Basic Transcript of January, 2019 Video
by Kailäsa Candra däsa
OÀ NAMO BHAGAVATE VÄSUDEVAYA
The history of Çréla Prabhupäda’s movement contains no shortage of nastiness and deception, and the important events of it, even when negative, must be admitted and assimilated despite their sordid nature. Devotees are not supposed to be ordinary human beings, and, as such, they must be willing to hold the leaders of Prabhupäda’s movement accountable for all that has transpired while they held—and, in one sense, still hold—the reins of power. This means you muThe institutional delusion that appears to be Çréla Prabhupäda’s Hare Kåñëa movement did not just happen overnight. It has always been a work in progress and continues to be so, while ISKCON itself, the real movement of the Sixties and Seventies, is dead—choked off by this weed known as the fabricated, so-called “ISKCON” confederation. That sahajiyä movement, an apa-sampradäya of the worst sort, has no shortage of acolytes and enablers who gloss over all of its many deviations. They do not hold its leaders to task in the matter of their obligation—if they were bona fide, of course (which they are not)--to make a compelling case, based upon çästra, knowledge, and reason, as to the spiritual and devotional validity of their current operation.
There is no justification for what “ISKCON” leaders are doing and for what they falsely claim is being accomplished by their cult. In no small part, this is because its leaders have a different view about what constitutes the “ISKCON” legacy, its rationality, its justification, and its so-called history. Their corporate power and personal ambitions suffice, for them and their followers, as proof enough of the validity of their project. Since they have gotten away with so many compromises over the past forty years, within their circles confidence is high that they will continue to pull off their scam for as far as the eye can see. But as Joe Kidd said in the motion picture of the same title: “Maybe. Maybe not.”
Always remember that Humpty was pushed. “ISKCON” did not proliferate without substantial assistance from the rank and file. It will not be exposed, checked, and stopped without a great deal of resistance, either. It is up to us to call its mis-leaders out for all of their major deviations, contradictions, and compromises. Your host speaker is going to discuss three of those in this discourse. These went down in the Seventies, and the only standard justifying them is might makes right, buoyed by the tyranny of the “ISKCON” majority.
That majority, of course, includes everyone who strongly believes in, and is connected to, “ISKCON”--not just its most egregious players. All of these rascals couldn’t care less whether or not their philosophical theories—or, if you prefer, justifications—are coherent and free from contradiction. As long as the “ISKCON” philosophical system and its processes are authorized by the vitiated Governing Body Commission, it is right in their eyes, and everyone with a different take is wrong, offensive, and a no-count fringie. The dissidents, such as your host speaker, are ignored at this time, but that may not remain the case in the future. If you are able to assimilate and act upon the knowledge you are receiving here, it WILL have an effect on you—and for the better.
The hard-core leaders, party men, fanatics, and similarly dedicated followers of “ISKCON” have no need within their echo chamber to defend or apologize for anything that their cult represents. These back-slappers have all persuaded one another that what they have established over time, despite so many jarring speed bumps (all pinned on scapegoats who are no longer part of their movement) is the direct Will of God and completely pleasing to Çréla Prabhupäda.
Is that so?
Is His Divine Grace actually pleased with such a big, big international corporation that is chock full of cheap gurus and cheap disciples? On Wikipedia, in its own description of itself, the G.B.C., with considerable hubris, states that it exercises the power to appoint initiating gurus for the cult it controls. Not that long ago on Wikipedia, it also claimed to be the actual successor in disciplic succession to His Divine Grace, although that declaration was taken down when challenged by some of its own party men.
After the colossal hoax of the eleven sahajiyä mahäbhägavats, is Prabhupäda pleased with all that has been let loose from the “ISKCON” Pandora’s Box? Those “zonal äcäryas” over-lorded everyone via obnoxious and suffocating international fiefdoms for just short of a decade. Is he pleased with what has been done—in the form of massive and unnecessary changes to his Bhagavad-gétä As It Is—so soon after his departure? Is he pleased with the compromises and contradictions that are the hallmark of today’s “ISKCON” line?
