiating spiritual masters in the pure disciplic succession of completely God realized eternal Gurus.

(B) The very statement of "law" by the GBC that a Guru can violate one or more of the regulative principles is in complete contrast and opposite view of what Srila Prabhupada states in the Chaitanya Charitamrta Antya Lila Ch 13 tx 133 purport : "It is the duty of a Vaisnava acarya to prevent his disciples and followers from violating the principles of Vaisnava behaviour. He should always advise them to strictly follow the regulative principles, which will protect them from falling down." Therefore if it is a Vaisnava acarya's duty to prevent his disciples and followers from violating the regulative principles, then it is already clearly understood that such a Vaisnava acarya must himself already be expert in following all of the regulative principles, and would never find himself in a position as the GBC appointed "Gurus" in the ISKCON "law" Book!, many of whom have shown the common tendency to break one or more of them.

(C) On the GBC's point of " taking shelther of Srila Prabhupada", when one first joins ISKCON (post 1977), one is allowed to chant Srila Prabhupad's pranam mantras exclusively, accepting him as a spiritual Master, yet simultaneously the newcomer is instructed that his or her chanting of Srila Prabhupad's pranama mantra is only a temporary lease, soon to be eclipsed by the chanting of to one of those "living" "Diksa Gurus" that would mercifully intervene in his or her spiritual life. Later when one of the GBC selected "Guru" breaks loose with sex desire or any of the other three regulative principles, then for the time being the poor "disciple" can once again run to the shelter of Srila Prabhupada, by chanting of his pranama mantras and offering of Bhogha to Srila Prabhupada . However all of this is of course "optional", and defin! itely temporary, and only under the condition that one understands that Srila Prabhupada is only one's "emergency Guru".

The 1998 Suspension of Harikesa dasa confirms this point: that while admitting that "Harikesa dasa has acted abnormally, by assuming himself to be an incarnation of Skanda, Lord Chaitanya,etc, and his non-devotee girlfriend, and female disciple as divine Incarnations of goddesses of fortune", and while " invoking the "lightest possible sanction" by probating and suspending Harikesa dasa from his Guru position, in the very same breath, the GBC Executive committee gives a very liberal' choice to the poor disciples of Harikesa by mentioning as follows: " While his disciples should not accept siksa from him absolutely, they may, if they desire, continue to honour him as their Spiritual Master in gratitude for his me! rcy and guidance in the past and in expectation of his restoration in the future".

Further, in the article "Suspension of Harikesa Dasa" section No.3 of title called "Specific Conditions of Probations as Guru": "That Harikesa's disciples may continue to offer Puja and Bhogha to him and recite his pranama mantras ; or they may perform these functions instead to Srila Prabhupada alone; or to both of them together. The choice among these belongs to the individual disciple to make". Another previous example was seen in the GBC resolution published in October 1986 which states : "That all of Bhavananda Goswami's GBC and initiation responsibilities can be resumed by him as of October 1986".

By studying the above two incidents, any sane devotee would be completely disgusted at the GBC's greatly "liberal" and callous attitude when it comes to worshipping Srila Prabhupada: that even if one still wants to worship someone who has had illicit sex with women men & children, there is absolutely no harm if you still want to worship him alone, or if one feels a little bit awkward about it, then one can "add" Srila Prabhupada in the picture together, by worshiping a sexual loving "Guru" together with the actual Mahabhagavat, Srila Prabhupada . Such is the past (for the past 26 years) and the present state of the GBC's consciousness. Therefore after these above and many other similar incidents, how can any honest devotee ever expect good government in ISKCON from the present persons in the Governing Body Commission of ISKCON?

(E) While the ISKCON Gurus expects their potential "disciple" to follow strictly all the 4 regulative principles, and during the fire yajna while initiating them makes sure the disciple commits to following them, the very same ISKCON Guru is protected by the insurance of the law book in that he himself can at any time break one or more of the regulative principles . Such hypocrisy disgusts even the most hypocritical materialists

Therefore in the above cases, as in many other cases, the GBC members and senior leaders, after covering up the falldowns of an "initiating guru" even sanctioned that the "initiating Guru" even after a grossly sinful falldown, such as constant engagement in illicit sexual activities, is allowed after some time of "improvement" in his behavior to continue initiating disciples, just to: 1. Show their appreciation to such a "Guru" for all his past services in ISKCON, especially his "Guru" service. 2. "Encourage" such a "Guru" to continue his "Guru service" for ISKCON, so that he may not leave ISKCON altogether, and create an embarrassment for both the GBC and himself, 3. Also encourage his "disciples" so that they may continue in the illusion that such a person is indeed his "Guru coming in the disciplic succession of self realized souls".

