The Greater Krishna Consciousness Movement

The greater Krishna consciousness movement always exists in the spiritual sky, and to the extent that we connect to those pure representatives of Krishna that are fully devoted to Him, we can also participate. This movement was most recently shown to the world by the last widely accepted pure devotee of Krishna, His Divine Grace A.C. Bhaktivedanta swami Prabhupada (Srila Prabhupada). He was acting on behalf of the previous spiritual masters of the Brahma-Madhava-Gaudiya Vaishnava disciplic succession, or sampradaya, going back to Lord Krishna Himself. Those unalloyed servants of Krishna have taught us that, to the extent that we devote ourselves to the process of Krishna (God) consciousness, we can also realize the completely pure activities of the residents of the spiritual sky, where everything is centered on serving the supreme personality of Godhead, Krishna.

Lord Krishna appeared on earth over 5,000 years ago. He is accepted as the Supreme Lord on the basis of His pastimes recorded in the Srimad Bhagavatam (The All-Beautiful Story of the Supreme Lord) and the Maha-Bharata. His supreme authority is perhaps best understood in the Bhagavad-gita (The Song of God), the most widely read section of the Maha-Bharata. A Vaishnava is a devotee of Vishnu or Krishna, and Lord Brahma, Srila Madhvacarya and Sri Chaitanya Mahaprabhu (Gaurasundara) are prominent figures in the above disciplic succession.

Complete Krishna consciousness entails becoming free from any competing desire or distraction. One gives up personal desires for fame, adoration and distinction and never identifies the material body with the self. There cannot be envy of Krishna wherein one feels that they also deserve to enjoy His creation. One must see everything, including oneself, as an object for Krishna's enjoyment. This participation in Krishna's enjoyment is only made possible by developing complete love for Him. The process of developing this love was exemplified by Sri Chaitanya Mahaprabhu, the incarnation of Krishna who appeared in India over 500 years ago and taught the yuga dharma, or the method for realizing God in this iron age of Kali. That process is the chanting of His Holy Names - Hare Krishna, Hare Krishna, Krishna Krishna, Hare Hare, Hare Rama, Hare Rama, Rama Rama, Hare Hare.

This state of pure love of Krishna is our original constitutional position. It is the eternal consciousness that is inherent in all life, full of bliss and knowledge, but that has been covered over by our association with matter and the tendency to enjoy separately from God, or in imitation of Him. The pure devotee spiritual masters, who are never under this illusion, appear in this material world to instruct and guide those suffering in this false bodily concept of life, so that they can revive their eternal spiritual awareness and identity as eternal servants of Krishna.

We are not these material bodies. This is easily understood when we see how the body changes as one ages. We can understand that throughout these changes, wherein innumerable atoms come and go from the body, we remain the same witness or identity. Nevertheless, although we expend all sorts of effort to better maintain the body, we have practically no knowledge of the nature of that unchanging identity. This illustrates the strong power that illusion has over even the greatest presidents and leaders of material society. This illusory state becomes obvious during an emergency situation or the death of a loved one, times when our spiritual ignorance causes great personal fear and bewilderment.

Krishna consciousness, or genuine self-realization, is then the process of developing knowledge of our eternal, non-material identity. This consciousness becomes more and more clear as we learn to see ourselves as the eternal servant of Krishna, engaging in that service under the guidance of a pure devotee spiritual master, such as Srila Prabhupada. This clearing process is much like a child getting relief by helplessly calling out its parent's name. Similarly, we ignorant conditioned souls can get out of the danger of material life's birth, death, old age and disease by calling out to God with His Holy Names. dehino 'smin yatha dehe kaumaram yauvanam jara tatha dehantara-praptir dhiras tatra na muhyati "As the embodied soul continually passes, in this body, from boyhood to youth to old age, the soul similarly passes into another body at death. The self-realized soul is not bewildered by such a change." (Bhagavad-gita 2.13) Absolute spiritual existence is the platform of complete attraction to the Lord, who is capable of attracting everyone. Krishna is the possessor of all opulence and is absorbed in unlimited enjoyment. What is more, He is also in full knowledge of His eternal personal loving relationship with each one of us, something we have very much forgotten. The manifestation of those intimate dealings fully captures our hearts when we fully surrender to His service and come to the spiritual platform.

In material existence we are besieged by the anxieties of providing for ourselves and our families. We are thus consumed by the forest fire of temporary struggle, something that inevitably ends in death. Our materialistic plans and adjustments are often frustrated or complicated by events beyond our control. Chanting the names of God, on the other hand, instantly lifts us to the transcendental level where we can develop genuine peace of mind and detachment from these difficulties. Gaining greater and greater taste for this state, we eventually give up material longings and experience full satcitananda, or eternal bliss and knowledge, reality in its complete sense.

Nevertheless, although this chanting process can be taken up by any child, there are many pitfalls and obstacles as one makes progress out of dull materialistic consciousness. It is much like declaring war on the temptations of material nature. There are often defeats or setbacks. Perhaps the most important choice is who to hear from and associate with.

Non-Sectarian Vaishnava Dharma Despite the universality of these teachings of the acaryas, or exemplary spiritual masters, differences arise among their followers. These various emphases in worship, philosophy, etc. were described by our previous spiritual master, Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakura, in his introduction to Sri Krishna Samhita.

"Differences that arise from places, times, languages, behaviors, foods, dresses, and natures of various communities are incorporated within people's spiritual practices and gradually make one community so completely different from another community that even the consideration that everyone is a human being may cease to exist. Due to these differences there is disagreement, cessation of social intercourse, and fighting, even up to the point of killing one another. When an asslike mentality becomes prominent within the kanistha-adhikaris (neophytes), they certainly indulge in these things. But if they develop a swanlike mentality, then they do not take part in quarrels; rather, they endeavor to attain a higher level. Madhyama-adhikaris (learned devotees) do not quarrel so much about external standards, but they are always attacked by philosophical disagreements. Sometimes they condemn the standards of neophytes and establish their own standards as superior. They condemn the neophytes deity worship in order to establish the worshipable Lord as formless. In such cases, they are also considered asslike people. Otherwise, if they had a swanlike mentality and a desire to attain a higher level, they would respect others practices and inquire about higher topics.

"Contradictions actually arise only due to asslike mentality. Swanlike persons consider the necessity for different practices according to one's qualification, so they are naturally detached from sectarian quarrels." (Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakura, Sri Krishna Samhita, Introduction (our additions)

Here the Thakura says that swanlike people avoid sectarian quarrels. The completely swanlike person is the paramahamsa, the liberated, fully Krishna conscious devotee. In other words, those devotees who transcend sectarian bickering truly aspire to realize the consciousness of the spiritual sky and the greater Krishna consciousness movement.

At the end of this remark, Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakura writes that religious people or groups may have different practices due to their level of qualification. This means that, although a more advanced devotee recognizes some people's lack of advancement, he or she does not condemn them simply because their practices or philosophy are different.

Pure Devotional Service Although the introduction of Sri Krishna Samhita contains this eloquent description of non-sectarian Vaishnava dharma, Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakura is perhaps better known for his scathing condemnations of the various sahajiya, or 'so-called devotee' groups of 19th Century India. This is nicely summarized in this remark:

"One should give up the association of dharmadvajis, the hypocritically devout, with special care. Those who accept the external signs of dharma but do not actually follow dharma are called dharmadvajis. There are two types of dharmadvajis—the hypocrites and the fools, or the cheaters and the cheated. Such hypocrisy in jnana-kanda and karma-kanda is also condemned. In devotional service this hypocrisy ruins everything. Better associate with sense enjoyers, for in this whole world there is no worse association than the dharmadvaji. The deceitful dharmadvajis accept the signs of dharma with a desire to cheat the world, and to fulfill their crooked desires they cheat the foolish by helping them in their rascaldom." (Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakura, Sri Bhaktyaloka, Six Faults that Destroy Bhakti, Jana Sanga)

Here we see that swanlike devotees like Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakura soundly condemn the pseudo-religious. He says that such association is even worse than that of non-devotee sense enjoyers. In this regard Srila Prabhupada cites his spiritual master, Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Prabhupada, the son of Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakura:

"Srila Bhaktisiddhanta comments that saralata, or simplicity, is the first qualification of a Vaishnava, whereas duplicity or cunning behavior is a great offense against the principle of devotional service. As one advances in Krishna consciousness, one must gradually become disgusted with material attachment and thus become more and more attached to the service of the Lord. If one is not factually detached from material activities but still proclaims himself advanced in devotional service, he is cheating. No one will be happy to see such behavior." (Srila Prabhupada, Sri Caitanya Caritamrita, Antya Lila 2.117, Purport)

These quotes resolve the apparent contradiction of condemning so-called devotees and remaining strictly non-sectarian. This is the position of all the liberated swanlike pure devotee acaryas. Nevertheless, many questions arise as to who is a real devotee and who is a pretender. How is one to properly discriminate between leaders or groups of devotees when one does not have a previous acarya's clear guidance about their positions? What differentiates a devotee who is sincerely applying the above process of chanting the Holy Names from one who has stalled on the path and wants to enjoy, often at the expense of their followers or the innocent public?

"Fortunate means everyone has got his discretion. So one who has the fortune to discriminate, then he can understand Krishna very easily." (Srila Prabhupada, Class on Srimad-Bhagavatam 6.1.15, London, July 30, 1971)

The greater Krishna consciousness movement is always going on. One participates by strictly following the previous acaryas and, by their mercy, discriminating properly. That following should be in terms of both conduct and philosophy.

"Your siddhanta is correct to the sastra and in this way go on reading books and have the correct perception and Krsna will help you. siddhanta baliya citte na kara alasa iha haite krsna lage sudrdha manasa [Adi 2.117]. A sincere student should not neglect the discussion of such conclusions, considering them controversial, for such discussions strengthen the mind. Thus one's mind becomes attached to Sri Krsna. You should be always alert in understanding the sastric conclusions that will help you, otherwise we can be misled by bogus philosophies." (Srila Prabhupada, Letter to Ayodhyapati dasa, 22 September, 1976)

All un-attributed quotes after this section are by Srila Prabhupada.

The Movement of A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada When Srila Prabhupada was physically manifest he founded and directed the International Society for Krishna Consciousness (ISKCON). There are those who imply that he gave his senior disciples too much liberty as he tried to train them to manage the movement's affairs, but this was also a method that generally produced good results for him. It was never his tendency to interfere with the free will of his followers. In his worldwide movement he had to work with those who came to his spiritual shelter.

As far as his personal example goes, Srila Prabhupada always exhibited the above highest non-contradictory standard, and to the extent that his disciples followed his teachings and swanlike example, his movement was similar. This more exemplary period can then be compared with what occurred after his disappearance in late 1977. It is also notable that this was how the movement largely conducted itself during the period when it was growing exponentially all over the world. Many accept that this attracted the blessings of Krishna to send the thousands who participated in this unprecedented world-wide blossoming of His greater Krishna consciousness movement.

Sadly this harmony was short-lived after Srila Prabhupada's departure. Within a few months, eleven of his senior managers declared that he had appointed them as gurus and spiritual successors. Although this was initially accepted by virtually everyone, problems and contradictions arose in short order. After some initial disagreements, disciplinary actions and mutual condemnations, grosser scandals became regular occurrences. Some of the eleven were found to be having illicit sex with women, boys or other men, and others were taking intoxication of some kind. The biggest scandal, however, was the 1986 murder of perhaps their most vocal critic, Sulocana dasa.

As these unfolded, other devotees began claiming that a number of these "zonal acaryas" showed many signs of being pretenders. The zonal adjective came from their dividing the world into eleven separate areas of authority, something that was also criticized as un-Vaishnava. The number of their critics only grew as the scandals increased. The more outspoken found no other choice but exile from their heavy-handedness and the authority of the Governing Body Commission (GBC) of the ISKCON institution. This highest institutional body had approved and later claimed to have appointed these eleven. Under the body's authority the suspicions of the critics were rarely given voice and were quickly swept away. By now, however, a majority of devotees probably accept the Zonals' pretence. Some of them use statements of the real acaryas to demonstrate that the entire zonal undertaking and GBC support for any of them is proof that the body was itself a kind of pretender to genuine Vaishnava authority.

