ISKCON admits the Guru hoax

Tamal Krishna, the main perpetrator of the guru scam once even said:

“Actually, Prabhupāda never appointed any gurus. He appointed eleven ritviks. He never appointed them as gurus” (Tamal Krishna Goswami (1946-2002), Pyramid House Confessions, Topanga Canyon, 3 December 1980)

“Srila Prabhupāda has not appointed anyone to be a guru in the future” (Jayādvaita Swami, ISKCON elected guru, video, San Diego debate, 1990)

“Srila Prabhupāda never said, ‘Here are the next eleven Ācāryas, they are authorised gurus for the movement’. He never did that.” (Ravindra Svarūpa Das, guru elected by ISKCON, video, San Diego debate, 1990)

“Due to the influence of māyā, illusion, the idea soon arose that Śrīla Prabhupāda had appointed eleven ‘pure devotees’ to act as the only gurus after him… This zone guru system, as it was called, prevailed in ISKCON for more than 10 years until it became obvious that it was false. In 1986, the GBC Board of Directors of ISKCON officially abolished this system.” (“An Apology,” Back To Godhead, #25-01, 1991)

While the GBC admits here that this approach was wrong, fundamentally this system remains unchanged to this day.

The guru fraud began when 11 unqualified disciples, who had been selected to act as representatives of the guru (Ritvik), instead posed as successor gurus.

The basis of the guru scam is based on unauthorised, self-appointed wannabe gurus with the function to act in some way as initiating diksa gurus to usurp (initiate for themselves), exploit and play God to Śrīla Prabhupada’s followers.

The ISKCON zone guru system was later replaced by the “guru-by-vote election”.

“Guru-by-voting” is another perversion of the guru system and a gross misconduct of the GBC. You cannot simply artificially elect a person to the highest spiritual position, higher than they actually are.

1978 – Guru-by-choice mocked:

“One cannot simply elect a person to the office of highest sanctity”
(‘Editor’s Notes’, Back to Godhead #13-01/02, 1978)

“Srila Jiva Gosvami advises that one should not accept a spiritual master on the basis of hereditary or habitual social and ecclesiastical conventions. ”
(CC (BBT 1975) Adi 1.35)

“The GBC is the highest ecclesiastical body governing ISKCON.”
(Back To Godhead)!!!

Note IHKM:

So according to Srila Jiva Goswami one should NOT accept any spiritual master who derives his authority from ecclesiastical conventions ! ! !

BUT BUT BUT  the GBC is the highest ecclesiastical institution in ISKCON that runs ISKCON and this GBC chooses the so called initiating spiritual masters by election to the OFFICE of an initiating spiritual master, like a politician ! ! !

This means that after Guru, Sastra and Sadhu, the so-called ecclesiastically (GBC) elected Gurus must not be accepted at all ! ! !

1986 – Guru-by-choice- introduced:

“…any GBC can present a diksa guru candidate before the GBC body. If the majority of voting members do not object to the nomination, the candidate is placed on a one-year waiting period … after the majority approval of the body, he may assume the responsibility of an initiating guru in ISKCON.”
(ISKCON GBC Resolution No. 3, 30 March 1986)

Voting procedures […] for guru candidates […] to be determined by the voting members.
(GBC document.)

Voting for guru process […] by a two-thirds majority of the GBC […] all GBCs are candidates for appointment as Guru.
(GBC document.)

GBC: Still “electing people to the post of Supreme Holiness”

According to these quotes and irrefutable evidence, it is also true that the GBC does indeed select so called “diksa gurus”.

Unfortunately, this is also irrefutable evidence that the GBC does not accept the conclusion of master-disciple succession !!!!

“……disciple succession does not always mean that one must be officially initiated. Disciple succession means that one accepts the conclusion of disciple succession.”
(SP letter to Dinesh, 31/10/69)

Śrīla Prabhupāda comments:

“There are many envious people in the garb of Vaiṣṇavas in this movement for Kṛṣṇa consciousness, and they should be completely ignored. A false Ācārya may try to override a Vaiṣṇava by a judgement of the Supreme Court (2/3 GBC  hand vote), but Bhaktivinoda Ṭhākura says that he is nothing but a disciple of Kali-yuga.”

(CC.Madhy., ch.1, verse 218 / 220, purport)

However, the GBC RESOLUTION of 27 February 1985 says the opposite – “For a GBC vote on the addition of an initiating guru, a minimum of 3/4 of the GBC members must be present. To be approved as a guru, a candidate must achieve a 2/3 majority vote of the members present at that meeting).

Śrīla Prabhupāda: “A guru is someone who follows the predecessor, the authorised predecessor. He is guru. It is not that everyone is guru. Therefore we have to follow the higher instruction. Then we become guru, but we don’t become guru by cheating others. No. That is a cheater. That is not a teacher. Guru means one who follows the higher instruction. The higher order is Krishna, or His representative.”

(SP lecture SB 3.25.32-Bombay, Dec. 2,1974)

We should not be fooled by all these GBC 2/3 hand-vote majority elected or self-appointed cheating ISKCON gurus who fall down like ordinary conditioned souls after some time.

Śrīla Prabhupāda: Do not be allured by cheap disciples. First continue steadfastly to render service. If you become guru immediately, then the activities of service will stop; because there are so many cheap gurus and cheap disciples, without any basic knowledge, who are fabricating new disciplic successions (sampradāyas), with stopped activities of service, and all spiritual progress is stalled. (SPL (VI 1987) 68.8.17)

After so many gurus had fallen in 1987, there was another GBC decision. A 50-man committee was formed for a so-called reform that was not really a reform at all. It was just a softened version and continuation of the same error. What the GBC did was to appoint some gurus and open the door for anyone to initiate anywhere they want. Whereas before there was a kind of zonal Ācārya-system , now there were gurus by ballot for everyone, with a 2/3 majority.