4. Make sure that such "disciples" of the "Guru" would not leave ISKCON because of feeling cheated and heart broken at their GBC's pledge to them to accept such a "Guru" as "good as God" intimate servant of the gopis, and "sum total of all demigods" in their every morning Mangala Artika Samsara Prayers. (G) Very different from all these concoctions in the ISKCON "law" Book, Srila Prabhupada states in Cc. Madhya Lila 22.71: "There is no possibility that a first class devotee will fall down, even though he may mix with non devotees to preach," Any perfected or first class devotee can never fall down spiritually. Therefore by uttering so many concoctions unknown to the rank and file devotees who joined before 1978, any honest and intelligent devotee can see that the GBC practically as much as admits that their selected "living Gurus" are simply not at all qualified to become anyone's eternal Spiritual Master.

(2) The ISKCON LAW BOOK also states in page 69 TX 6.5.1.2.1 as follows: "That if a guru has become hopelessly entangled in sense gratification and it has been shown either by observation or from his own admission, that he has been regularly violating the regulative principles of Krishna consciousness, and if there is virtually no hope for his rectification, then the disciple should reject him and may accept reinitiation." There are also few points to consider on this above GBC "law".

(A) Here the GBC very mercifully' allows the "disciple" of the fallen "ISKCON Guru" to once more try out his luck by shuffling or kicking him or her around like "football" to another of one their elected voted "eternal Gurus".

(B) The subject of "reinitiation' was never mentioned even once by Srila Prabhupada in all of his books, tapes, or letters.

(C) In fact Srila Prabhupada clearly warns in the Chaitanya Charitamrta Adi lila chapter 1 Text 35 purport, "A devotee must have only one initiating spiritual master, because in the scriptures acceptance of more than one initiating Guru is always forbidden". The fact that Srila Prabhupada mentions that a devotee must have only one initiating Spiritual master is already clear prove that Srila Prabhupada is definitely not referring to a conditioned soul, apt to fall down any time from his spiritual regulative principles as mentioned in the ISKCON "law" Book, and definitely not the species of "gurus" that the GBC has been promoting since the past 26 years.

(D) The actual bonafide initiating Spiritual master:

1. gives divya jnana (planting the seed of spiritual knowledge and the seed of bhakti lata bija or the creeper of devotional). 2. He also promises the disciple to free him or her from all his many trillions of lifetimes of sinful actions and reactions (karma), 3. And to deliver him or her out of the 10 coverings of the material universe, back to the spiritual sky. Therefore all these are definitely not a task for a conditioned soul with the tendency to "violate one or more of the basic regulative principles (as mentioned in the ISKCON "Law" Book). Such conditioned souls by the mercy of the fully ever liberated eternal Guru such as Srila Prabhupada, can however be engaged as an assistant in these above mentioned activities in the capacity of agent, instructor, priest, deputy etc.

Thus since the initiating Spiritual Master has such an extraordinarily mighty task to perform, he definitely has to be on the highest platform (Chaitanya Charitamrta Madhya Lila Vol. 3 Ch 24 TX 330, purport). And when one accepts a bonafide spiritual master who is actually free from the four defects of a conditioned soul, and free from gross and subtle sinful activities then there is never any question of his falling down from spiritual life and forcing the disciple to change ones initiating spiritual master to go out shopping for another. Therefore Srila Prabhupada's statement that "One should have only one initiating Spiritual master" is clear by understanding his above mentioned quotes. Unfortunately for everyone and for themselves, the GBC have been carrying out this most dangerous experiment of reinitiation for the past 26 years upon thousands of devotees that joined ISKCON post 1977.

(E) Srila Prabhupada however goes on to say in the C.C. Adi Lila 1.35 : "There is no limit, however, to the number of instructing spiritual masters one may accept. Generally a spiritual Master who constantly instructs a disciple in spiritual science, becomes his initiating spiritual Master later on". Today after 26 years of struggle, ISKCON leaders and the GBC have finally come up with the resolution that Srila Prabhupada is everyone's Prime instructing Spiritual master for all devotees in ISKCON. Therefore by their very own statements the GBC are unconsciously admitting and conceding to Srila Prabhupada's statements that such a "Spiritual Master who constantly instructs a disciple in spiritual science, becomes his initiating Spiritual master later on", is clearly Srila Prabhupada whose graciou! s and gargantuan library of Books, audio and video cassettes instructs thousands of people daily.

(F) In ISKCON, since the departure of Srila Prabhupada, we have seen many "disciples" being reinitiated even up to four(4) times after having experienced their "appointed by Srila Prabhupada" "Guru" or "appointed by the GBC Guru", fall down grossly into illicit sinful activities.