All of these are rhetorical questions, of course. Now, here in Part Two, your host speaker is going to analyze five big events, or alleged major events, that worked to degrade Prabhupäda’s movement while he was still physically manifest. However, only three of them actually qualify as major events, because the other two—which will be discussed first—do not merit that status. The reasons why that is so are different for each of them, and those reasons will be made crystal clear. They did have something in common, however, which will be pointed out.
After this, we shall move on to the three events which actually DO QUALIFY as major deviations, although, as mentioned in Part One, one of these—in and of itself—was not at all a deviation. Neglect of the two essential orders by His Divine Grace contained in it, however, mark it as a precursor for, arguably, the worst deviation of the twelve, which will be discussed next month.
One further note: The other two that constitute major events (besides the one that is a precursor) may, at first glance, appear to be rather minor. You should not allow such a misconception to take hold within yourself. These two—different from the event that was a precursor for the deviation to be discussed next month--are both based upon COMPROMISES that never should have been made.
Now, all five of these discussed in this month’s discourse had one element in common, and that was the Machiavellian Manipulator, T.K.G. He was implicated in every one of them—even if one of those cannot technically be established, with certainty, as an event. Let us, therefore, consider the first of these five. In the mid-Seventies, the RDTSKP was formed by T.K.G., with Viñëu-jana as his kirtan leader. This traveling bus party consisted only of brahmacaries and sannyäsés, with T.K.G. clearly the sannyäsé in charge. It was only a U.S. phenomenon, but it caused quite a stir movement-wide in almost every American temple.
Basically, each bus party acted like a ship of pirates as it sailed from ISKCON temple to ISKCON temple. The presidents were duty-bound to assist these parties, because, after all, a lot of magazines were being distributed throughout the States by those devotees, new bhaktas were being made at the campuses, and householders are obligated to assist sannyäsés in their missions. The overwhelming majority of the temple presidents were householders—Prabhupäda wanted it that way—and the householder devotee is said to be on a lower level of purity and realization than a sannyäsé. T.K.G. not only took full advantage of this--he actually exploited it for all it was worth. He preached to all the young men on his buses that the householders were in mäyä, should be seen as fallen, and did not deserve brahmacaries serving under them in those temples.
Another way of saying the same thing is that the RDTSKP buses were, when they arrived at the doorstep of various U.S. temples, little more than raiding parties. They preached the same line to the brahmacaries in those temples, and, as could only have been predicted, many of those temple devotees fell for it, became enamored (much more with Viñëu-jana that with T.K.G.), and joined a bus party.
Your host speaker, a unmarried student at that time, had direct experience of all of this at the St. Louis yatra in early 1975. Indeed, that particular bus party took the raiding strategy to the next level by actually controlling the St. Louis temple while its president was in Mäyäpur, India. T.K.G. was also there in Bengal, and he was in regular contact with his lieutenant commandeering the Midwest takeover. Once it was close to complete, T.K.G. manipulated the G.B.C.—something he was quite expert at—into approving a new administration and his man to run St. Louis.
The whole saga had all kinds of intrigue, treachery, and betrayal shot through it, including the hell your host speaker had to go through in order to surreptitiously escape the scene. The RDTSKP campaign, which employed the plainclothes pick just as much as the temples did, could be explained in more detail. We are not going to get into any of that here, because it would be extraneous.
The householders eventually revolted en-masse against T.K.G., culminating in him being driven from power, Viñëu-jana committing suicide, and Prabhupäda ordering T.K.G. to China. He returned from there a broken man. He never forgave Prabhupäda for that. Hidden and bottled up within him, T.K.G.’s resentment against Prabhupäda was immeasurable, shortly to be fully demonstrated.
The point here, however, is that the RDTSKP escapade was, in and of itself, nothing more than a chapter—albeit it, a lengthy one--within an all-encompassing book. And the title of that book? Well, we have already discussed it last month: THE PLAINCLOTHES PICK. There were so many manifestations of it, and RDTSKP was but one of them. Instituting and training the collectors in the change-up was another such manifestation.
As described last month, all of the results-oriented pick constituted the third major event and deviation. To sum it up, the RDTSKP escapade was a sub-event, part and parcel of the kinds of shenanigans--“for Kåñëa”--that proliferated in the mid-Seventies and late Seventies as the plainclothes pick devolved more and more.