Of course most of these critics previously followed and served one of the Zonal Acaryas. This means that their presentations usually contain no shortage of personal resentment and frustration. They generally feel exploited or misled by not only the man they followed but the GBC body who approved the whole dispensation. Apart from them, those who completely avoided the Zonal's leadership are often that much more convinced that the GBC caused the movement to deviate from the pure Vaishnava standard that Srila Prabhupada had previously established.

The eleven Zonal Acaryas were certainly guilty of many abuses and offenses to other followers of Srila Prabhupada, such as pretentious imitation of Srila Prabhupada's high level of worship, as well as ostracizing critics and heavy-handed management. However, when we apply the above criteria of Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakura, we can understand that their many scandals were the kiss of death that, in the eyes of many devotees, clearly indicated that many of them were dharmadvajis. Nevertheless, just like the GBC, even the Zonals that remained free from scandal became implicated by their previous support and approval of the scandalized. It is the obvious pretence that has empowered the justified outcry over the Zonal's and GBC abuses.

Around 1985 the GBC started accepting efforts to reform and eventually discontinued the Zonals' worst abuses. These included largely expanding the ability of others to be selected as apparent gurus. Nevertheless, some of these new "lower-profile gurus" also became embroiled in scandals, something that proved a very difficult blemish for the institution to rid itself of. Even the GBC's vetting process for such people implied they had a kind of monopoly on determining who is an apparent guru. Many concluded that this put them in the position of Krishna or Srila Prabhupada, something that those who suffered under the Zonals felt they were unworthy of. This then also received no shortage of criticism.

=========================================== The Circular Firing Squad Schism, Factions and Sectarianism Initiation in Vaishnavism means, among other things, that one agrees to follow the direction of their spiritual master for the rest of their life. It is by this submission to a pure personality that sincere initiates are delivered from the burden of the past karma of many lifetimes, both sinful and otherwise. Genuine deliverance is, however, dependent on the guru being genuine and the disciple being sincere. Initiated people are commonly called disciples and receive a spiritual Sanskrit name when they take their initiation vows. Uninitiated devotees are called bhakta John or bhaktin Mary, etc.

Around 1980, the initial abuses of the Zonal Acaryas caused some devotees to leave the ISKCON corporate institution to seek guidance from other disciples of Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Prabhupada, Srila Prabhupada's guru. The Indian temples of these older devotees constitute the remnants of the Gaudiya Matha, the institution Srila Bhaktisiddhanta founded in the first half of the 20th century. These elder devotees, or their disciples, then initiated new people that had come from the ISKCON institution and even "reinitiated" some of Srila Prabhupada's disciples. Others leaving GBC authority heeded Srila Prabhupada's instructions to avoid his "Godbrothers." Some of them even started alternative versions of ISKCON.

"So I have now issued orders that all my disciples should avoid all of my Godbrothers. They should not have any dealings with them nor even correspondence, nor should they give them any of my books or should they purchase any of their books, neither should you visit any of their temples. Please avoid them." (Letter to Visvakarma, November 9, 1975)

The largest of these alternatives arose in the late 80's and is the groups under the Ritvik umbrella, groups which largely disavow the possibility that anyone can become guru after Srila Prabhupada. They actually claim that Srila Prabhupada is still offering initiation himself, something their opponents say is counter to Gaudiya Vaishnava tradition and scripture. A rittvik, in this use of the word, is the priest who conducts the apparent initiation ceremony for new devotees on behalf of Srila Prabhupada. This group's popularity continues largely because of the ongoing scandals among those who have claimed to be guru after Srila Prabhupada.

Not confined to the ISKCON institution, other more charismatic disciples of Srila Prabhupada have also set themselves up as apparent gurus in their own little institutions "outside" of that group. Some of these have also had scandals. These more organized groups of outside devotees all claim to offer some kind of alternative initiation to the GBC's arrangement.

Beyond these groups promoting their own apparent initiation processes, there are also thousands of outside devotees who don't follow any of their leadership structures. Some of them also live in nonaffiliated or semi-affiliated devotee communities or have small institutions.

Needless to say, this is more than fertile ground for sectarianism and the accompanying condemnations and name calling. Most groups claim they are the only true followers of Srila Prabhupada, and that the others are misleading or even demons. When you consider how many critics of the GBC were exploited by abusive leaders or even had children victimized by pedophiles in that institution's schools, the vitriol can sometimes shatter glass. There is something particularly galling for one who innocently followed a supposedly absolute spiritual authority and had these things happen to them - and there is no shortage of such devotees.

This is further exacerbated by how the GBC has, throughout all its questionable dispensations and reforms, always assumed an absolute position as Srila Prabhupada's supposed mouthpiece. They never really admit to mistakes, despite the often devastating consequences of their decisions or this policy.

Deja-vu This situation was not one that Srila Prabhupada was unfamiliar with. Something very similar had occurred when his own spiritual master, Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Prabhupada, had departed in 1937. Srila Prabhupada once wrote this to a trusted senior manager:

"So Sridhara Maharaja and his two associate gentlemen unauthorizedly selected one acarya and later it proved a failure. The result is now everyone is claiming to be acarya even though they may be kanistha adhikari with no ability to preach. In some of the camps the acarya is being changed three times a year. Therefore we may not commit the same mistake in our ISKCON camp." (Letter to Rupanuga, 28 April, 1974)

Shortly after Srila Bhaktisiddhanta departed, the GBC of his Gaudiya Matha became dominated by Sridhara maharaja and some others, and they selected Ananta Vasudeva dasa, a very learned devotee, as Srila Bhaktisiddhanta's sole successor. This man nevertheless soon became embroiled in scandal and recognized as a dharmadvaji.

The principle that Srila Prabhupada is describing above is completely applicable to what occurred after his own departure. It is tragic that his own Zonal Acarya led GBC did not take the time to thoroughly study all these prophetic quotes and warnings. It is either naïve or misleading to say that the Zonal Acarya dominated GBC selected eleven successors instead of one, and that they therefore heeded the above warning. One need only judge by the results that followed both of these decisions.

The idea is that most spiritual movements preach an absolute message. Some people are then going to follow them in a submissive way, putting some degree of faith in the leaders. When Srila Prabhupada departed, the rank-and-file devotees of the ISKCON institution were accustomed to the GBC members faithfully repeating him, so they initially believed them. Most also accepted the eleven, as well as the GBC members, as the most advanced and experienced devotees in the movement. They had often been the most effective preachers, opening many new centers and convincing numbers to become devotees. They had regularly pleased Srila Prabhupada by their service, dedication and enthusiasm. Therefore virtually everyone went along when the eleven Zonal Acaryas said they had been appointed gurus and successors by Srila Prabhupada. Too bad this was at best an exaggeration and at worst a lie.

In an official July 1977 letter to the movement, Srila Prabhupada had only formally appointed them as "rittik" -- representative of the acarya", mere priests who would perform the initiation ceremony for new devotees on his behalf. He did this because he was physically indisposed during the last months of his presence. He was still the new initiates' guru.

The problem and reason for the chaos in both movements was that the so-called successors became embarrassments and widely accepted as hypocritical dharmadvajis. Most of Srila Prabhupada's initiated disciples who had served a scandal-ridden Zonal Acarya felt betrayed and misled when they realized the truth; they had accepted someone as their spiritual authority in the absence of their lately departed spiritual master, and he turned out to not be as serious about Krishna consciousness as they were.

This is what led to the phenomena described in the above quote. Some of these betrayed people resentfully turned to believing that they had just as much ability to be this lowered standard of "guru," or at least some kind of spiritual authority. When there are a number of such people who amass followers, you have the same kind of factionalism and sectarian chaos that occurred after the departure of Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Prabhupada.

This very quickly leads to the ass-like behavior described above by Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakura. Everyone thinks their group's take on the chaos and concerned parties is the Krishna conscious one. Devotees loyal to the GBC say that Srila Prabhupada founded their institution and ordered all his followers to cooperate under its "ultimate managing authority." Therefore, right or wrong, anyone who rejects the GBC's authority is not his serious follower.

Their critics counter this by saying that the GBC is no longer following certain orders of Srila Prabhupada or the scriptures. The Ritviks try to prove that Srila Prabhupada's Will and some other "final order" remarks direct that all initiations after his departure were to be officiated by further rittvik priests, supposedly making even more new disciples for him. This leads them to zealously preach that the ISKCON institution and any other "living gurus" are disobeying his orders.

The first group to leave the ISKCON institution en mass took shelter of the often stricter Indian bodied godbrothers of Srila Prabhupada (or their followers) and claims that both the ISKCON institution and the Ritviks are concocting and have therefore lost their connection to the real Gaudiya Vaishnava parampara, another name for the disciplic succession. A number of disciples of Srila Prabhupada who went this way have, by now, also assumed the position of guru. Thus they are also Ritvik targets.

What has resulted, although there are exceptions that are better behaved, is a kind of circular firing squad where leaders and fanatics of all three groups play up their group's strengths and point fingers at other's weaknesses. The common sectarian thread is that everyone claims to be the only true followers of Srila Prabhupada or the parampara.

Needless to say, this plays havoc with devotees' peace of mind and anything like pure Krishna consciousness. If one affiliates with a sectarian group, their "Krishna consciousness," or mantra meditation, is done in an overall context of war with other devotees, something that is hardly detached.

The emotional and psychological background of these wars is also a great source of disturbance. In a sectarian group or not, victims of dharmadvajis struggle constantly with blaming that person or the GBC for their material and spiritual difficulties, especially if they have left what could be called spiritual society. Such people generally become very suspicious of subsequent claims of pure Krishna consciousness. Those previously connected with revealed dharmadvajis therefore appear fated to be immersed in distrust and conflict, sources of anxiety that are hardly conducive to pure devotion. The unenviable position of these victims is described nicely in Srimad Bhagavatam. ekadasat-prasangan nikrta-matir vyudaka-srotah-skhalanavad ubhayato 'pi duhkhadam pakhanḍam abhiyati "Sometimes, to mitigate distresses in this forest of the material world, the conditioned soul receives cheap blessings from atheists. He then loses all intelligence in their association. This is exactly like jumping in a shallow river. As a result one simply breaks his head. He is not able to mitigate his sufferings from the heat, and in both ways he suffers. The misguided conditioned soul also approaches so-called sadhus and svamis who preach against the principles of the Vedas. He does not receive benefit from them, either in the present or in the future." (Srimad Bhagavatam 5.14.13)

The "Ring of Power" Having already described some of the problems plaguing the ISKCON institution, perhaps the greatest weakness of the Ritviks is that there was no real clear self-evident order from Srila Prabhupada for such a clear break with strict Gaudiya Vaishnava tradition and the scriptures. They therefore put emphasis on easily disputed terms such as "henceforward" in the July 1977 letter selecting the eleven rittiks. They also rely on a heavy dose of conspiracy theory, wherein Srila Prabhupada supposedly communicated these directions during secluded, unrecorded garden conversations with only a couple of devotees, the most powerful of which, Tamal Krishna Goswami, supposedly covered it up so he could become a Zonal Acarya. The Ritviks are not the only ones who accept evidence that Tamal Krishna and several other insiders conspired to poison Srila Prabhupada in his last months.

In terms of Srila Prabhupada's verification, the Ritviks' conspiracy theories hardly move the scale compared to the many times he ordered his disciples to become gurus and successors.