Therefore it seems that the main object of the GBC for the devotees that joined post 1977 is for them to accept a "living Guru", even though he is not qualified, as long as he was breathing in and out Oxygen and Carbon dioxide, that was his qualification, to accept disciples simply because he was "living". In fact when some of these poor devotees (post 1977) after going through one or two of their fallen "Gurus" try to escape the noose of reinitiation, they are severely hounded by the GBC as being too independent and unwilling to surrender to authority. This forces the poor devotee to throw the dice just one more time to mechanically accepts once more a GBC appointed "Guru" just so that he can continue his existence in ISKCON peacefully without being criticized for being an offender to the "Traditional Parampara" system as understood by the GBC.

Therefore after understanding these above mentioned quotes of Srila Prabhupad's in the Chaitanya Charitamrta, We submit that the GBC cannot insist that people accept more initiating Gurus and make "laws" in their "law" Book enforcing this idea of reintiation.

(3) The ISKCON "law" book also states in Page 58-59, Text 6.2.1, point No.3 on the qualifications necessary to be approved as a diksa Guru in ISKCON as follows: "Must have not had a fall down within 5 years". From the above "law" we can understand the following points.

(A) This time period of not having had a spiritual falldown for "5 years" which the GBC mentions is a total concoction on their part, as such a time period was never mentioned by Srila Prabhupada in all of his books, conversations, or tapes etc.

(B) That recently one of the original founding fathers and participants of the zonal acarya system commented when challenged as to how the GBC came up with "5" years and not Six' ten' or 20' etc, he replied that the GBC had been given such "authorization" by Srila Prabhupada to decide on "such matters" such as fixing the time limit and qualifications of "gurus" who were supposed to be coming in the pure disciplic succession of self realized souls.

(C) That as soon as the Clocks ticked past 12.00AM Midnight on the eve of 5 years after one has had a spiritual falldown such as illicit Sex etc, one was perfectly eligible to knock on the GBC doors waking them up from their sleep, to demand his Guru rights such as (1) being a "bonafide Guru coming in the Disciplic succession of self realized souls (2) being qualified to plant the seed of bhakti in the heart of a conditioned soul, (3) being able to annihilate such a "disciple's" sinful activities performed for crores of lifetimes (4) competent to deliver oneself as well as his conditioned disciple from the clutches of the material universe Durga fort and send him back safely to the lotus feet of Lord Krsna in the Spiritual world. All this is suddenly made possible (according to the GBC), just because the time limit of "5" years had elasped.

(4) The ISKCON "LAW" Book states in page 69 Text 6.5.1.2.2. as follows; "That if the spiritual Master takes on demoniac qualities and becomes inimical to ISKCON, he should be rejected and the disciple may take reinitiation".

The following points are to be considered:

(A)There is not even one single historical example of a bonafide Guru in our disciplic succession ever becoming a demon.

(B) How can one have a "fallen" "suspended" or "demoniac" relationship with the Supreme Lord or his pure representative, The GURU ? Therefore after studying carefully all the above points, the reader can realize that it is no wonder that Srila Prabhupada warns us in the Chaitanya Charitamrta Antya Lila Ch 5, Tx 71-74, to never think that a genuine eternal Guru can be a conditioned soul: "One is forbidden to accept the Guru or Spiritual master as an ordinary man".

And in the CC Adi Lila Ch 7, TX 88, Srila Prabhupada mentions: "If one who is not yet developed, imitates such symptoms (of a liberated Guru) artificially, he create chaos in the spiritual life of human society". Thus no sane member of ISKCON will ever agree to the Insane proposals and chaotic conditions created by the GBC for the past twenty Six years, by equating the actual meaning of the word "Guru", especially the Guru coming in the Pure Disiplic Succession of Self realized Spiritual masters, with one who can be "Demoniac", "Suspended" or "fallen", as unfortunately the ISKCON "Law" Book has.

In the ISKCON "Law" Book, one finds this sad misunderstanding of the actual Guru's position to be mixed with the position of conditioned souls, or partially realized souls, who are at present occupying the posts of "Initiating Gurus" in ISKCON.

Although the GBC accuses those devotees who sincerely want to reinstall Srila Prabhupad's instructions on the initiation system of being "Mayavadis", it is the GBC body members and leaders of ISKCON who are actually promoting the Mayavada Philosophy, because Srila Prabhupada clearly defines in the Chaitanya Charitamrta that "Mixing the spiritual with Material is the Mayavadi's business". "Gurusu nara matih yasya vai naraka sah": anyone who thinks that the bonafide Guru can be a materially conditioned souls apt to break the regulative principles and so forth, has a mentality that is naraki or hellish. Thus Srila Prabhupada writes," The Sahajiyas consider the acharyas to be mixed devotees. Thus they clear their path to hell" (CC Adi Lila CH 7 TX 22).