The next event only APPEARS to be eligible for our consideration. It was during the last year in which Prabhupäda was with us, leading to his disappearance from physical manifestation in November of 1977. Was Çréla Prabhupäda poisoned? In October of that year, he distinctly and directly said: “Someone has poisoned me.” Was one or more of his caretakers, all of whom were his initiated disciples, responsible for it? If so, that would have been the crime of the century!
Is there evidence? There is quite a bit of it, as a matter of fact. Is it strong evidence? In the opinion of your host speaker, it is anything but weak. Does the evidence that Prabhupäda was poisoned by an inner coterie of his “caretaker” disciples constitute proof of that event? Simply put, it does not. There was and is no smoking gun. No one of that inner circle has admitted to it, and all accused have denied it.
Was T.K.G. part of that group? He was the centerpiece of it. If Prabhupäda was poisoned by his own disciples, T.K.G. would have had to have been in on it and would have had to have engineered it. Is there evidence that he did so? There is such evidence. For starters, just days after Prabhupäda left the scene—in a statement referring to mercy killing (which he indicated Prabhupäda was requesting)--T.K.G. said, “We could have done that.”
Is there counter-evidence to this theory that Prabhupäda was poisoned by his own disciples? There is. He also said, in his final days with us, “Not that I am poisoned.” The context of what he meant by that statement, and what he was referring to, is subject to dispute, as is almost everything surrounding the whole allegation.
And that’s what disqualifies this CONTROVERSY as constituting one of the twelve major events or deviations that led to the growth and takeover of the Hare Kåñëa movement by the fabricated, so-called “ISKCON” confederation. We know that Prabhupäda left us prematurely, and that has had a very profound effect upon all of his dedicated disciples. In and of itself, however, it cannot be considered some kind of deviation. It also cannot be pinned to the formation and growth of “ISKCON”--at least, not directly. If he was poisoned by some of his leading men, however, that would definitely make our list and expand it to a baker’s dozen. However, that he was poisoned by his own disciples is not an incontrovertible fact.
The most staunch proponent of the poison theory is, without question, Nityänanda prabhu. He spent many, many thousands of dollars of his own money securing and researching tapes containing background whispers, and testing them with high-priced forensic experts for the validity of what seemed to be their contents. He also was able, with the help of similar experts in that science, to detect ultra-high quantities of cadmium in Prabhupäda’s hair samples from his last months.
Nityänanda took all kinds of risks in these undertakings. He engaged in a number of sleuth efforts in order to uncover evidence that would, most certainly, have otherwise disappeared. In the late Nineties, he authored a book entitled “Someone Has Poisoned Me,” and it is a very compelling read.
Now on the INTERNET, he has posted a longer version, with updated information. The title of that work is: “Kill Guru, Become Guru.” He has also created, and is the host speaker of, a number of professionally produced and colorful videos, fully augmented by excellent soundtracks and appropriate background music. In the online manuscript, he goes over all of the evidences, factors, and related details of what he believes to be Prabhupäda’s intentional poisoning.
In his final analysis, he comprehensively lists all the components of the theory that Prabhupäda was poisoned by his own disciples (led by T.K.G.), and he gives a percentage value to each component of that evidence. He adds them all up, and they total 97%. This is obviously a very, very high percentage of likelihood that it went down in the dreadful way that he describes. However, 97% does not constitute a metaphysical lock. It is not one hundred percent. In other words, the strongest proponent and truest of the true believers of the poison theory—in terms of Prabhupäda being poisoned by his own disciples—concludes that it is extremely probable that he was poisoned in that way, but not necessarily certain.
Let us now move on to describe the fourth major deviation which contributed to the formation, growth, and takeover of the Hare Kåñëa movement by “ISKCON.” We covered the first three of these last month, and we have just detailed two which do not qualify. The fourth major event and deviation—which constituted a compromise by the rest of the G.B.C. to and for the benefit of T.K.G.—is centered around him. Some may consider what is described here to be rather minor, but neglecting its actual import is certainly a mistake.