"So all my students present here who are feeling so much obliged... I am also obliged to them because they are helping me in this missionary work. At the same time, I shall request them all to become spiritual master. Every one of you should be spiritual master next. And what is their duty? Whatever you are hearing from me, whatever you are learning from me, you have to distribute the same in toto without any addition or alteration. Then all of you become the spiritual master. That is the science of becoming spiritual master. Spiritual master is not any... To become a spiritual master is not very wonderful thing. Simply one has to become sincere soul. That's all. Evam parampara-praptam imam rajarṣayo viduh. " (Lecture on Vyasa-puja, 5 September, 1969 (our emphasis)

"I want to see my disciples become bona fide Spiritual Master and spread Krishna consciousness very widely, that will make me and Krishna very happy." (Letter to Tusta Krishna Swami from New Delhi, 2 December, 1975) The Ritviks also say Srila Prabhupada was so great a guru that he could go against the standards of the previous acaryas, something their critics say does not evince a very deep understanding of Krishna consciousness. Ritvik fanatics also regularly resort to aggressive "snapping" techniques to convert other devotees, hoping to ultimately outnumber their opponents in the ISKCON institution. A favorite, featured on many of their websites, is accusing non-adherents of "saying Srila Prabhupada is dead."

Besides disregarding Srila Prabhupada's strictures against taking spiritual guidance from his godbrothers, those who did so have also been criticized for other things. Instead of "Srila Prabhupada," many of them subsequently began referring to him by the much lowered title of "swamiji." His other followers consider this offensive and indicative of a significant loss of faith. After his late 60's success, a number of Srila Prabhupada's godbrothers became envious of his worldwide preaching and subsequently demanded these kinds of slights. Most of those who went to the godbrothers and their disciples also preach an impersonal origination of the soul, something other followers of Srila Prabhupada say runs counter to his teaching everyone's eternal personal relationship with Krishna.

The three above groups are the apparent heavy hitters among Srila Prabhupada's followers because they all purport to offer some kind of initiation into the line of Sri Chaitanya Mahaprabhu or Srila Prabhupada. Once a newcomer accepts initiation, even so-called, they become psychologically bound and, therefore, far more committed to their chosen leaders or apparent guru. They also believe they have received the bhakti-lata-bija in their heart, the "seed of devotional service."

This is what makes these groups superficially more legitimate and able to continue Srila Prabhupada's mission. Regardless of their honesty, something many completely outside devotees pride themselves in, claiming to offer initiation has enabled these three groups to attract many hundreds or thousands of followers. These initiation claims have therefore been compared to Tolkien's ring of power – they give the possessor great influence that simultaneously pulls the unqualified into a whirlpool of corruption.

This doesn't mean that sectarianism is confined to these three factions. There are other outside leaders who also preach that their interpretation of Srila Prabhupada's teachings is the strictest or "the real one." Even if they are right, or at least have the most faithful one, they sometimes excel these three in sectarian zealotry and name calling.

The tendency toward sectarianism is natural for any spiritual group. This is because spirituality is inherently absolute. Even if a leader, in the manner of Srila Prabhupada, strives to be all-inclusive of other serious spiritual seekers, their followers will inevitably think and say that their leader or group is the best one. This is the inevitable tendency of spiritual neophytes. If, undiscouraged by the leader, they take this to the point of conflict and name calling, etc., the group then becomes sectarian.

When Srila Prabhupada's movement was growing rapidly in the 1970's, everyone was convinced that it would eventually take over the world. Therefore, one more driver of current conflict is fear that another sect will become the dominant one. Taken to extremes, some think that a rival could get control of mundane governments and even institute laws making their competitors illegal. This then causes them to redouble their antagonism, sometimes launching a quixotic holy crusade.

Although Srila Prabhupada encouraged engaging everything in Krishna's service, even anger, such applications were largely confined to blasphemy of devotees or the Lord.

"Similarly, anger can be controlled. We cannot stop anger altogether, but if we simply become angry with those who blaspheme the Lord or the devotees of the Lord, we control our anger in Krsna consciousness. Lord Caitanya Mahaprabhu became angry with the miscreant brothers Jagai and Madhai, who blasphemed and struck Nityananda Prabhu. In His Siksastaka Lord Caitanya wrote, trnad api sunicena taror api sahisnuna: 'One should be humbler than the grass and more tolerant than the tree.' One may then ask why the Lord exhibited His anger. The point is that one should be ready to tolerate all insults to one's own self, but when Krsna or His pure devotee is blasphemed, a genuine devotee becomes angry and acts like fire against the offenders. Krodha, anger, cannot be stopped, but it can be applied rightly. It was in anger that Hanuman set fire to Lanka, but he is worshiped as the greatest devotee of Lord Ramacandra. This means that he utilized his anger in the right way. Arjuna serves as another example. He was not willing to fight, but Krsna incited his anger: 'You must fight!' To fight without anger is not possible. Anger is controlled, however, when utilized in the service of the Lord." (Purport, Nectar of Instruction 1)

So here Srila Prabhupada also approves anger engaged in war ordered by the Lord. Although sectarian conflict is hardly sanctioned, most groups are unfortunately convinced that their leaders are the Lord's representative. Therefore, once they say another sect is demoniac, deviant or insidious, their followers plunge full-on into an anxious, disturbed war mentality.

Of course much sectarianism is simply one leader or group of leaders competing with others for followers, all accompanied by the mundane politics that accompany such desires for control. Nevertheless, everything is done behind the mask of Krishna consciousness. "I served your leaders and got screwed, and because I know just as much, I (we) now have the right to take over." The controllers of institutions, on the other hand, inevitably accuse critics of "introducing politics" or "envy" of leaders who supposedly worked their way legitimately to the top. Because this is done regardless of the institution being government, a corporation or a Krishna conscious group, it can be seen as an essential act of politics. To the extent that sectarian devotee conflict is under the influence of such materialistic mentality, it is truly ass-like behavior.

It should be obvious that this is not pleasing to Srila Prabhupada. The possibility of such situations had certainly occurred to him earlier.

"There are always some factions, everywhere in this world we find so many factions. But we must, in Krsna consciousness, do the needful and cooperate." (Letter to Ksirodakasayi, 4th March, 1973)

"Now, we have by Krsna's Grace built up something significant in the shape of this ISKCON and we are all one family. Sometimes there may be disagreement and quarrel but we should not go away. These inebrieties can be adjusted by the cooperative spirit, tolerance and maturity so I request you to kindly remain in the association of our devotees and work together. The test of our actual dedication and sincerity to serve the Spiritual Master will be in this mutual cooperative spirit to push on this Movement and not make factions and deviate." (Letter to Babhru, 9 December, 1973)

One can take this last remark as saying that the mere act of creating quarrelling factions is a deviation. It should be noted, however, that both of these quotes are regularly used by zealots of the ISKCON institution to preach that their critics are disobeying Srila Prabhupada, regardless of the evidence or scriptural authority they present. However, the effectiveness of this tact has diminished as that institution's scandals, contradictions and "infallibility" has continued.

"To Know the Sectarians, You Need a Program" Another characteristic of sectarianism is that no one admits that they are just a sect. Nevertheless a sect is commonly defined as a "sub-group" of the parent circle that preceded the parting of ways. One can see from their use of this and related terms that Srila Prabhupada and Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakura also largely accepted this common understanding. According to this it is clear that, at this time, all three groups, the ISKCON institution, the Ritviks and Srila Prabhupada's followers now connected with the Gaudiya Matha, are separate sects of his original movement.

Nevertheless this clear understanding becomes that much foggier the closer one is to a particular group. According to every group's leaders, they are the ones preaching the genuine eternal Krishna consciousness that is found in the spiritual world. Their competitors are the ones resorting to mere faith or belief due to delusion. Every group claims the previously described authority of sanatana dharma, the eternal constitutional activity of the living being.

"One may have faith in a particular process, and he may change this faith and adopt another, but sanatana-dharma refers to that activity which cannot be changed." (Letter to Subrata Lahiri, Bombay, 4 January, 1973)

Nevertheless Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakura nicely described what belies all these groups' contradictory certainty. "Due to these differences there is disagreement, cessation of social intercourse, and fighting" Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakura, (Sri Krishna Samhita, Introduction) Because this can easily be a source of confusion, it is valuable to examine some of the additional devices devotees use to avoid the sectarian label. As described previously, the ISKCON institution relies heavily on being the corporation that Srila Prabhupada founded in 1966. They also have virtually all the remaining temples and the GBC leadership structure that he created. They are active all over the world, and there are many places where Srila Prabhupada names ISKCON as the place where real Krishna consciousness can be found. New and naïve people very easily accept that this is still applicable.

The regular criticism of the ISKCON institution by the Ritviks and those now with the Gaudiya Matha is what it has traditionally used to make them appear not only envious but sectarian. In this regard, some Ritvik antagonism towards others is so extreme that it obscures their preaching of Krishna conscious basics. The Prabhupada Anti-Defamation Association (PADA) websites are noteworthy in this regard. The first early 1980's Western temple of those who approached Srila Prabhupada's godbrother, Sridhara maharaja, was in San Jose, California and was managed by Dhira Krishna Swami, the previous president of the Los Angeles ISKCON institution community. His was also a hotbed of criticism of the GBC and Zonal Acaryas.

These and other attempts were very quickly labeled envious sectarianism by ISKCON institutional leaders. They were "creating factions." This was an extremely effective technique prior to the Internet, when the ISKCON institution's temples and publications largely monopolized how Srila Prabhupada's followers interacted. However, as the Zonal Acarya and other scandals continued and the number of exploited, "fried and deep fried" devotees increased, the Internet made these critics tangible threats to that institution's hegemony. Prior to his passing, Narayana maharaja, a disciple of Srila Prabhupada's godbrother Kesava maharaja, took hundreds of followers from them in the 90's and early 21st century. The Ritviks even took temples away, something that resulted in occasional physical intimidations, as well as long legal struggles, much like during the collapse of the Gaudiya Matha. These threats prompted the GBC to produce lengthy "damage control" treatises and resolutions aimed at shoring up their credibility. Temple authorities were also instructed to act decisively when competition threatened to take devotees out of their orbit.

This was how the GBC was forced to engage in the same overt sectarian acrimony they had long accused their rivals of. Previous to the Internet, the GBC made great use of the Orwellian technique of making influential critics "non-persons," or devotees who were just no longer mentioned. Although this was hardly sanatana dharma and very much mundane Machiavellian politics, they were largely able to get away with it.

These policies also directed antagonism toward anyone who departed the GBC's sphere and started preaching successfully on their own, regardless of how critical they were. At the least they were viewed as competitors taking visitors or fund-raising territories away. This sectarianism zealotry was seen as the apparent right of the "authorized" institution Srila Prabhupada founded.

Many of Srila Prabhupada's followers who approached his godbrothers or their followers have now created new branches of the Gaudiya Matha organization, or they have joined the old ones. To the extent that they regionally compete with the Ritviks or the ISKCON institution there is local competition and sectarian rhetoric. However, their world-wide contribution diminished greatly after the passings of both Sridhara and Narayana maharajas.

The ISKCON institution and Ritviks more than make up for this, however. Their enmity continues fierce and unabated. If one is known to avoid GBC approval for their preaching, they are banned from ISKCON institution websites. Ritvik websites are similarly exclusive, and many of their zealots quickly label one a demon for simply doubting their thesis. Another symptom of sectarian mentality is that it is not enough to simply follow Srila Prabhupada's program and philosophy – one must accept the group's conclusions to be "truly Krishna conscious."

What Else Has Been Lost When Srila Prabhupada was physically manifest he demanded a very high standard from his followers in terms of both conduct and philosophy. Initiated male devotees kept very short or "shaved up" hair. All strict followers, however, chanted sixteen rounds of 108 Hare Krishna maha-mantras daily and followed the four rules and regulations – no sex that was not for procreation, no meat eating, no intoxication and no gambling. Although some were also celibate and lived in the temple, everyone was expected to attend the 4 a.m. morning program there. In addition, everyone was expected to spend a certain time every day reading Srila Prabhupada's translations of Vaishnava scriptures such as Bhagavad-gita. The morning program also included a mandatory class on one of these by an older devotee.

All this rule and routine following was meant to raise someone's consciousness to the mode of goodness, where they became free from the anxieties and laziness of the modes of passion and ignorance. One's thoughts thus became peaceful and suffused with Krishna, the personal Absolute Truth. When one was not attending temple programs, they donated a percentage of their daily income, or they were engaged in Srila Prabhupada's approved service activities, as specified by his authorized temple authorities. The purpose behind everything was for everyone, high and low, to develop what was called the submissive "service attitude," something that eventually matures as pure devotion and eternal service to Krishna. Srila Prabhupada would regularly preach that the temple floor sweeper's service was as important to Krishna as that of the priest on the altar or the temple president. They were all absolute.