(5) THE ISKCON LAW BOOK STATES IN PAGE 164, Text 2.1 as follows: "That ISKCON Devotees and leaders have repeatedly requested a clear vision from the GBC on Srila Prabhupada's order in 1977 regarding continuing the disciplic succession,but has yet not been presented"........ "The Siddhanta in regard to Guru Tattva in ISKCON has been unclear and there is a need for a statement from the GBC to give direction" From the above statement, the following points are to be considered:

(A) The GBC themselves admit in Black and White that they, the leaders of ISKCON were never clear about Srila Prabhupad's instructions to them on the Post 1977 initiation system for ISKCON. Yet after clearly admitting their uncertainty about these matter, suddenly and miraculously, twenty years later, (in 1997), having received their revelations from ???? to clear this uncertainty, they printed their "law" book and all the laws mentioned in this article, completely opposing Srila Prabhupada's instructions.

The GBC claimed that their "laws" mentioned in their ISKCON "law" book were based on the authority of Narahari Sarakara's (an associate of Lord Chaitanya Mahaprabhu) book called the "Krsna Bhajanmrta".

That Narahari Sarakara is one of the associates of Lord Chaitanya is not in dispute, as Srila Prabhupada confirms in the Chaitanya Charitamrta, Adi lila chapter 10 TX 78-79. But what we do not find is Srila Prabhupada ever mentioning or even slightly hinting, what to speak of actually predicting that after his departure when the ISKCON "bonafide Gurus" "coming in the Pure disciplic succession" would fall down into illicit sex like moths falling into fire, then Narahari Sarakara would suddenly and miraculously come to the rescue of ISKCON to save the day with his book called "Krsna Bhajanamrta".

Therefore the GBC's desperate search for "evidence" from other sources other than Srila Prabhupad's, to support their materially affected "Guru can fall down" theory, unfortunately imply to the general mass of innocent devotees that:

1. Srila Prabhupada purposely chose to leave the Guru issue and initiation systems in ISKCON, vague and unclear and,

(2) also carelessly forgot to mention (a) that initiating Gurus of the Pure disciplic succession of self realized souls can fall down into illicit sex, and other grossly sinful activities, (b) what steps should be taken when all of this happens.

The real point to understand is that Srila Prabhupada had set up one standard in ISKCON as far as GURU was concerned and that is, that the Diksa Guru coming in disciplic succsesion is always a Mahabhagavat and can never fall down . We suggest the reader will be clear to this question as to why Srila Prabhupada never bothered to mention such a "Guru fall down" theory, when one reads:

The Srimad Bhagavatam Canto 3, Ch 13, tx 8 purport. After clearly describing the entire disciplic succession with all the names of the Gurus, including his own name, Srila Prabhupada mentions as follows: "This line of disciplic succession from Brahma is spiritual, whereas the genealogical succession from Manu is material" .

What we have to understand is that the eternal disciplic succession is one of successive discipline, not of successive non- realized or partially realized persons, who are merely imitating the fully liberated Guru, Srila Prabhupada. Sometimes it is wrongly assumed that unless each link in the unbroken disciplic succession is succeeded one second after the physical demise of the last link, then there will be a break. But this is not the case, as the disciplic succession is not a material chain, but it is a spiritual chain as confirmed above by Srila Prabhupada.

We must understand that the current acarya remains the current link-whether or not he is in his physical body. Srila Prabhupada explains that as long as one is connected to the acarya, even after his physical dissapearance, there is no break. (Srila Prabhupad's letter to Dayananda 12 /4 /68/ and letter to Vrndavan chandra 19/7/70 ). The issue is to remain connected. Therefore one must understand that the disciplic succession is about the transmission of knowledge- not the transmission of physically intact bodies. It is not like the Monarchy whereby Physical Demise also leads to the demise of that person's reign..

If the disciplic succession is spiritual as confirmed by Srila Prabhupada, why is it the GBC have speculated in their "law" book that there can be "Gurus" who can have illicit sex and "break one or even more of the regulative principles", but that as soon as they "rectify" themselves, can again jump back on board the disciplic succession line? Why would such a Spiritual disciplic succession contain members performing such abominable behaviour to represent them as their leaders?

(B) The statement that Srila Prabhupada makes in the Chaitanya Charitamrta Madhya Lila CH 24-text 258 purport, "The Spiritual master being in the disciplic succession stemming from Narada Muni is in the same category with Narada Muni ".

(C) The Nectar of instructions page 58,

(D)The purport of Srimad Bhagavatam 1 12.16 where Srila Prabhupada mentions "Such transcendental literature's, missionaries and representatives of the Lord are spotlessly white, because the contamination of the material qualities cannot even touch them.

