A Chronological Cornucopia of Confusion

Back To Prabhupada, Issue 18, Winter 2007/8

When a hoax is perpetrated via a series of fabrications, invented as one goes along, one fallout will be that even those who are supposed to be upholding the hoax will not be sure exactly what they are supposed to be doing, and why. The Great Guru Hoax in ISKCON exemplifies this phenomenon, with the guru hoaxers descending into confusion, contradiction and outright absurdity, the further the hoax continues. We detail below, how from the very beginning right up until the present day, the guru hoaxers have become so afflicted with confusion and madness due to the continuation of this offensive guru circus, that they have difficulty distinguishing whether they are coming or going, and indeed whether or not they are even gurus!

We weren't sure - 1977

We are told repeatedly that Srila Prabhupada had 'clearly' instructed his disciples to become successor gurus. Yet we see here the founder of the Guru Hoax, Satsvarupa Das, admitting that they had no idea what they should be doing, and instead he simply flip-flopped depending on what others were saying.

We did the greatest disservice - 1980

Three years later, another architect of the Guru Hoax, Tamal Krishna Goswami, admits that actually they had only ever been appointed ritviks, and taking this appointment of ritviks as the appointment of gurus, was the "greatest disservice to this movement". Yet this appointment of gurus remains in place to this date, since these ritviks, such as Tamala Krishna Goswami himself, never relinquished their appointed guru posts (unless having been caught in gross illicit activity). Rather, these self-admitted bogus gurus stayed in their falsely appointed posts to help authorise all the new ISKCON gurus which followed subsequently, and three of them are still at large today. Therefore, the "greatest disservice to this movement" also remains in place to this day in ISKCON.

Guru falldown perplexity

As the unauthorised gurus began to rapidly fall down, the GBC invented a bunch of "laws" detailing how gurus can fall, how they can be "rectified", how we can still worship them in a limited way whilst they are fallen, how we can worship them in an unlimited way later on following their "rectification", and so on.

Stopping initiation by initiating even more - 1999

Following another big guru falldown, Bhakti Charu Swami ("BCS") admits this meant they should stop initiating right away, as they were "going in the wrong direction". To this end he decided to lead the way by setting the example, by immediately conducting the biggest initiation ceremony seen in ISKCON in fifteen years!:

And yet BCS has the cheek to pontificate regarding "truth and honesty":

"A vaiṣṇava is honest and truthful. Therefore he is fearless."
(BCS Letter, April 3rd, 2007)

The definition of "acharya", or spiritual master, is "one who teaches by example". Since BCS's "example" has shown to be diametrically opposed to what he "teaches", we can safely assume that he is not qualified in any way to act as an "acharya". And by his own definition of honesty and truthfulness, he does not even qualify as a Vaisnava either, having confessed that the current initiation system in ISKCON is completely wrong and should stop altogether; and yet he continues initiating in large numbers to this current day, never having stopped to "find the right way", preferring instead to "continue going in the wrong direction".

Am I saying I am a guru? - 2005

Sankarshan Das a GBC-voted-in guru, gets confused over whether he is claiming he is a guru or not:

In reply, Sankarshan Das states:

However, the above statement is made in relation to his website on which he says:

In addition, our confused "sum total of the demigods" ISKCON guru also states:

So if Srila Prabhupada had actually told Sankarshan Das Adhikari to advertise himself as a spiritual master, why did he initially claim he did not follow this supposed advice and state that "I am not advertising that I am guru"?

Should we be called gurus? - 2006

Faith in the ISKCON guru system has now reached such a low, that an ISKCON guru himself actually hates to use the word "guru" to refer to himself, and prefers that they are called anything but this! And yet another ISKCON leader says that "guru" is not even a position in ISKCON, though, in contradiction with SRS, it is alright to at least "advertise" it as such:

So confused are they about their crumbling guru system, they cannot even agree what status, if at all, should be given to the "guru" title!

Grappling with being a guru - 2007

Thus, having been artificially elevated by the GBC to the position of a diksa guru (initiating spiritual master) who is worshipped as Srila Prabhupada's successor, HH Mukunda Goswami now tells us that imitating Srila Prabhupada's position is something he has been "grappling" with, and further that he would cease to function as a spiritual master should his disciple headcount exceed 100.

We are unaware of any teaching from Srila Prabhupada which states that a bona fide spiritual master "grapples" with being a spiritual master. Indeed, the very definition of a bona fide spiritual master is that he is a completely self-realised soul.

Gurus are actually ritviks! - 2007

Here an ISKCON guru tries to justify why ISKCON devotees should remain in ISKCON, even if their guru hoaxers fall down by claiming that the "institutional empowerment" of the initiation conferred upon disciples does not leave with the bogus gurus when they themselves leave ISKCON. But this would mean that the real empowerment for the initiation obviously cannot come from the bogus gurus themselves, but from some other source, since nothing changes even if your "guru" leaves - your initiation stays intact. However, this can only happen if the "initiator" is simply a functionary for the initiation ceremony, and not a bona fide diksa guru himself - and such a functionary, who simply imparts an initiation without affecting the status of the initiation even if he himself later leaves ISKCON, is called a "RITVIK". Hence, SRS is here conceding the ritvik argument in order to try and keep hapless disciples, whose "gurus" may deviate in the future, to stay in ISKCON.

SRS also claims that one can give "direct service" to Srila Prabhupada, even if there is no longer any connection to the "guru" who "initiated" you. This again means that actually Srila Prabhupada must be one's diksa Guru, since we do not require an intermediary guru through which to DIRECTLY serve Srila Prabhupada. The ability to render DIRECT service to a Guru, even though one is not connected to the person who "initiated" one, can only happen if the "initiator" in question was a "RITVIK" who initiated on behalf of the Guru to whom we are actually performing the DIRECT service.

Conclusion

So from start to finish, the gurus themselves admit that:

a) They struggled to know what should be done.

b) What they did was the greatest disservice to the movement, a disservice which continues to this present day.

c) A whole series of seemingly perplexing laws are needed to "manage" gurus.

d) They should have stopped initiating as they were going in the wrong direction.

e) They are not sure if they are calling themselves gurus, or better still, don't call us gurus at all!

f) They are grappling with being gurus, and thus have decided to stop when they reach a certain number of disciples.

g) We can understand that when the guru falls down, this does not matter since he is effectively no more than a ritvik!

Such self-confessed uncertainty by ISKCON's Governing Body is only to be expected when one is trying to prop up a guru hoax, rather than institute the ritvik system that was actually prescribed by Srila Prabhupada for ISKCON. Such madness and confusion can only result when one fabricates an illegal guru system in direct disobedience to the order of Srila Prabhupada; such confusion could certainly not arise if one was actually following the perfect orders of Srila Prabhupada, to keep him as the only diksa Guru for ISKCON.