The result of all this was a well-functioning social network wherein every individual felt accountable to everyone else in terms of both conduct and thought. Everyone was afraid of being seen as "off," or deviating from Srila Prabhupada's instructions, prescribed routines, service attitude or philosophy. Vaishnava etiquette also demanded that one be respectful towards everyone, but especially more learned or empowered preachers. One was also enjoined to seek other's permission before embarking on some mission or project. All this was the engine behind the expansion of Srila Prabhupada's world mission, where hundreds or thousands of devotees would go out daily in public to sing the Hare Krishna mantra or raise funds by distributing Srila Prabhupada's books.

At the foundation of everything, however, was faith that Srila Prabhupada was fully absorbed in love of Krishna and a devotee on the highest level. That is what really motivated his thousands to daily perform austerities that most Westerners find unthinkable. They all aspired to come to his level of consciousness. This was truly the greater Krishna consciousness movement. Srila Prabhupada's personal humble example also provided all the symptoms of such a devotee.

Needless to say, all this broke down relatively quickly when the Zonal Acaryas were seen to be overbearing, self-interested and ridden with contradictions and scandal. Their counter-examples made it difficult to accept comparisons of them with Srila Prabhupada. Devotees' enthusiasm to perform the daily austerities also began to decrease in proportion to the scandals and hypocrisy.

It became even harder for devotees to remain strict when they were forced to leave the temples, often not of their own choice. Although more serious and intelligent devotees managed to carve out a relatively Krishna conscious place in material society, their being driven from the movement was perhaps the Zonal Acaryas' greatest offense to Srila Prabhupada and Lord Krishna.

Srila Prabhupada's long-time secretary, Pradhyumna dasa, was an early critic and casualty of the Zonal's ruthlessness. Although he had been ordered by Srila Prabhupada to complete his translation of the 18,000 verse Srimad Bhagavatam, the Zonal-dominated GBC gave the honor to one of their own, the audacious Hridayananda Swami. Pradhyumna dasa was also perhaps the movement's most qualified brahmana (strict, learned second initiate), having been personally trained by Srila Prabhupada for years. Other brahminical devotees were also driven out in the early years. And there were many other serious brahmanas lost, devotees who could not work in support of the Zonals' self-interested disregard for Vaishnava standards.

What remained after the purges were malleable newcomers and disciples of Srila Prabhupada who were often less knowledgeable or lacking in dedication to ethics and truth. Everyone left saw the consequences of not keeping quiet. The calculating decided to wait out the hard times until their turn came. Others were just plain yes-men, ladder climbers who would say whatever the leaders wanted to hear. In other words, the Zonals rather quickly rid the movement of those with both the courage and knowledge to keep it on Srila Prabhupada's directed track.

One can now only imagine if things had not changed. Previously the movement's social strictness served as a kind of boiling caldron of spiritual purity. Serious devotees fervently believed they would eventually see and associate with Krishna, and they performed their intense devotional service with this goal. Such devotees would seek each other out and inspire others to go out with them to preach and distribute Srila Prabhupada's books. In such an atmosphere of intense desire it was not hard to envision someone advancing beyond the madhyama adhikari (middle, learned) level to bhava (preliminary love) and then to the spontaneous pure love of the uttama-adhikari (highest devotee).

Pure Krishna consciousness was most easily sought in the strict atmosphere Srila Prabhupada mandated. One was free from political distractions and anxieties and could hear the Holy Name constantly, performing service under the order of his authorized servants. However, once temples become run by dharmadvajis or other suspicious, sectarian persons, anyone endeavoring for pure Krishna consciousness has to make a concerted effort to avoid their influence.

Because of the collapse of enthusiasm, fund raising has also changed for the most part. Most temples no longer depend on collections by dedicated temple devotees, from books or any other sales. Without absolute faith in their leaders, it became practically impossible for most to go out and daily face rejection from the public. Many Western temples now function more as churches for people of Indian descent. Although they often donate generously, it is frequently in exchange for more involvement in the temple's management and worship standards. Movement leaders also engage in a variety of business activities and investments. This "Hinduization" and business in the place of Srila Prabhupada's program then elicits additional criticism.

Such things only further contribute to the circular firing squad. There the standard is to merely appear better than one's targets; something that the internet greatly facilitates.

Picking & Choosing All this fragmentation and factionalism, combined with the prevailing mood that one is "as good as the GBC" (or better), means that many devotees have their own personal version of Srila Prabhupada's mission or philosophy. Although there is usually less variety inside the three main factions, it is especially true of those who spurn these groups.

This is not to say that there aren't learned outside devotees who can write in a manner that is virtually indistinguishable from Srila Prabhupada. That doesn't mean, however, that these more learned devotee's missions don't suffer from other ill effects of the above described chaos. With little or no accountability to ones godbrothers or sisters, many outside leaders have picked and chosen from the cultural and philosophical aspects of Srila Prabhupada's original mission. Some don't sing the Hare Krishna mantra in public, others avoid Deity worship, and some just preach on the internet or use internet-based technology like skype. Many also minimize the traditional Vaishnava dress and hair standards that Srila Prabhupada mandated for his serious followers. What often distinguishes one leader from another are more superficial criteria, such as being one of Srila Prabhupada's "pet" disciples who opened or managed temples.

Everything becomes even more philosophically diverse when the topic is how Srila Prabhupada's movement fell to pieces. Besides pointing out that many who claimed to be guru turned out to be pretenders, some have written elaborate theses about initiation or the lack of it. One attempted to merge the GBC's version with Ritvik by advocating the need to follow the "prominent link" (Srila Prabhupada). Neither group really agreed however. Another common idea among outside devotees is that initiation is sometimes as easy as believing Srila Prabhupada's books.

A common denominator appears to be blaming something the Zonal Acaryas either distorted or misunderstood. One can certainly make a strong argument that their abuse of the position of guru is the main reason for, not only the chaos, but the entire Ritvik movement.

This is not to discredit all the hard working devotees who avoid criticizing others, both in the three main factions and outside. All of them are chanting Hare Krishna and trying to do some service to Srila Prabhupada, often heroically striving to be Krishna conscious through all the chaos and conflict. There are also a number that strive to be non-sectarian. All that is clear, however, is that everything is a lot less clear. Unity is long gone, and cooperation is usually a surprise.

"Unfortunately, when the acarya disappears, rogues and nondevotees take advantage and immediately begin to introduce unauthorized principles ......The acarya, the authorized representative of the Supreme Lord, establishes these principles, but when he disappears, things once again become disordered." (Srimad-Bhagavatam 4.28.48, purport)

Influence of the Age All this sectarianism, finger pointing and varieties of philosophy are easily understood as symptoms of Kali yuga, the current Iron age, also known as "the age of quarrel." Forty or so years after Srila Prabhupada's departure, it is almost rare to find two experienced devotees who completely agree on his teachings. Submission, respect and service attitude have now largely been replaced by distrust, conflict, victim mentality and resentment, often as a result of jumping into the "shallow river" of dharmadvajis. A great many devotees thus find themselves all too familiar with the anxieties of material existence, despite superficially following many of Srila Prabhupada's strictures.

Most of Srila Prabhupada's followers were also Westerners devoid of training in Vedic culture until they contacted his movement. He engaged them in stringent devotional activity, but almost immediately after his departure even his senior managers began concocting and rationalizing due to immaturity and self-interest. Everyone's short-term training in Vaishnava etiquette and practice eventually proved little bulwark from their fallen, mostly Western, natures.

Kali's influence can also be observed in the general quality of people who become devotees. Hardly anyone was really all that interested in realizing the absolute truth. Most only become devotees when distress eliminates all hope of material happiness. This was also the case for most of Srila Prabhupada's initiated disciples, and almost certainly reflects their plight after his disappearance. However, in our rush to judge these devotees we should not forget Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakura's words above.

"Swanlike persons consider the necessity for different practices according to one's qualification, so they are naturally detached from sectarian quarrels." (Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakura, Sri Krishna Samhita, Introduction)

This means that not every devotee is going to be able to practice Krishna consciousness on a high standard. Even if they can chant sixteen rounds every day and follow the four regulative principles, it is pretty rare for someone to be genuinely renounced or understand Vaishnava philosophy clearly. Most Westerners bring with them a very sentimental understanding of religion. Even Indian bodied devotees drag along the same thinking from the strain of Hinduism they were born into. Muddled sentimental understandings of Krishna consciousness very often lead to the widespread disappointment we have witnessed since Srila Prabhupada's departure. This letter was cited earlier.

"You should be always alert in understanding the sastric conclusions that will help you, otherwise we can be misled by bogus philosophies." (Letter to Ayodhyapati dasa, Vrindavan, 22 September, 1976)

Srila Prabhupada is reported as also having said, "Dull witted must be cheated. I am pleased, Krishna is pleased, why are you not pleased?" Although this remark was not recorded, the disciple he said this to, Bahubhavani devi dasi, claims to have had it firmly imprinted on her consciousness. According to this detached standard, virtually every follower and initiated disciple of Srila Prabhupada failed pretty miserably after his disappearance.

However, Srila Prabhupada was also very well known for giving deviant and fallen disciples any number of chances to reform themselves and catch on to the standards he wanted them to manage or practice on. His movement has often been described as "a house in which everyone could live," one that was capable of accommodating anyone willing to follow the minimum standards of four regulations and chanting sixteen rounds.

According to their particular qualifications, devotees in Kali yuga, particularly Western ones, are only going to practice Krishna consciousness on the highest level they are capable of. Srila Prabhupada understood that hardly any Westerners were capable of living in the Indian temples of his day, so he wanted many Western amenities, such as flush toilets, installed in his. Similarly, most devotees require an active social environment which surrounds them with other committed adherents. Srila Prabhupada especially wanted to feature this in his movement.

It then goes without saying that when disingenuous leaders present distorted teachings, those with sentimental, socially dependent conceptions of Krishna consciousness are often going to be misled. However, this doesn't mean that everyone in such groups is necessarily a deviant, sahajiya (lazy devotee) or dharmadvaji. The need for fixed-up leaders was one reason Srila Prabhupada instituted higher standards for them.

Other individual propensities will cause certain personality types to gravitate to similar leaders or even to their corresponding co-dependent personality types. Many with low self-esteem become convinced that real surrender absolutely requires having a strong, overbearing leader. Academic leaning devotees will feel more at home with similar leaders, and criminally inclined devotees usually find each other. The possible combinations are endless, and Srila Prabhupada also desired this kind of variety, so that everyone could find a comfortable environment to serve Krishna.

One could say that those who require such accommodation are not very advanced spiritually because they can be subject to the abusive, speculative, criminal, etc. bents of these leaders, things that will often cause them disappointment or tarnish the reputation of the Krishna consciousness movement.

The above dependencies and many others can, and usually are, used negatively by critical sectarian zealots. The swanlike devotee understands that a great deal of this weakness or difference is due to the varying levels of qualification of the adherents. Without accommodation, many of the regular devotees in these groups would not be able to chant sixteen rounds and follow the four regulative principles – they would not be able to live on what Vedic culture considers the human platform.

Nevertheless not every devotee is on the same level of Krishna consciousness. Some are going to strongly endeavor to get above their weaknesses. Some will also recognize the contradictions of their leaders or apparent gurus.

========================================== Apa-Sampradaya? Sahajiya Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakura was a great reformer of the Vaishnavism of 150 years ago. At this time, 350 years after Sri Chaitanya Mahaprabhu inaugurated the movement of chanting the Holy Name, all sorts of deviations from His teachings had become rampant in India. It was so bad that many respectable people equated Gaudiya Vaishnavism with sexual debauchery, usually because of imitations of Krishna's pastimes with the gopis (cowherd damsels of Vrindavana).