(E) The two quotes on the topmost qualifications for one to take up the post of a Diksa Guru in Chaitanya Charitamrta Madya lila, 24 TX 330 purport.

(F) In Srimad Bhagavatam Canto 4, Tx 42, purport, "A Bonafide spiritual master is in the disciplic succession from time eternal and he does not deviate at all from the Instructions of the Supreme Lord ".

(G) Also once Srila Prabhupada was asked if a Guru can fall down, and he replied "Well if Guru is bad, how can he become a Guru"? (the Science of Self realisation chapter 2).

Therefore one should think deeply with a cool headed mind the question of what was the reason for the change of standard from the Mahabhagavat Guru standard as experienced in ISKCON upto 1977, and then to find something totally opposite after 1977. Especially when there was no instruction from Srila Prabhupada upto his last breath that such a standard should ever be changed.

Why is it that after 1977,everyone who joined ISKCON were denied the Mahabhagavat standard Guru, but instead many of them got the Homosexual Standard Guru, or Woman Hunter Guru or Child Molester Guru? What "bad karma" did the poor devotees who joined after 1977 do in their last life, in contrast to the " good karma" the devotees who joined pre 1978 performed? That even though they joined the same society, chanted the same mantra, performed the same devotional service processes, followed the same 4 regulative principles, read the same Srila Prabhupada's books, etc, as their pre 1978 counterparts, still they had to receive so many spiritually fallen Gurus? Why was that standard changed? Some humorous devotees joke that maybe those who joined Post 1977 had donated cats to the Brahmanas in their previous lives instead of donating cows as their Pre 1! 978 counterparts had done so diligently.

Did Srila Prabhupada want that all newcomers who joined immediately after 1977 should get these spiritually fallen "Gurus"? The GBC have indirectly implied to these poor "disciples" of the fallen "gurus", by their actions of promotion of "Gurus" since 1978 that Lord Krishna and Srila Prabhupada seem to be punishing them because they "spaced out" by missing out on his physical presence available till 1977, and so because of their being so "unfortunate" by not meeting him physically they have to suffer the consequences after 1977.

Therefore the whole scenario becomes continuously ludicrous if we support the GBC's changing the quality of the Guru standard that Srila Prabhupada had set up and was operating in ISKCON till 1977. These changes had its roots in the speculation of the GBC that (a) Conditioned souls with tendencies to commit sinful activities can be a Guru in the Parampara, Pure disciplic successsion of self realized souls. (b)Such Gurus can fall down spiritually and still be a guru if only they "sincerely rectify" themselves.

It seems according to the ISKCON "Lawbook" that Narahari Sarakara's sole duty in the age of Kali would be to provide the GBC in the mid 1980's a fool proof defense system and "sastric" or "scriptual" evidence whenever their "bonafide eternal Gurus coming in the Pure disciplic succession" were unable to control the sex urge and would break loose. Such a system was set up also to save them from further embarrassment of being criticized, and from paying heed to the root problem whenever many rank and file devotees appealed and pleaded to them to seriously look back at our own Founder Acharya's instructions in the July 9th letter directive for initiations in ISKCON, and his Will.

Even accepting that if Narahari Sarakara had written a book called "Krsna Bhajamnrta," any sincere and intelligent devotee after reading the present day edition of this book, can easily come to the conclusion that such a great associate of Chaitanya Mahaprabhu would never write in the context that the GBC claims he has written, and if he did at all mentioned the term "Guru", could ever be referring to the spiritual fall down of Gurus coming in the actual pure disciplic succession (Parampara).

Another important point to note is that Srila Prabhupada clearly teaches us that we can go back to the teachings of the previous acaryas or associates of the Lord, only if Srila Prabhupada who is our current link in the disciplic succession, has taught us something about that particular subject matter. If Srila Prabhupada never even cared to speak about a certain topic such as "Spiritual falldown of Gurus coming in the Pure disciplic Succession" or "Reinitiation", then we have no right whatsoever to jump over Srila Prabhupada and go to these acaryas, and then look back at Srila Prabhupada. Indeed this statement of not to "look back" is proposed and supported by the GBC in their book "Our original position" (Page 163), however unfortunately in the ISKCON "LAW" BOOK, they completely contradict themselves by not following even their own proposals.

Srila Prabhupada also clearly stresses this point of not jumping over him in his letter dated 12/4/73: "Whatever is to be learned about the teachings of Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakura can be learned from Our Books. There is no need whatsoever for any outside instructions".