However, after guru, sastra and sadhu, it is IMPOSSIBLE that a real spiritual master can falldown, as is clearly proven here:

Iskcon-GBC says: A spiritual master can sometimes fall down and become demonic. ( MYTH)

“There is no possibility of a first-class devotee falling down…”
(Cc. Madhya 22.71, Purport)

“The spiritual master is always considered either one of the confidential associates of Radharani or a manifested representation of Sri Nityananda.”(Cc. Adi. 1.46, purport)

“The spiritual master is not a question of [‘living’ or ‘dead’]…. The spiritual master is eternal – the spiritual master is eternal.” (SP Lecture 2 October 1968, Seattle, WA).

Note IHKM:

These deviant gurus described here, by definition, could never have been members of the eternal disciplic succession. Rather, they were non-liberated, self-authorised or GBC-approved 2/3-hand voted  majority gurus and priests posing as initiating acaryas. Sincere members of the disciplic succession never deviate:

“God is always God, Guru is always Guru.”
(The Science of Self-Realisation, Chapter 2)

“Well, if he is bad, how can he become a guru?”
(The Science of Self-Realisation, Chapter 2)

“The pure devotee is always free from the clutches of maya and its influence.”
(S.B. 5.3.14)

“There is no possibility of a first-class devotee falling down.”
(C.c. Madhya, 22.71)

“A spiritual master is always liberated.”
(Srila Prabhupada letter to Tamal Krishna, 21/6/70)

Note IHKM:

There is not a single example in Srila Prabhupada’s books of a formally authorised diksa-guru in our disciplic succession ever deviating from the path of devotional service. The rejection of Sukracarya is sometimes used to validate the view that acaryas can fall down or be rejected, but this example is highly misleading as he was never an authorised member of our disciplic succession. Sometimes Lord Brahma’s pastimes with his daughter are mentioned. But in Srimad-Bhagavatam it is clearly stated that these incidents took place before Lord Brahma became the head of our sampradaya. When the disciple Nitai cited this incident as an example of the falldown of an acarya, Srila Prabhupada became very displeased:

Prabhupada:

Aksayananda: I was recently told by a devotee that the acarya need not be a pure devotee. [….]

Prabhupada: Who is this rascal? […]

Aksayananda: He said it. Nitai said it. He said it in this context. He said that Lord Brahma is the acarya in the Brahma-sampradaya, but still he is sometimes afflicted with passion. So he says that apparently the acarya need not be a pure devotee. So it does not seem to be correct. […]

Prabhupada: He has invented his idea. Therefore he is a rascal. Therefore he is a rascal. Nitai has become an authority? […] He has invented something rascal, and now he is expressing that. That’s why he’s an even bigger rascal. These things are going on.
(SP Morning Walk, Vrindavan, 10 December 1975)

Note IHKM:

The main mistake ISKCON committed after Śrīla Prabhupāda disappeared  is to fabricate a faulty initiation system from the very beginning. This flawed guru system has been mitigated to some extent, but continues to this day. The great guru scam was perfect when suddenly anyone was allowed to act as an initiating Dīkṣā guru who got a majority by hand-vote from the GBC. How can the ISKCON guru voting system be authorised when the gurus themselves admit that these systems were not actually authorised?

It is obvious that a problem cannot be solved by replacing one fraud with another. Today’s ISKCON guru system is so perverted that even the GBC can no longer say for sure how its members were appointed as initiating gurus. Moreover, members have admitted that the way they became initiating gurus was wrong. The fact that the original guru fraud has been admitted is yet further proof that they were never authorised to replace Śrīla Prabhupada’s Ritvik order of 9 July 1977 with their fabricated false guru system.

The very fact that the ISKCON guru fraudsters had to fabricate so many different and contradictory stories to support their false system is one of the most convincing pieces of evidence that we are dealing with a large-scale fraud. As with any other complex fraud involving more than one perpetrator, ISKCON has trouble keeping their version of the story straight.

Considering how many incidents the GBC has already covered up, that many gurus have fallen and issued resignations stating that they can no longer follow the regulative principles. Then one should not be surprised that ISKCON is trying to keep the aberrations of the unauthorised gurus secret.

Conclusion

-The current guru initiation system in ISKCON is a fraud. It is based on a previous fraud where ritviks (representatives of the acarya) were replaced by GBC 2/3 hand vote majority appointed initiating gurus or by self-appointed ones.

– Various evidences show that Śrīla Prabhupāda remains as the sole Dīkṣā guru in ISKCON. The existing evidence is sufficient in itself to irrefutably and irrevocably cement Śrīla Prabhupada’s position as the Dīkṣā Guru of ISKCON:

– Proof 1: Written evidence that only the Ritvik system was ordered for ISKCON.

– Proof 2: GBC does not know how, when or who was authorised to act as guru – because there was no authorisation!

– Proof 3: GBC admits part of the guru fraud.

– Proof 4: History of the guru system with gurus falling dowm proves that the entire system is false.

– Proof 5: Definition of dīkṣā shows Śrīla Prabhupāda continues to give dīkṣā in ISKCON.

– Proof 6: GBC cannot provide a position paper that refutes Śrīla Prabhupāda’s ritvik statement.