In response, Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakura listed the thirteen prominent deviations from the teachings of Sri Chaitanya Mahaprabhu. These were groups which had strayed from His strict instructions and example. Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakura called them all apa-sampradaya or "outside of the sampradaya." Although one of the groups was called sahajiya, all thirteen became grouped under that general name. 'Sahajiya' means "easy going," indicating some lack of strictness. The idea was that none of these groups were truly Krishna consciousness. They accepted some standard of conduct, instruction or philosophical principle casually, thus deviating them from the absolute standard. This meant all were engaged in some degree of material sense gratification. These people were contrasted with serious and truly surrendered devotees, even if such serious devotees had occasional but accidental falldowns.

Some of these groups (Sakhibheki, Cudadhari, Ativadi, Aula, Baula, Daravesa and Sani) were known not to condemn sexual activity if it was, according to their so-called spiritual thinking, associated with Krishna. Nevertheless they usually followed some of the other teachings of Sri Chaitanya Mahaprabhu.

However, the outward behavior of some other sahajiya groups was virtually indistinguishable from serious devotees. Many even thought themselves superior to the genuinely surrendered. Surely they accused Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakura of being sectarian in his condemnations. Nevertheless he and his son, Srila Bhaktisiddhanta, as well as others, have described these groups' deviations in detail.

In summary, Gauranga-nagaris emphasize Sri Krishna's pastimes with the gopis, neglecting most others. Both Smartas and Jata-gosanis value heredity for who they accept as authority, but Smartas also tend to obsess about rules instead of their transcendental goal. Kartabhajas are influenced by impersonalism and worship their so-called gurus as god (guruvada). Impersonalism or Monism posits that the absolute truth is an impersonal light or energy. The true theism of Sri Chaitanya Mahaprabhu, however, says that the Absolute contains every aspect of creation and must therefore have personality and form. That person and form is Sri Krishna. Nedas are influenced by the Buddhists, and the Sahajiyas minimize the standard practices of Krishna consciousness, imagining they have come to the spontaneous level of Krishna's pastimes.

The general disqualification of every sahajiya group is to take some aspect of Krishna conscious philosophy or practice cheaply. Then they consider and preach that they are performing pure devotional service. Regardless of the actions of their individual leaders or members, this is the fundamental pretense that Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakura wanted to reform. This is what made all the groups hypocritically devout pretenders or dharmadvajis.

Although most of the groups described by Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakura still practice, even more have come about since, both in India and abroad. With these thirteen, he also described only the principal apa-sampradayas. All sorts of groups around the world now sing and chant the Hare Krishna mantra. However, most don't emphasize the strict Krishna conscious philosophy of Sri Chaitanya Mahaprabhu, but instead mix in their favorite blend of impersonalism, Buddhism, etc.

Undoubtedly these groups have been cited in sectarian condemnations of more recent devotees ever since Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakura. It is very easy to associate one's opponents with one or more of these groups, and in their "devotional" food fight, Srila Prabhupada's followers have been no exception. In such acrimony, accusations of sahajiyaism are greater than saying that a group is not strictly following but less than calling them demons, all of which are now commonplace. Due to Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakura's exalted position, however, accusations of sahajiya carry an air of philosophical authority and are generally taken as more than inflamed rhetoric, although there is also a burden of minimal evidence.

Be that as it may and distancing oneself from sectarian antagonism, thinking all these comparisons baseless may not be wise. Since Srila Prabhupada spread Krishna consciousness to the West, the pure philosophy has become subject to that many more potential contaminations. A devotee who wants to avoid being misled should exercise proper discrimination by applying the scriptures and praying for guidance from Srila Prabhupada and Paramatma, the Lord in the heart.

Advancement in Krishna Consciousness Advancement in anything entails a growth in understanding. Most Westerners know hardly anything when they begin Krishna conscious practice, and Indian Hindus often have to unlearn much of what they were brought up with. The first year of practice generally brings the neophyte to what can be called the abc level, where one becomes pretty convinced of the principles at the beginning of this article. At this point one generally begins to consider the subtleties of Krishna conscious philosophy.

Of course, those with more sentimental or social ideas of Krishna consciousness may choose to ignore those subtleties, especially if it will put them at odds with their group's leaders or apparent guru. Such devotees generally fear being ostracized; something that is quite difficult after a renunciate has given all their possessions to the group.

Nevertheless Krishna is the Absolute Truth, and realizing Him absolutely requires getting free from all material misconceptions or untruths, even if they are part of one's apparently Krishna conscious society. Krishna consciousness is defined by Krishna and very much involves bringing one's discrimination in line with His. As explained previously by Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakura, this very much includes giving up sectarian party spirit mentality, something he describes as ass-like. Lord Krishna has very kindly laid out His principles in the Bhagavad-gita and Srimad Bhagavatam, and they are more thoroughly explained in the previous acaryas' writings and recordings, such as Srila Prabhupada's.

"We, Krishna's devotee, we are not fools and rascals. We have got our reason. We have got our philosophy. When we know that Krishna is actually the supreme controller, the Supreme Person, the supreme maintainer, then we surrender. Then we become Krishna devotee. It is not blind. It is not blind. We are strongly convinced that that one person is the Supreme Person. Therefore we surrender. We are not blind followers." (Class on Bhagavad-gita 16.8, Tokyo, January 28, 1975)

http://sanskritdictionary.org/aham

The serious devotee determined to achieve transcendence will accept and follow only the unadulterated philosophy and principles of Krishna and the previous acaryas. This is real renunciation. Such a person becomes truly learned and able to discriminate between genuine Krishna consciousness and pretense. He or she is a genuine brahmana or a madhyama-adhikari with firm faith.

It then follows that such a devotee will be a source of irritation for hypocritical leaders or dharmadvajis. This is why such leaders don't encourage their followers to go past the abc level or apply the philosophy's principles to their own group. In these groups advanced thinking is considered "overemphasis on jnana" (book learning), faultfinding, speculation or envy. In such environments, deviant devotees, sahajiyas or apa-sampradayas are only found in other religions, opposing sectarian groups or in the past.

Although all Krishna conscious groups will protect new people from tempting influences so they can develop conviction, in sectarian groups this includes warning them about the thinking of any devotees outside the group, even if they are non-sectarian and completely in line with Srila Prabhupada's teachings.

This is how dharmadvajis or sectarian groups promote a pernicious form of ignorance, all in the name of the knowledge and liberation of genuine Krishna consciousness. This means it is rare for anyone under such leaders to not be a blind follower. These are the ones who are just keeping quiet. Despite the often great difficulties of parting ways with such apparently spiritual society, the sincere spiritual aspirant will eventually see no other choice. Srila Prabhupada described the way forward for anyone who was truly serious:

Reporter: When you say that lots of people want to be cheated, do you mean that lots of people want to carry on with their worldly pleasures and at the same time, by chanting a mantra or by holding a flower, achieve spiritual life as well? Is this what you mean by wanting to be cheated?

Srila Prabhupada: Yes, this is like a patient thinking, "I shall continue with my disease, and at the same time I shall become healthy." It is contradictory. The first requirement is that one become educated in spiritual life. Spiritual life is not something one can understand by a few minutes' talk. There are many philosophy and theology books, but people are not interested in them. That is the difficulty. For instance, the Srimad-Bhagavatam is a very long work, and if you try to read this book, it may take many days just to understand one line of it. The Bhagavatam describes God, the Absolute Truth, but people are not interested. And if, by chance, someone becomes a little interested in spiritual life, he wants something immediate and cheap. Therefore, he is cheated. (The Science of Self Realization, Ch. 2, 'Choosing a Spiritual Master-Saints & Swindlers') (emphasis added)

In other words, one must take the time to properly understand the principles of Krishna consciousness and act on them if they truly want to go back to Godhead. This is how one can avoid the contradiction and disappointment that come from following something that only purports to be Krishna conscious but that is really on the material platform. This is how to avoid being misled. Krishna consciousness has been described as a razor's edge.

"Not only must one come to the stage of pure Krsna consciousness, but one must also be very careful. Any inattentiveness or carelessness may cause falldown. … Factually, there is always the chance that this will happen, and therefore one has to be very careful" (Srimad Bhagavatam 3.26.24, purport)

Apa-Sampradaya Tendencies among Srila Prabhupada's Followers ". . . . actually, we do not want to create a group of prakrta-sahajiya, or devotees who do not know the science of Krishna and do not know the science of devotion but simply worship the Deity with no depth of knowledge." (Letter to Syamasundara, June 3, 1969) "Sahajiya … Sahaj means easy, easy-going." (Conversation on May 1, 1974)

Since the disappearance of Srila Prabhupada, the conception of guru in the ISKCON institution has been a source of controversy. When it was acknowledged that Srila Prabhupada had not really appointed the eleven Zonal Acaryas as his successor gurus, they fell back on the argument that they had been selected by the GBC, his designated "ultimate managing authority". This then became the group mechanism for selecting apparent gurus. After the eleven, all required this approval. However, their "guru by vote" idea immediately became the object of criticism.

"Mundane votes have no jurisdiction to elect a Vaisnava acarya. A Vaisnava acarya is self-effulgent." (Sri Chaitanya-caritamrita, Madhya 1.220, Purport)

Although Srila Prabhupada had ordered the GBC to manage the institution's affairs, there was no clear mandate for them to take his spiritual place and say who was guru. As cited earlier, there were a number of places where Srila Prabhupada said that all of his disciples should become guru.

Originally the eleven demanded that they be worshipped on the very high uttama-adhikari (completely pure devotee) standard of Srila Prabhupada. They had "pada" titles, such as Bhaktipada, and sat on high seats before the Deities in the temple rooms. After their early 1980's scandals, however, the movement's middle managers rose up in what became known as the Reform Movement and eventually forced the cessation of these and other public excesses. After that, the more or less official version was that the institution's apparent gurus were on the madhyama-adhikari (second class firmly fixed) level of Krishna consciousness. However when these men also became frequent victims of scandal, this too became subject to the doubt that subsequently gave birth to the Ritvik movement.

Well before the 1989 appearance of Ritvik-ism, however, there were a number of devotees who wondered if any of these apparent gurus had ever been fully qualified at any point. When Srila Prabhupada was still physically manifest in late 1977, the eleven had been just like his other disciples. Then suddenly in the spring of 1978, it was as if they ascended into heaven as a group. This was that much more suspect because they had spoken about the need for initiations after Srila Prabhupada "because of the new people." When taken with their other excesses, it all led to accusations of forming personality cults, wherein newcomers became psychologically bound to them; hardly a spiritual motivation or a necessary extension of Srila Prabhupada's mission. Needless to say, everything proved pretty counterproductive when many of them turned into embarrassments. The institution paid for this dearly when their refugee followers later joined the Ritviks, who rose up and wanted to take over.

Although there were some remarks by Srila Prabhupada that supported madhyamas and even neophyte kanistha adhikaris (devotees with soft faith) becoming gurus, such gurus were hardly recommended.

"One should not become a spiritual master unless he has attained the platform of uttama-adhikari. A neophyte Vaishnava or a Vaishnava situated on the intermediate platform can also accept disciples, but such disciples must be on the same platform, and it should be understood that they cannot advance very well toward the ultimate goal of life under his insufficient guidance." (Nectar of Instruction 5, Purport)

Even if an apparent guru was advertised as a madhyama adhikari, a group problem was that the ISKCON institution had not tightly described the qualifications of such a devotee. Theirs was, almost exclusively, a loose, sentimental, eye-of-the-beholder standard. Accepting their apparent gurus as being thus qualified could then be seen as a watering down of the pure Krishna conscious standard, especially when so many of them became embarrassments. adau sraddha tatah sadhu- sango 'tha bhajana-kriya tato 'nartha-nivrttih syat tato nistha rucis tatah athasaktis tato bhavas tatah premabhyudancati sadhakanam ayam premnah pradurbhave bhavet kramah In the beginning one must have a preliminary desire for self-realization. This will bring one to the stage of trying to associate with persons who are spiritually elevated. In next stage one becomes initiated by an elevated spiritual master, and under his instruction the neophyte devotee begins the process of devotional service. By execution of devotional service under the guidance of the spiritual master, one becomes free from all material attachment, attains steadiness in self-realization, and acquires a taste for hearing about the Absolute Personality of Godhead, Sri Krishna. This taste leads one further forward to attachment for Krishna consciousness, which is matured in bhava, or the preliminary stage of transcendental love of God. Real love for God is called prema, the highest perfectional stage of life. (Srila Rupa Goswami, Bhakti-rasamrta-sindhu 1.4.15-16) Strictly applying this teaching of the previous acaryas to the madhyama guru question produces a far different conclusion from those still accepted in the ISKCON institution. According to these verses, the highest stage of advancement for a neophyte kanistha devotee is called anartha-nivritti (free from all material attachment). The stage after anartha-nivritti is called nistha, or "steadiness in self-realization." Such a person is fixed in Krishna conscious conduct and philosophy and is a genuine madhyama adhikari.