Looking back at the history of Lord Chaitanya Mahaprabhu and his pastimes in the authorized books which Srila Prabhupada mentions, namely "Chaitanya Charitamrta, Chaitanya Bhagavata, we never find Lord Chaitanya speaking the statements that the GBC claims Narahari Sarakara has made in the Krsna Bhajanamrta about the falldown of "Gurus coming in the Parampara line and how when they "Rectify" for their gross illicit sexual behaviour with Women, Men and Children, then they are allowed to quickly again jump back to their posts as being able to not only deliver themselves, but others from the material world, all the way back to the spiritual world. Indeed in His major instructions to the two chief of the Six Goswamis, to Sarvabhauma Bhattacharya, to Ramananda Raya etc, we never find such topics ever mentioned.

Since Narahari Sarakara is an associate of the Lord, then naturally all he would write in his book, or (books), are statements that Lord Chaitanya Mahaprabhu Taught. Why would he ever mention something totally foreign to Lord Chaitanya's teachings?

Also important to note is that Srila Prabhupada mentions in the Chaitanya Charitamrta: "Locana das Thakura, the celebrated author of Caitanya Mangala is the disciple of Narahari Sarakar". Yet we do not find in the Chaitanya Mangala any mention of Gurus coming in the Pure disciplic succession of self realized souls falling down from their spiritual lives, nor any of the topics of Guru which the GBC claims that Narahari Sarakara has written. It seems rather strange that Locan das Thakura being the disciple of Narahari Sarakara would totally ignore his Spiritual Master's "thoughts" on this subject .

It is also important to note that after the departure of Lord Sri Chaitanya Mahaprabhu, many Sahajiyas and Mayavadis attempted to distort and change His teachings by writing many books claiming them to be the works not only of Mahaprabhu but also of His associates. Later, Srila Bhaktivinode Thakur rectified the situation, but still by the grace of Kali Yuga, there are many remnants of such literatures loitering about.

Thus in 1987 with the first Six "Gurus" falldowns also came a sense of fear that soon the numbers of "Gurus" in ISKCON may be down to zero, and so quickly the GBC came to the rescue by "munificiently" adding Eighty more to satisfy the ever increasing "needs" of the new comer devotees who were taken in for their "living Guru" product. With so many "Gurus' added, even if some fell down spiritually, (and indeed around 25 or more have fallen from 1987-2004), it would never look as bad as the earlier group of eleven because there always were so "many" more who were still in "good standing". This time however the GBC were " more careful" than they were in 1978, by now applying for the Insurance Policy of Narahari Sarakara's "teachings", by making it their "lawbook" and thus all Eighty "Gurus" were fully insured against being critizied even if they did fall spiritually, by the "grace" of the ISKCON "law Book", as long as they "rectified" themselves.

Therefore after reading the "laws" from the ISKCON "LAW" Book we are confident that any sincere, honest devotee will understand that the ISKCON "Law" Book should henceforward only and officially be known as the "ISKCON JOKE BOOK" and nothing else. It is indeed a bad joke played by the GBC members that they will have to answer to the court of Yamaraj after leaving this world.

By all the sincere prayers of the honest devotees, may the hypocrisy and double dealings of the GBC soon be vanquished, for Srila Prabhupada once mentioned in his purports in Srimad Bhagavatam, that Krsna comes especially when he sees his devotees feeling very sorry for the irreligious state of affairs going on in society, and now at a time, when irreligious affairs are going on in the very society of devotees, ISKCON, that is supposed to save the materialistic irreligious society from gliding to hell, it is especially sure that the Lord and his associates will rectify such personalities in the guise of GBC members, leaders, Swamis, Gurus etc.

May Lord Krishna and our beloved eternal guru, Srila Prabhupada forgive every member of ISKCON, (both inside and outside members) for allowing the GBC to create this chaos in human society and in the International society for Krishna Consciousness. By their grace, may we all now begin to obey their orders and reemerge out of chaos back to order: namely at the lotus feet of Srila Prabhupada, the eternal bonafide spiritual master of all the members of his transcendental movement.


From PADA Newsletter March 30, 2004

ISKCON Law Book
Hare Krishna PADAji
Dandavats. All Glories to His Divine Grace.

Thanks for your ongoing commitment to the Truth, and in spite of the indifference shown by both - a GBC suffering delusions of adequacy and, suckers who silently savour sufferance as sanctimony. Or, to bandy cult terminology - austerity is ecstasy in disguise.

It has been well said that some cause happiness wherever they go; others whenever they go. We cannot wait to see the tail-lights of this GBC junta, if for no reason other than to preserve the aesthetic tenets of Vaisnavism and, need it be said, to facilitate the flow of human intelligence. As it is, the leadership's idea of God on earth cannot speak without subtracting from the store of common sense. In short, the Boeotian brain of Iskcon bosses have misinterpreted and redefined sastric injunction until riven with contradiction and contravention. In destine, we find a dipstick dropkick dharma, propagated by leery leadership and curated by cult caretakers.