In a letter to a European G.B.C., dated January 27, 1975, Prabhupäda reminded him that he wanted his commissioners to rotate on a regular basis as his personal secretary: “Under the circumstances, I have asked Hansaduta to come to me at Hawaii. There, I shall try to rectify the mistakes and, as previously arranged, the G.B.C.s should act as my secretary at least one month in a year.”
The Folio does not readily show where and when that previous arrangement, which undoubtedly was approved by Prabhupäda, had been made. Perhaps it was part of a room conversation with his leading secretaries that was never recorded. Nevertheless, the above-mentioned excerpt substantiated that it had taken place. Your host speaker has discussed this particular arrangement in the past with a former commissioner who verified it.
The arrangement to rotate G.B.C.s on a monthly basis should have been adhered to, and, if it had been, the disaster that befell the movement post-Prabhupäda probably would have been avoided. At least one of those men (that would have served as his personal secretary) would probably have spotted the glaring defects in the 1978 G.B.C. resolutions establishing the zonal äcäryas, their uttama-adhikari worship, and the so-called “Äcärya Board.” Many of the governing body commissioners were supposed to have had that close personal association with Prabhupäda in his last months, but most of them didn’t.
There had been seven leading men, almost all of them sannyäsés and/or commissioners, who served as Prabhupäda’s personal secretary from early February, 1976 until the time that T.K.G. took over in the latter half of February, 1977. That averages to each of them serving for about one and one-half months, so how things played out during that previous year (to Prabhupäda’s final year) was not far removed from the arrangement mentioned in the letter excerpt. Such a regular rotation should have been continued, but T.K.G. saw to it that it wasn’t.
The G.B.C.s compromised with him on this, allowing him to remain as the personal secretary until the end. That was not the first time they acquiesced to the wishes of the Machiavellian Manipulator, but it would be a distraction to get into any of the other stuff. Allowing T.K.G. to become the sole gatekeeper to Prabhupäda in his last months set the stage for all kinds of serious problems that almost immediately ensued after he departed physical manifestation.
T.K.G. kept things confidential that should have—and otherwise would have--become either well known or better known. He made all the decisions concerning Prabhupäda during those last months. For example, he decided who would and would not have access to him, and he was also his “caretaker,” but applying that noun in relation to T.K.G. is an anomaly. The G.B.C. was obligated not to have allowed the monopoly of Prabhupäda’s care and access to have been controlled by one man, and, adding injury to insult, T.K.G. was THE VERY WORST CHOICE possible as having been allocated that position and power.
Allowing T.K.G. dominate the person, quarters, and maintenance of Çréla Prabhupäda for the last nine months that he was with us is firmly in the category of a major event in the Hare Kåñëa movement. It also was a major mistake. Just as importantly, it was a deviation from a previous arrangement, which would have, in all likelihood, worked out much better for the movement and the devotees at large. If you have developed higher intelligence, you will surely recognize—if you had not already done so—that the G.B.C. allowing T.K.G. to be the final “caretaker” for all of those months promoted the formation, growth, and empowerment of the fabricated, so-called “ISKCON” oligarchy.
The fifth major event indirectly assisted the emergence of “ISKCON.” It was a room conversation at the Kåñëa-Balaräm temple in Prabhupäda’s quarters held on May 28th, 1977. There is strong indication that all or most of the governing body commissioners attended this meeting. In the Folio, it is listed as “G.B.C. Meets with Çréla Prabhupäda.” By this time, it was becoming obvious that Prabhupäda may be leaving the scene soon, as his physical body (so to speak) was showing signs of deterioration. As such, sometime before this, the G.B.C. decided that he had to be asked about how his movement was to conduct initiations, especially after he departed physical manifestation.
Since T.K.G. was already running the show for over three months at that time, he, along with Satsvarüpa, were selected to ask Prabhupäda the delicate question. Actually, although this meeting covered many topics, the interlude wherein Prabhupäda was asked two important questions concerning initiations was, by far, the heart and soul of it. Indeed, many initiated disciples of His Divine Grace consider this room conversation to be the most important one that ever transpired in the Hare Kåñëa movement. The questions concerning initiation, both current (meaning at that time in 1977) and future (meaning after Prabhupäda departed) were the very centerpiece of this meeting.