Srila Prabhupada also translates anartha-nivritti as "disappearance of all unwanted contamination." There are, however, a number of places where it is easy to conclude that he says this state means merely following the four regulations of abstaining from meat eating, intoxication, gambling and illicit sex, as well as chanting the minimum number of rounds of Hare Krishna maha mantras. Dealing with Westerners who were accustomed to these four vices from an early age, His Divine Grace regularly encouraged them like this.

Following the four rules and regulations is definitely included in becoming free from unwanted contamination, but to conclude that this and the minimum chanting is all that is required is neither good logic or honest. A sincere person will consider that other things may be necessary. Indeed, in one place Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Prabhupada previously filled in these details. siddhanta-alasa jana anartha to' chade na jade krsna bhrama kori' krsna-seva kore na One who is lazy in properly understanding the Vaishnava philosophical conclusions can never become free from anarthas, the unwanted bad habits and philosophical misconceptions that impede devotional service. Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Prabhupada, (Prakrta-Rasa Sata-Dusini 28)

Here Srila Bhaktisiddhanta explained Srila Prabhupada's definition of anartha-nivritti, making clear that "disappearance of all unwanted contamination" entails much more than merely chanting a minimum number of daily rounds and following the four rules and regulations. In this regard, early critics of the ISKCON institution's "guru by vote" system cited this book purport by Srila Prabhupada:

"It is imperative that a serious person accept a bona fide spiritual master in terms of the sastric injunctions. Sri Jiva Goswami advises that one not accept a spiritual master in terms of hereditary or customary social and ecclesiastical conventions. One should simply try to find a genuinely qualified spiritual master for actual advancement in spiritual understanding." (Sri Chaitanya Charitamrita, Adi, 1.35, purport (emphasis added)

Here Srila Jiva Goswami, the highest regarded scholar of Gaudiya Vaisnavism, is said to condemn apparent gurus who base their authority on the selection of an ecclesiastical management structure like the GBC's. This quote does not merely apply to a person getting a required number of votes but includes any method, such as not being disapproved by certain members of the body. Over the years since Srila Prabhupada's departure, the GBC has used a variety of such mechanisms to select the institution's apparent gurus.

This means that Srila Bhaktisiddhanta's above verse 28 of Prakrta-Rasa Sata-Dusini introduces a very big problem for those claiming to be a guru or spiritual authority in the ISKCON institution - their apparent guru selection process disregards the above stricture of Srila Prabhupada and Srila Jiva Goswami. This then leads to the conclusion that they are "lazy in properly understanding the Vaishnava philosophical conclusions." Srila Prabhupada is extremely emphatic in the above quote because he uses the word "imperative." It is not, therefore, something to be dismissed or taken in a casual manner.

This means that, in terms of strict Krishna conscious philosophy, all of the ISKCON institution's apparent gurus and managing authorities have not achieved the minimum qualifications for even the lowest standard of guru, the kanistha adhikari. In other words, their dismissal of Srila Jiva Goswami's order means that they all have this group anartha. However, previously Srila Prabhupada cautioned that even a genuine kanistha adhikari guru's guidance is insufficient. Because the ISKCON institution's apparent gurus have not even reached this minimum requirement, they must be some kind of pretender, regardless of their purported levels of spiritual advancement. Another meaning of anarthas is "unwanted things" - something bad.

"Actually, a guru cannot be bad, for if someone is bad, he cannot be a guru." (The Science of Self Realization, Chapter 2, Choosing a Spiritual Master, "Saints and Swindlers")

Who is the Highest Spiritual Authority? How the Zonal Acaryas initially claimed to have been appointed gurus was already discussed. The GBC selection option was only used when it was found out that they had merely been named "rittiks." This methodology points to the utilitarian nature of many GBC decisions. A frequent need of ambitious leaders like the Zonals is handling the blowback of their previous mistakes and self-interest. The Gaudiya Vaishnava sampradaya standards, however, are not based on such utility. These are coming down in strict disciplic succession and are laid out in various scriptures, or sastras.

The directions of one's guru, the previous acaryas and the scriptures define service to the Lord – guru, sadhu and sastra. When one follows these transcendental instructions there is no karma or reactions to ones activities. Although neophyte devotees rarely ascertain this purity, as they continue, their consciousness becomes more and more situated in the aforementioned mode of goodness. If they advance beyond this stage, they will regularly relish pure spiritual goodness, or the transcendental nature of service to Krishna. However, when devotees disregard guru, sadhu and sastra, becoming attached to utilitarian results, they come under the influence of the lower modes of passion and ignorance. The idea is that the thinking of all devotees, even managers, has to be regulated constantly to prevent speculation, something that usually opens the door to self-interest and vanity. If one fails to return to goodness, there is every chance they will find themselves in a vicious cycle of materially motivated adjustments, along with their concomitant material reactions. Srila Prabhupada always cautioned his followers to avoid this manorathena, the "chariot of the mind."

"Now by training the mind, jitatmana, one who has conquered over the mind, jitatmanaḥ prasantasya... Prasanta means he has become in equilibrium, prasanta. Prasanta. Because mind is dragging me always in nonpermanent things. Harav abhaktasya kuto mahad-guna manorathenasati dhavato bahih (SB 5.18.12). Asati manorathena. By the chariot of the mind. So long we are seated on the chariot of the untrained mind, unbridled mind, the mind will drag me to things which are nonpermanent." (Lecture on Bhagavad-gita 6.4-12, New York, September 4, 1966)

Several devotees, such as Krishna Kirti dasa, describe examples of GBC policy being influenced by utilitarian Western philosophies like pragmatism, empiricism and consequentialism. Srila Prabhupada repeatedly cautioned his leaders about management that strays from the Vedic mode of goodness.

"All these things are nonsense inventions. Such inventing spirit will ruin our this movement.....Gradually the Krishna Consciousness idea will evaporate: another change, another change, every day another change. Stop all this." (Letter to Sudama, 5 November, 1972)

At the outset the Zonals apparently thought they would be free and independent supreme Vaishnava authorities like Srila Prabhupada or any genuine guru. After their scandals' damage to the movement's credibility, however, especially after the 1986 murder of Sulocana dasa, it became clear that their brand of independent authority was hardly in the movement's best interest.

Sulocana was an angry, articulate critic of the most powerful Zonal acarya, Kirtanananda "swami" Bhaktipada, whose center of activity was the New Vrindavana Farm community in West Virginia. As documented in the book, Monkey On a Stick and other devotee research, Sulocana was killed by his devotees, with the cooperation of other temples. This was also a huge publicity black-eye for the ISKCON institution. The FBI's apprehension of the killer was nationwide news.

Although previously there had been wavering on whether the GBC had spiritual authority over the apparent gurus, after the murder GBC policy moved unequivocally in this direction, much like how the Catholic Church manages its priests and cardinals or how a university oversees its professors. This is the bottom-line reason why GBC regulation and approval of apparent gurus has remained a necessity. However, it then raises the question as to who is the supreme spiritual authority in the ISKCON institution - their apparent gurus or the GBC?

One important authority restructuring architect was Ravindra Svarupa dasa, the Philadelphia temple president, apparent guru and PhD. Although the more strident reform movement members had wanted to strip the Zonal Acaryas of their apparent disciples and license, Ravindra Svarupa and others compromised with the remaining powerful Zonals to limit their downsizing to what was described previously. He thus emerged around 1987 as the new face of this "reformed" GBC coalition. His recent Founder-Acarya paper asserts that GBC authority over apparent gurus is unavoidable in a modern world-wide movement.

"Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Gosvami therefore called for an organization in which the ultimate authority would reside not in the person of a single autocratic acarya but rather in a board of directors, which he called the 'Governing Body Commission.'" ( Ravindra Svarupa dasa, Founder-Acarya p. 8) (our emphasis)

"Stating that he (Srila Prabhupada) wanted there to be 'hundreds and thousands of spiritual masters' within ISKCON, he implied that the normative guru-disciple relationship would be perpetuated within the unified institution under the direction of the GBC. In such an organization, many gurus would be able to act with concerted force, operating together with other leaders and managers in collegial accord." (Founder-Acarya p. 23) (our parentheses)

"Consequently, Srila Prabhupada has left to us the task, after his departure, of fully articulating the form and functions of ISKCON for effective action in the world. One central challenge is to integrate the guru-disciple relationship—which carries its own proper demand for deep loyalty and commitment to the person of the guru—within a larger society that demands, in a certain sense, a higher, all-encompassing, loyalty." (Founder-Acarya p. 23)

Here Ravindra Svarupa's failure to present Srila Bhaktisiddhanta's literal "ultimate authority" remark immediately raises suspicion of Srila Bhaktisiddhanta's supposed authorization of the GBC's arrangement. In any case, Srila Prabhupada only accorded them "ultimate managing" authority, which does not include spiritual authority over apparent gurus. Terms like "collegial accord" and "all-encompassing loyalty" are just flowery terms to describe apparent gurus' submission "under the direction of the GBC." Ravindra Svarupa thus claims that Srila Prabhupada's mission necessitates the opposite of his own "imperative" order, the previously cited non-ecclesiastical stricture.

Although Ravindra Svarupa's paper was presented in a manner similar to scripture, it is not difficult to discern its utilitarian underpinnings - such an arrangement is unavoidable when many of the official apparent gurus are unable to control themselves much better than lecherous college professors or drunkard priests. If anything, the need for such regulation only points to their previously described lack of qualification.

A genuine spiritual master has absolutely no need to submit himself to the review and regulation of the managers on the GBC. Such a guru has already received the blessing and empowerment of his guru and Krishna. He is saksad-dharitvena, to be worshipped as "good as God." He only recognizes the authority of Krishna and other pure Vaishnavas. Such a devotee is completely dedicated to truth and doesn't care a fig for what the diplomatic controllers of an institution think. It is difficult to imagine someone like Srila Prabhupada or Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Prabhupada submitting themselves to the current GBC to be managed. When Srila Prabhupada was physically manifest, he controlled the GBC, not the other way around. Ravindra Svarupa attempts to get around this contradiction by bestowing only Srila Prabhupada with special status because of his being "founder-acarya," a self-serving misapplication when compared with the literal meaning of the term.

When we closely analyze how the GBC manages apparent gurus, it is easy to see the similarity to how any company deals with workers or how a professional board handles accreditation. The would-be apparent guru applies for their license to practice from the GBC, all accompanied by the understanding that it can be revoked if the apparent guru starts saying or doing things the GBC doesn't like. This very much entails avoiding public discussion of the philosophical contradictions we are enumerating here. The aforementioned institutionally approved ignorance will thus make such a person's "career" that much smoother.

Such an employer-employee relationship model is hardly Vedic or Vaishnava. In Vedic culture a brahmana, what to speak of a Vaishnava guru, is enjoined to never accept service to anyone. This is because they must always be free to speak truth of all kinds. When one is an employee one must kowtow to their employer and keep quiet about their faults or contradictions. This service to others is therefore the business of the sudras, or the working class. A real brahmana or guru will never accept such a position. It is said that in times of emergency a brahmana may accept the occupation of a ksatriya (warrior/administrator) or a vaishya (merchant), but never the business of a sudra. Sudras are compared to dogs because they require a master to hire and supervise them.