In a recent article on VNN, Mahadeva Das reviews sections of the ISKCON Law Book revealing GBC legislation as penned by swindlers rather than overseers vis-a-vis instructions by His Divine Grace.

(1) ISKCON "LAW" BOOK Page 69,Text 6.5.1.3. "If a guru is engaged in sense gratification, violating one or more of the regulative principles, but there is hope that he can be rectified, then his disciples should not reject him but should allow time for such rectification to take place, and they should take shelter of Srila Prabhupada and senior Vaisnavas as siksa gurus."

[PADA: There was a similar document penned for the GBC by Gaura Govinda Maharaja wherein he says: your GBC and Gaura Govinda rubber stamped guru might be a demon. And in that case: worship Prabhupada for awhile (until we vote in another demon as our guru). And this paper also mentions how your guru might deviate for awhile (maybe a few lifetimes) and you should "wait and see" and continue to support him and so on, this is also what Sridhara Maharaja told the GBC. "When your guru is poking many of the women, even married ones, and he is stoned on alcohol and drugs, and he is getting people killed, wait and see, why stop the body count now"?]

What we have here is an open doorway to confidence trickery, chowkidhar'd by underlings who have lost rationale and plain dealing in a blur of incense smoke, flower petals, and bug-swat-'em classes. With such provisions in place, an Iskcon-endorsed-guru (any GBC approved cohort) can swindle money and live off his suckers until death; an 'Officer for Life', even if he gets caught 'violating the principles'. We can see from GBC law, that there is no spiritual difference between guru and chela.

[PADA: Except the guru is allowed to have a big bank balance and a new Volvo.]

The only perceptible difference being that one is a certified seer and the other- a damn fool. Showing no deference for a subjugated rank and file, the GBC have, by legislation, provided a screen for criminals and bloodsuckers who protect its operations, and with whom they co-exist for the common purposes of laab, pooja and pratistha. Where laws bespeak no prosecution; where criminals roam unchallenged; where fiduciary obligation is extant only to allegiance, Iskcon membership is no more than commensurate, and no less than criminal. As demonstrated in the current child-abuse case where in excess of five hundred kulis have come forward in the US alone: we have not seen a single predator brought to his knees.

To the contrary, these mentally deranged excuses for sadhus still parade in public, absolved, screened and even promoted by Iskcon's managerial menagerie; a case of you eat my nits and I'll eat yours. However, the sadness lies in the expedience to which Iskcon's rank and file have resorted to avoid the labour of thinking, which, if entered into, would have long since jettisoned the GBC guru malady in support of pure Prabhupada. With an ongoing history of contractile dullness, common sense would demand the GBC, along with its tumbling gurus, be given a belt to hold up its falling down principles.

It was Plato who correctly analysed-- the truth is that the State in which the rulers are most reluctant to govern is always the best and most quietly governed, and the State in which they are most eager, the worst. And, it was Tamal Krishna who (prior to 'postulance', sat naked in a tree and threw rocks at passing devotees) wrote- "...when the guru departs, sadhu and sastra can take on a new import, as those who succeed him become the new interpreters of past precedents, scriptural law, and the new set of circumstances". With this avant-garde perspective of a five-thousand-year old tradition, Sahotra Swami, who was recently 'corrected' for 'violating the principles', was given the task of compiling Iskcon's Law Book. So, it should come as no surprise if a devotee is victimised by one or more of these gerrymandering gorillas. After all, the law is structured to 'correct', not convict. Iskcon's history shows no conviction, secular investigation, or intervention by law enforcement. Furthermore, those who are doing the 'correcting' have also been 'corrected' in turn, or, have not yet been exposed for their violations: gorillas, macaques and mandrills correcting each other while all species are stipend fed by a hand-in-till middle management who recruit green bananas for the monkey-mahatma-gotra.

The point in exercise, is to understand the current Iskcon hierarchy for what it is. We read in the last PADA post- "Just for your Info/ It was reported to me while in India that Jayapataka is having sex with his male servant". Why should this surprise anyone? Isn't it common knowledge that Jayapataka has always been suspect of sodomy? Here is an excerpt from a letter to Jayapataka posted on the BIF web site that reveals his support, if not titillation, for its practice:

"Then there was the case of YOUR secretary who was caught in aggressive homosexual activity. The Mayapur Administrative Council, about 2-3 years ago, voted to ban him from the property, or some such sanction. But you, Jayapataka Maharaja, overrode the ban. You said that as GBC you had authority over the Administrative Council. As a result, the sanctions placed on YOUR secretary were thrown out, and his services were retained by you". So why would Jayapataka, in spite of the proven case against his secretary, keep the faggot in his face? There is no multiple choice answer needed here.