Now, as mentioned previously in this discourse (as well as in last month’s presentation), this fifth major event—the G.B.C. meeting Prabhupäda in late May of 1977—did not, in and of itself, constitute a deviation. How could it? Prabhupäda was asked two essential questions about initiation, and he answered both of them. Yet, it makes our list of twelve, because, although unlike the other eleven events (which DID directly constitute deviations), this room conversation created a precursor which led to deviation, although it was not meant to do so.
(Bhakta Ernest) I have a question.
“Obviously, the future event linked to this room conversation is the appointment of zonal äcäryas by the G.B.C. in March of 1978, along with their being sanctioned as initiating spiritual masters to be worshiped as mahäbhägavats. Why then should the room conversation of 1977 even be listed amongst the twelve events, when the real deviation was made ten months later in Mäyäpur?”
It is a good question, and it was a tough call to make. However, it needs to be listed for some important reasons. First, there was injudiciousness in how the conversation proceeded during those exchanges on initiation between the two sannyäsés and Prabhupäda. Secondly, a new term was introduced by Prabhupäda, one that serves as a crux that should have been recognized by the G.B.C. during the last week of March in Mäyäpur. It most definitely was NOT.
These two reasons factored into the colossal hoax of 1978, they factored into the appointment of rittviks in July of 1977 (in terms of how THAT was misinterpreted), and they strongly factored into making what should have been a clear distillation of what Prabhupäda wanted and ordered into, instead, cloudy conclusions that have muddied the issue of our disciplic succession to this day.
In other words, the G.B.C. came to Kåñëa-Balaräm mandir in May of 1977 to clear up two important questions about how to proceed, but, due to the ineptitude of the leading secretaries selected to ask the questions, the actual conclusions were misinterpreted. This led, in part, to the major deviation of 1978, and it is thus inextricably tied to it. As such, this room conversation has to be listed amongst the twelve chief events presented in this multi-part series, because it exemplifies just how foolish, corrupt, and inept the G.B.C. was even before Prabhupäda departed. It thus proves how the G.B.C. was prone to spoil everything he wanted for his movement and his disciples after his departure.
Over and above this, the two events—the room conversation and the unauthorized appointment of the eleven zonals as mahäbhägavats (so-called) are inextricably tied as distinctions without a difference. Nevertheless, since they transpired at different times, they have to be listed and discussed separately.
Prabhupäda was asked, by Satsvarüpa: “ . . . our next question concerns initiations in the future, particularly at that time when you're no longer with us.” There was mäyä in that phraseology, because he said it was one question, when, in point of fact, it was two. Prabhupäda did answer both of them: He answered them separately, and his answers for each of them were different.
His first answer concerned initiations at that time, and he said ISKCON was to resume initiations via the rittvik process, which had been going on since 1970 but had been put on hold for some months due to his severe illness.
Satsvarüpa muddies the whole thing—although more severely this time—by asking, seconds later: “Then what is the relationship of that person who gives the initiation and the . . .” Prabhupäda cut him off. To that point, His Divine Grace was only answering the first question, and his answer was the rittvik system. However, Satsvarüpa now brings in the concept of “who gives the initiation.” That is not the rittvik. Prabhupäda, in cutting him off, answers directly, “He’s guru.”
Satsvarüpa, channeling heavy Mahä-mäyä, continues the muddle, by mixing the initiating spiritual master with the rittvik. S.D.G. then says: “But he does it on your behalf.” Everything is driving straight south by this time. Satsvarüpa has brought the topic back to the rittvik, who conducts the ceremony, so Prabhupäda states that the rittvik initiation is a formal procedure (“That is a formality”), which every initiated disciple of Prabhupäda already knew.