This means that anyone who agrees to be an ISKCON institution apparent guru is consenting to act as the GBC's sudra. The Founder-Acarya paper's assertion that the GBC must have authority over their apparent gurus is thus a thin disguise for a mundane employment relationship - one learns only the "Krishna consciousness" they need to get the apparent guru job, ignoring what will get them in trouble with their employer. Then one gets some experience preaching this. Finally one formally applies for their apparent guru position.

"Therefore, after education you'll have to write application, 'My dear sir, I am such and such qualified dog. (laughter) If you'll kindly give me some service.' And the tail is like this. (laughter) You see? Just imagine. If by education he becomes independent ... Just like Vedic culture. The brahmanas, the ksatriya, the vaisyas, they are independent. The sudras are compared with the dogs because they cannot live without a master. Brahmana, he will not accept anyone's service. That is real brahmana." (Lecture on Srimad Bhagavatam 2.3.18-19, Los Angeles, June 13, 1972)

The Founder Acarya paper's recommended submission of apparent gurus thus leads one to conclude that the ISKCON institution has abandoned the standards of the Gaudiya Vaishnava sampradaya. There is no mundane person or governing body above a genuine guru. Management of apparent gurus directly entails criticism of them. The honoring of guru described by the sastras, however, is to be done by everyone, including the GBC body and members.

"Therefore Krsna says, acaryam mam vijaniyan nava-manyeta karhicit [SB 11.17.27]. 'The acarya is as good as I am,' Krsna says. Nava-manyeta karhicit, 'Never neglect him.' Na martya-buddhyasuyeta, 'Never be envious of the acarya, thinking him as anything of this material world.' Acaryam mam vijaniyan. Therefore, acarya's position is as good as Krsna. Saksad-dharitvena samasta-sastrair." (Room Conversation with John Greisser (Yadubara dasa), 3/10/72) (our emphasis) saksad-dharitvena samasta-sastrair uktas tatha bhāvyata eva sadbhih kintu prabhor yah priya eva tasya vande guroḥ sri-caranaravindam The spiritual master is to be honored as much as the Supreme Lord, because he is the most confidential servitor of the Lord. This is acknowledged in all revealed scriptures and followed by all authorities. Therefore I offer my respectful obeisances unto the lotus feet of such a spiritual master, who is a bona fide representative of Sri Hari (Krsna). (Srila Visvanatha Cakravarti Thakura, Sri Gurvastaka 7) The concept of managing apparent spiritual masters is a very delicate matter in Vaishnavism. This is because disciples may hear godbrothers or godsisters of their apparent guru criticizing him, and this has been called a "death blow" to their faith. This is why Sridhara maharaja, Srila Prabhupada's godbrother who made this remark in the early days of the Zonal Acaryas, initially advised the GBC to form an "acarya board." This was to be composed solely of other apparent gurus, so that questions of guru impropriety could be dealt with privately by supposedly qualified equals. Unfortunately the board ended up being little more than another means of the Zonals' impunity from others.

When spiritual masters are not accorded absolute freedom by other devotees, or in this case the GBC, there is the direct implication that such apparent gurus are subject to all the defects of ordinary people. According the principle of damaging the faith of the disciples then, the current Founder-Acarya "GBC over guru" standard is itself a death blow, or at least severely injurious, to any kind of genuine faith devotees in the ISKCON institution might try to develop in their apparent gurus. One is thus led to question the consciousness of both the Founder-Acarya author and the GBC. arcye visnau sila-dhir gurusu nara-matir vaisnave jati-buddhir visnor va vaisnavanam kali-mala-mathane pada-tirthe 'mbu-buddhih sri-visnor namni mantre sakala-kalusa-he sabda-samanya-buddhir visnau sarvesvarese tad-itara-sama-dhir yasya va naraki sah One who thinks the Deity in the temple to be made of wood or stone, who thinks of the spiritual master in the disciplic succession as an ordinary man, who thinks the Vaisnava in the Acyuta-gotra to belong to a certain caste or creed or who thinks of caranamrta or Ganges water as ordinary water is taken to be a resident of hell. (Padma Purana) "It is also an offense to consider an empowered Vaishnava an object of disciplinary action. It is offensive to try to give him advice or to correct him…The spiritual master must not be subjected to the advice of a disciple, nor should a spiritual master be obliged to take instructions from those who are not his disciples. This is the sum and substance of Srila Rupa Goswami's advice in this sixth verse." (Nectar of Instruction, text 6, purport) Based on the above scripture, either the members of the GBC are "residents of hell," or the apparent gurus they regulate are ordinary men. Of course, it is not out of the question that both are true.

In this regard, there are some stories circulating that, before his departure, Srila Prabhupada personally told some devotees they were already gurus or should act as such when he was no longer physically manifest. Although these men may have achieved the qualifications at that time, there is no guarantee that they have remained on that platform. One can say with little doubt that they fell from that level if they submitted to the GBC's apparent guru management system.

Re-Initiation and "Soft Ritvik" Regarding how utilitarian the GBC can be, one need only study how Radhanatha Swami became an apparent guru. After the murder of Sulocana and Kirtanananda's refusal to accept the GBC's mandated reduction of his worship standard, Radhanatha Swami accompanied him as he embarked on a merger of so-called Krishna consciousness and Christianity, all in defiance of the GBC. However, several years later Kirtanananda's pedophilia was publicly revealed, thus throwing his thousands of followers into chaos. Radhanatha Swami quickly came to the rescue by not only "re-initiating" many of these thousands, but by bringing them, as well as Kirtanananda's temples, back under the GBC's authority. This enabled him to instantly go from ignominy to being perhaps the most powerful apparent guru in the movement.

One might ask, as there were many approved apparent gurus who remained loyal to the GBC when Radhanatha Swami was off being a reprobate, "Why wasn't their commitment recognized, giving them opportunity to accept some of Kirtanananda's former followers?" According to the institution's standards, they were far more advanced and worthy than the traitor Radhanatha Swami. The apparent reason he was chosen was that Kirtanananda's followers had long been trained by him to distrust the GBC. They would more likely go en-masse if one of their own were to lead them back. This certainly gave the GBC the preferred utilitarian outcome of men, money and assets.

The question then arises as to the position of the ISKCON institution's apparent gurus. If they are not real gurus, what are they? Since they are still influenced by at least one group anartha, what to speak of other misconceptions, they have not come to even the bottom rung standard of a genuine kanistha adhikari guru. They are also influenced by the mode of ignorance that is inherent in turning a blind eye to the institution's other deviations or their own sudra-like positions vis-à-vis the GBC. They are thus blindly leading their blind followers. They are unfit to teach by example or lead others. One is led to conclude that they are little more than institutional priests playing the part of spiritual masters.

Srila Prabhupada would often teach how a genuine guru was one who followed his guru's instructions, as opposed to merely imitating him. The senior manager Zonal Acaryas had certainly spent a lot of personal time with him. However, their actions after his departure are not those of serious followers. They apparently only learned to imitate his outward demeanor and superior position. Others, such as Radhanatha Swami, learned to imitate one of them. This unfortunately has become the standard of apparent gurus in the ISKCON institution.

Perhaps nothing illustrates the victimization of devotees and the tragedy of the GBC's cascading utilitarianism more than their re-initiation policies. When the first Zonal Acaryas became embarrassments in the early 80's, their previous followers were mandated to accept re-initiation from an apparent guru who was still approved. The previous acarya's writings were cited, and these followers were pressured to believe this would keep them in good standing with Srila Prabhupada and the parampara. They also remained a kind of outcaste until they accepted the order. However, because their new apparent guru was often as unqualified as the old one, there was every chance that the new one would go the same way as the first. Indeed, by the 90's a number of such "good" devotees had accepted as many as four apparent gurus.

For others, however, even the thought of approaching another GBC sanctioned apparent gurus was repulsive. Many of these devotees felt they were just as advanced as their peers with approved apparent gurus, and they didn't want to find themselves on the bottom of another apparent gurus's totem pole. Many of these people were easily allured by the Ritvik's claim that they were already initiates of Srila Prabhupada. Of course, it was only a matter of time before the GBC realized that these heavy handed re-initiation policies were one of the Ritvik movement's best recruiting tools, and that due to the constant turnover of their apparent gurus, the Ritviks were eventually going to outnumber them. Therefore, by the turn of the millennium, re-initiation became far more a matter of personal preference. There were still some quoting the previous acaryas's writings, but the pressure was a lot less. By now, even powerful members of the GBC, such as Satsvarupa dasa's apparent disciple Pragosa dasa, have apparent gurus who are recognized as an embarrassment.

Some have legitimately asked, "Who is the spiritual authority for devotees whose so-called guru has become disgraced?" This was the primary reason given for required re-initiation in earlier years. If someone is acting as an initiated disciple, brahmana or sannyasi without an apparent guru, what is their spiritual position? According to Vaishnava tradition such a person is supposed to have a genuine guru, either physically manifest or departed.

What has therefore evolved according to the "time, place and circumstance" needs of the GBC is a somewhat fuzzy conception that the governing body itself is such people's default "guru" and means of deliverance from material existence. This is pretty much what one derives from a review of GBC policy and the arguments of the Founder-Acarya paper.