Also, Bhakti Caru comes under suspicion when we note his involvement and protection of known sexual offenders. There is one case where a person whom a Child Protection Office panel determined had illicit sexual contact, including intercourse, with at least one underage girl (beginning when she was 12 and continuing for several years), who was a major contributor to the Bhakti Caru profile/fund. Even after the official decision on the case, Bhakti Caru would reside at the home of this person, support and defend him, etc. So it is very interesting to note how compassionate these gurus are when it comes to sexual perversion. Maybe it was this 'compassion' that spurred the 'guru' legislation in the first place. Further, this Bhakti Caru guruwallah, was recently involved in a slinging match with the Tripperari camp. From the safety of his banana tree, Bhakti Caru voiced a widely accepted Iskcon theory that fingers Tripper as cause for the decline in book distribution- "These are misconceptions that caused so much damage to our society. In my opinion Tripurari caused the most damage to ISKCON. He destroyed book distribution. He introduced lying, changing up, cheating...and if he is so dear to Srila Prabhupada and loves Srila Prabhupada so much, then why did he leave him? Why did he leave ISKCON? These are not personalities to follow".

Besides implying that HE is the one to follow, Bhakti Caru was re-framing the secretly acknowledged GBC scapegoat for the drastic fall in book distribution. One of Tripper's generals (pure devotees don't react to criticism) came back with- "It was after Prabhupada was gone, when the great guru scandals hit the press that public perception changed from considering us simply pushy zealots to seeing the Hare Krishnas as a religious Mafia." When Bhakti Caru saw this posted on VNN, he made out as if his statement was wrongly interpreted by his secretary, or at least, had come from an uncontrollable entity inside him. He wrote in reply- "I just got to know that the above statement (pertaining to Swami Tripurari) was printed in one of the writings by my secretary, Candrasekhar Acarya dasa. I feel extremely embarrassed that such a statement was broadcast in public. I am also extremely embarrassed that I made a statement like this".

Embarrassed? How could anyone who claims ability to take away the sins of the world (guru?) embarrass himself with his own words? Only kids and fools do that. This Bhakti Caru, after so many years of masquerading as a guru, is still behaving like a village idiot? Then, just to make sure that everyone understood his transcendental position, he jumped on his secretary (metaphor) to produce this explanation- "I received the greatest chastisement from my spiritual master after he found out that I had posted this statement (which he regrets deeply, as evident in his own letter of apology posted on the conference yesterday.). I have already been punished by his words, and I pray to you all not to hold a grudge against me".

Okay CAD, we wont hold a grudge against you. It is quite obvious that your guru treats you no better than his rubber duckie. We have only recently come to understand the position of secretaries in Iskcon. But remember, things could have been a lot heavier had you been taking short-hand from Jayapataka. Then again, you will one day become guru and have a secretary under you, and you can rest assured, Iskcon legislation will never allow your peccadillos to be exposed.

On another front. Between Jan and Feb each year there are many Vaisnava festivals commemorating the appearance and disappearance of great personalities, including the appearance of Advaita Acarya (28/1/04), appearance of Nityananda Prabhu (4/2/04), appearance of Bhaktisiddhanta Maharaja (11/2/04), and Maha Prabhu (7/3/04). So when we received a letter from Ambarisa Das offering- "...the opportunity to be one of the first devotees to offer your appreciation to Srila Prabhupada on his 108th Anniversary...", and then he told us in his postscript- "I almost forgot to mention that I and my wife Svaha dasi are looking forward to meeting you or your representative in Mayapur on February 23rd", we turned to the calendar to justify the date of choice. We could understand from the post that the much publicised Panca Tattva deities were to be installed, but after looking through the Vaisnava calendar back and forth, we could not identify the 23rd as being in anyway auspicious. It was only after we heard that Ambarisa Das walked onto the stage at Mayapur on the 23rd to the cheers of 'thousands' of devotees, and the speaker announced it was HIS appearance day, that the penny dropped. The deities were installed on the appearance day of Alfred Brush Ford, and he also used his birthday party to reintroduce a known pervert, Bhavananda, to Iskcon. Many devotees may remember back in the early days, how Ambarisa (before his marriage) and Bhavananda, would frequently journey together along with other Chelsea Girls. Some brahmcaris were even hit on by these travelling cream puffs. Seems like Ambarisa wants to bring back the old times, and he is using money to do it. As he moves from his old USD 2,000,000 mansion to his new USD 5,000,000 palace, Iskcon's leaders are doing cartwheels to satisfy him and any secret hankerings he may harbour. It is said that blood runs thin in the third generation. Go get 'em Alfie!

The Downloader