"By thus establishing the GBC and leaving it as his chosen successor at the head of ISKCON, Srila Prabhupada insured that the order of Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Ṭhakura would continue to work efficaciously in the world and bear fruit." (Ravindra Svarupa dasa, Founder-Acarya p. 82) (our emphasis) This sentiment is hardly approved by the previous acaryas' writings. The GBC preferred method has long been picking and choosing from these to favor their utilitarian needs, and the Founder-Acarya paper is a veritable festival of such selectivity. Therefore, most of their ordinary devotees have long ago given up differentiating between the concepts of "ultimate managing authority" and "ultimate spiritual authority." Everything is somehow justified as coming down from Srila Prabhupada, despite such obvious contradictions as flaunting the "imperative" instructions cited previously. Srila Prabhupada regularly condemned picking and choosing from the instructions of guru, sadhu and sastra as ardha-kukkuti-nyaya, the "logic of half-a-hen." "So therefore Arjuna said, sarvam etam rtam manye yad vadasi mam. This is devotee, that 'I accept everything, whatever You say.' This is devotee, not that I make some amendment and then I accept. And this is nonsense. You cannot... This is called ardha-kukkuti-nyaya. Ardha-kukkuti-nyaya means one man was keeping a hen and it was delivering every day a golden egg. So the man thought, 'It is very profitable, but it is expensive to feed this hen. Better cut the head so I shall save the expenditure of feeing her, and I'll get the eggs without any charge.' So these rascals, they take, accept sastras like that. 'Oh, this is not... That is very expensive. Cut this portion.'" (Lecture on Srimad Bhagavatam 6.1.22, Indore, December 13, 1970) The loose ISKCON institution understanding of spiritual/managing authority has prompted some, especially those associated with the Gaudiya Matha, to accuse them of practicing a kind of "soft Ritvik." Most with the Matha adhere to Vaishnava disciplic succession standards where, after their apparent guru's physical departure, some experienced disciples become apparent gurus and take over or start new missions. The Ritvik faction says outright that Srila Prabhupada is still initiating and delivering new devotees, whereas the ISKCON institution says, kinda between the lines, that he, through the GBC, is at least delivering those whose apparent gurus are disgraced. One is de jure Ritvik (by law), while the other is a kind of de facto Ritvik (by custom). Either way, it appears to be a kind of pseudo-Vaishnava "Christian" standard, where a departed personality is the apparent present-day deliverer of people he did not say he wanted as disciples. What's the Alternative? Defenders of the ISKCON institution often accuse critics of lacking a positive alternative. They ask, "What should have been done in regard to succeeding Srila Prabhupada?" One answer, according to Gaudiya Vaishnava practice, is that the GBC should have acted as mere servants by maintaining the movement's facilities so that advanced devotees could preach and possibly assume the position of spiritual master. In the fervent late 1977 environment, this was considered a tangible possibility. The GBC would also protect the movement's ordinary devotees from any pretending gurus (such as the Zonal Acaryas) who had deviated from Srila Prabhupada's siddhanta and standards of conduct. This could easily have been done by simply prohibiting such loose people from preaching in the movement's temples. Instead of protecting devotees, since 1978 we have seen the GBC offering its own brand of pretence, one where new devotees were pressured to accept all manner of approved dharmadvajis. This "fox in the henhouse" standard has caused the spiritual shelter of Srila Prabhupada's temples, or asrama, to be absent since the first day the Zonal Acaryas declared themselves in 1978. In doing what they did, the GBC failed to heed Srila Prabhupada's many warnings and allowed the authority-crazed Zonal Acaryas to simultaneously take over the GBC and act as apparent gurus, thus merging both management and apparent spiritual authority in the movement. Because the GBC has failed to separate these two functions since, the body retains all the movement's power. Although many have accused them of being intoxicated with this, it certainly prevents them from assuming any kind of genuine service attitude. Contrary to the Founder-Acarya paper's assertions, Srila Prabhupada always taught that spiritual authority rested in the person of the genuine spiritual master. However, he also designated the GBC as the movement's "ultimate managing authority." This strongly implies that he wanted these two divisions of the movement's authority to be separate. This is easily understood when we consider that his Western disciples would be more prone to be corrupted by the absolute power of being an apparent guru than those born and raised Vaishnavas in India. If the GBC had kept the Zonals and other apparent gurus from controlling the temples, such people would have been free to rise and fall at will without having significant effect on the movement's preaching or public image. Hubris, Hell & Buddhism The GBC's ecclesiastical merger of apparent spiritual and management authority and their abandoning service attitude are indicated by how they never really admit the body's mistakes, past or present. The world is apparently expected to think of them as infallible, again in the manner of a genuine guru, yet also somehow divinely able to self-correct independent of any outside influence. However, the effects of all this are on-going. Srila Prabhupada would sometimes describe how glowworms and fireflies give off apparent light, but that they are only noticeable in the dark. When the sun comes up, they are immediately forgotten. Similarly new and naïve devotees are convinced that the GBC and the institution's apparent gurus are spiritually advanced. However, a genuinely qualified guru could easily dispel all the darkness in their collective night. Because of the ignorance and anartha inherent in the positions and understanding of the GBC and their apparent gurus, they are, individually and collectively, all incapable of delivering anyone from material existence. A number of devotees, especially those in rival sects, have viewed the position of such apparent gurus or arrangements very negatively, as well as that of their followers. There are some quotes in Sri Isopanisad where Srila Prabhupada describes the fate of imitative spiritual masters very graphically. "By a false display of religious sentiments, they present a show of devotional service while indulging in all sorts of immoral activities. In this way they pass as spiritual masters and devotees of God. Such violators of religious principles have no respect for the authoritative acharyas, the holy teachers in the strict disciplic succession......to mislead the people in general they themselves become so-called acharyas, but they do not even follow the principles of the acharyas. These rogues are the most dangerous elements in human society. Because there is no religious government, they escape punishment by the law of the state. They cannot, however, escape the law of the Supreme, who has clearly declared in the Bhagavad-Gita that envious demons in the garb of religious propagandists shall be thrown into the darkest regions of hell (Bg. 16.19-20). Sri Isopanisad confirms that these pseudo religionists are heading toward the most obnoxious place in the universe after the completion of their spiritual master business, which they conduct simply for sense gratification." (Sri Isopanisad, Mantra 12, Purport) The position of their followers was similarly described elsewhere. "As for your next question: 'Can only a few pure devotees deliver others?' Anyone, if he is pure devotee he can deliver others, he can become spiritual master. But unless he is on that platform he should not attempt it. Then they will both go to hell, like blind men leading the blind." (Letter to Tusta Krishna, 12/14/72) A very serious person will not skirt such remarks or rationalize their submission to a pretender. However, Srila Prabhupada's tolerance and magnanimity was already discussed, so it is difficult to say unequivocally that every member of the sahajiya leaning sects of his movement is going to hell despite their service attitude towards him. We should not forget that everyone is supposed to be following Srila Prabhupada's program and reading his books. Unfortunately the GBC's hubris causes them to preach that they or their apparent spiritual masters are continuing the Gaudiya Vaishnava disciplic succession after Srila Prabhupada. This prompts them to approve the writings of their apparent gurus as transcendental literature on much the same level as his. Followers thus read these instead. According to the Sri Isopanisad and other quote above then, one can say with a great deal of certainty that the institution's devotees are in spiritual danger to the extent that Srila Prabhupada's authority and teachings are replaced by those of pretenders. This is especially true with some apparent gurus of late. Hridayananda Swami, one of the two remaining Zonal Acaryas on the approved list, recently embarked on a mission similar to Kirtanananda's Christian-Hare Krishna synthesis. Hridayananda Swami's variety, Krishna West, strived to make what he considers Krishna consciousness more acceptable to modern Westerners. Although much has been made of his approaches to the LGBT community or his dressing like a country club member, it is his regular minimization and occasional disavowal of certain sastras and statements of Srila Prabhupada that make his position especially questionable. Hridayananda Swami received a post-graduate degree in Sanskrit and Indian studies after 1978, something Srila Prabhupada regularly advised against. Hridayananda Swami therefore sometimes sounds more like an academic than a Vaishnava. "The Manusamhita is said to be the work of Manu, the progenitor of humankind and a lawgiver. The work is controversial because of its misogynistic statements, and many scholars reject the text as an accurate portrayal of Vedic culture." (Hridayananda swami, personal communication to E. Burke Rochford, cited in Hare Krishna Transformed, chapter 6, footnote 8) In this remark Hridayananda Swami says Manu, a stalwart member of the parampara acknowledged by Lord Krishna in the Bhagavad-gita, is a misogynist, or someone who despises or is prejudiced against women. This can hardly be called praise of an elevated Vaishnava, someone who is never on the bodily platform of a real misogynist. In addition, Hridayananda Swami is minimizing or completely dismissing a key Vedic scripture, apparently so his preaching can appeal more widely to modern Westerners. What to speak of committing the "mad elephant" offense of saying something so derogatory about a great devotee, Srila Prabhupada strongly condemned such dismissals of Vedic authority as a form of Buddhism. Once in Bombay on one of his morning walks, Dr. Patel brought along a book called Siksha-vadri, something which purported to be a kind of Vaishnava catechism. Dr. Patel read a passage to Srila Prabhupada which said that Vaishnavas should not eat meat, even if it is recommended in the Vedas. Although Srila Prabhupada said repeatedly that devotees should not eat meat, he took strong exception to the author's dismissal of the Vedas. Dr. Patel: (speaking in defense of the author) If the Vedas say "Kill," I won't. I won't, don't want that. Srila Prabhupada: That is Buddhism. Dr. Patel: I don't mind you call me a Buddhist or a fool, but I won't kill an animal, being a Vaishnava myself. Srila Prabhupada: That's all right, but the thing is that you may not like something, but you cannot decry the authority of the Vedas. . . . . Srila Prabhupada: No, this is Buddhist philosophy; you do not know it. Dr. Patel: I'm not talking about Vaishnava philosophy and Buddhist... Srila Prabhupada: This is Buddhist philosophy. That even if the Buddha, Lord Buddha said, "Even if it is recommended in the Vedas, I don't accept Vedas." That is Buddhist philosophy. Dr. Patel: He accepts Veda. He said the next moment. Now we read it, I've read it before you. Srila Prabhupada: You'll see, it is stated, nindasi yajna-vidher ahaha sruti-jatam. Sruti-jatam is the Vedas. There is recommendation of sacrifice, but you have decried them. Dr. Patel: He has not decried them. Devatam, devata te ta vi pranam sadvinam ca satam api, vedanam ca na kartavyam ninda svadya na ca tapi. Srila Prabhupada: Hm. So this is ninda. If you say, "Even if it is recommended in the Vedas," that is ninda. If you say, "Even if it is recommended by the Vedas," that means Vedas are mistaken. You are right. You do not know what is the purpose of Vedas. (Morning Walk, Bombay, March 29, 1974) The author of Siksha-vadri only wrote that the Vedic recommendations for some to eat meat should not be followed by Vaishnavas, yet Srila Prabhupada strongly condemned even this apparently innocent devotee zealotry as ninda, or blasphemy. However, Hridayananda Swami dismissed as questionable the entire Manu Samhita, something that has been followed by stalwart acaryas for centuries. Is this the exemplary speech of a genuine guru? Instead, Hridayananda Swami indicates that his post-graduate academic conditioning has made him a nastika, or faithless person. "Astikyam means to believe in the injunction of the sastra, astikyam. That is called theism. One who does not believe in the injunction... Just like Krsna is advise in the Bhagavad-gita. One who believe in the words of Krsna, he is astika. One who does not believe, he is nastika. This is the astika and nastika. So our nastika definition means one who does not believe in the Vedic instruction. He is called nastika. So brahmana must be astikyam." (Lecture on Bhagavad-gita 18.45, Durban, October 11, 1975) One can then ask if Hridayananda Swami's translations and commentary on cantos 10-12 of Srimad Bhagavatam will make the reader similarly convinced. The Neda sahajiyas are influenced by Buddhist philosophy, and Hridayananda Swami's remarks enter this territory. Around 2000 the GBC was implicated in similar accusations. A number of post-graduate devotees on the VAST internet forum (Vaishnava Advanced STudies) had openly questioned and criticized some of Srila Prabhupada's statements about women. They were (are) opposed by certain outspoken "traditionalists." Understanding the implications of alienating many feminists, it was unsurprising that the GBC failed to condemn or punish the doubting VAST devotees who had portrayed Srila Prabhupada as materially conditioned or ordinary. In Vaishnavism there are different degrees of offense or aparadha. However, offending a Vaishnava, especially if he or she is a pure devotee, is most detrimental to one's spiritual progress and realization. In terms of the degree of Vaishnava aparadha, the very worst is offense to one's spiritual master, the gurv-aparadha. "According to Srila Visvanatha Cakravarti Thakura, there are two kinds of impediments to devotional service. The first is an offense at the lotus feet of a Vaishava. This is called vaisnava-aparadha. Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu warned His devotees not to commit vaisnava-aparadha, which He described as the mad elephant offense. When a mad elephant enters a beautiful garden, it destroys everything, leaving a barren field. Similarly, the power of vaisnava-aparadha is so great that even an advanced devotee becomes almost devoid of his spiritual assets if he commits it. Since Krsna consciousness is eternal, it cannot be destroyed altogether, but advancement may be checked for the time being." (Purport, Srimad Bhagavatam 5.1.5) "The most grievous type of vaisnava-aparadha is called gurv-aparadha, which refers to offenses at the lotus feet of the spiritual master. In the chanting of the holy name of the Supreme Personality of Godhead, this gurv-aparadha is considered the most grievous offense. Guror avajna sruti-sastra-nindanam (Padma Purana). Among the ten offenses committed against the chanting of the holy name, the first offenses are disobedience of the spiritual master and blasphemy of the Vedic literature." (Purport, Srimad Bhagavatam 4.21.37) During Srila Prabhupada's manifest presence, the comments of the VAST devotees were literally unthinkable. Even casual devotees would not have dared to say such things in his temples. Yet by the year 2000, these things were not only condoned by the GBC, but rewarded in the sense of giving the offenders increased influence in the movement's management and preaching. Instead it was the traditionalists who were portrayed negatively by the governing body. This was notwithstanding all the extremely offensive rhetoric both sides directed at each other. It is not difficult to conclude that, by failing to condemn the blasphemers, the GBC also became implicated in their gurv-aparadha. Indeed, the lack of defense by the institution's leadership prompted Dr. E. Burke Rochford to write, "The fact that the leadership failed to act decisively on Prabhupada's behalf was an acknowledgement that his authority was no longer absolute" (Hare Krishna Transformed, p159-160). These statements and actions by Hridayananda Swami or the GBC are only further evidence of the leadership's utilitarian disposition, as well as Buddhist leaning, all opposed to strict Gaudiya Vaishnavism. In further regard to Hridayananada Swami, in the above quote Srila Prabhupada cites the forth offence to the Holy Name, "sruti-sastra-nindanam - blasphemy of the Vedic literature."

Contemporary
Disciples Page