Oh, but it gets even better! S.D.G. muddies the waters further by asking a question that serves as a further diversion: “So, they may also be considered your disciples?” What?!! If the rittvik conducts the ceremony, the yajamäna is Prabhupäda’s disciple. If a guru conducts the ceremony—if one of Prabhupäda’s disciples is actually that guru—then the yajamäna is not Prabhupäda’s initiated disciple but his grand-disciple. Just previous to this nonsense question by Satsvarüpa, Prabhupäda had stated, “Be actually guru, but by my order.” He never gave that order, but he could have. Instead, he re-established the rittvik process for resuming new initiations at that time.
When Satsvarüpa asked about the new initiates also being Prabhupäda’s disciples—a contradiction in and of itself—Prabhupäda responded, “Why consider? Who?” S.D.G.’s question was a nonsense, so Prabhupäda wanted to get the whole interrogatory back on track, but T.K.G. interrupted to make sure that he didn’t:
“No, he's (meaning Satsvarüpa) he’s asking that these rittvik-äcäryas, they're officiating, giving dékñä. The people who they give dékñä to, whose disciple are they?” Now, the whole interview has gone beyond hope, because T.K.G. has directly mixed the officiating rittvik with the one who is, allegedly, giving dékñä.
These guys really blew it! The interview was a debacle, and that was primarily due to selection of the wrong people to ask the questions, and the general sloppiness of the G.B.C.s not making sure that the questions were pointed and clearly phrased. And they were all listening to this, so at least one of them should have been on the ball enough to have intervened in order to get clarification.
At any rate, there is a brief interlude containing even more illusion, but Prabhupäda—successfully, from the viewpoint of your host speaker--sums up the essence. In doing so, he also clarified the second question of the initial inquiry. Prabhupäda says, “When I order, ‘You become guru,’ he becomes regular guru, that's all. He becomes disciple of my disciple. That's it.”
(Bhakta Ernest) Väsu Gopäl has a question.
“Since rittvik was the only order he gave after this room conversation, some say that Prabhupäda ordered eleven of his disciples to become initiating spiritual masters after his departure when he appointed them as officiating äcäryas in July of 1977. Aren’t rittviks either exactly the same—or at least very similar to—regular gurus? Didn’t those eleven men receive the order to initiate in this way?”
That is the classic bewilderment, and that’s what all the leaders of “ISKCON” push. No, the rittvik is not automatically a madhyam-adhikäré. He may be a kaniñöha. In point of fact, it is the view of your host speaker that all of the rittviks post-1970 who conducted all of those initiation ceremonies were neophytes.
The concept of REGULAR guru was introduced, but it had always been there in Prabhupäda’s letters and even in his purports. Regular means under regulation, and that indicates the madhyam-adhikäré. If any of those G.B.C.s were madhyams at the time of the room conversation, then Prabhupäda could have recognized them as such and appointed them initiating spiritual masters on the spot.
The order to be guru was never given by His Divine Grace to anyone, at least not officially. The order for eleven men to serve as rittviks was given, nothing more, and that was nothing new. The Founder of the Hare Kåñëa movement would not jeopardize his branch of the line by indirectly appointing dékñä-gurus through the back door in assigning them as rittviks and leaving it at that. The presumption that he did so is outrageous mental speculation, a serious sin.
And, if they were regular gurus, why did they accept worship reserved for the mahäbhägavat? They were not gurus, but, instead, sahajiyä deviants. The room conversation at Kåñëa-Balaräm of May, 1977 laid the groundwork for their later concoction, because they deviated from the express orders contained in it. Those two bewildered sannyäsés benefited from the muddle they created with their nonsense questions, interruptions, and comments—but only for awhile.
The sixth event that contributed to the formation and growth of “ISKCON” flew under the radar for some time, because it was unknown for many months. Eventually, it became known, and its revelation created no shortage of heartbreak for many devotees when they finally heard about it. Of course, we are referring to one of Prabhupäda’s very last orders here, where he ordered all of his disciples to come to him in India.
By late October and early November of 1977, it was starkly apparent to those who were in direct contact with him—to those who could see his physical manifestation—that he would almost certainly soon be leaving us. Pictures of what he looked like at that time were not circulated, although they should have been. How could anyone remain alive in that condition? His physical manifestation was shriveled and little more than skin and bones, but only those in India and in London, where he briefly visited before deciding to turn back, were actually aware of his physical condition. The vast majority of devotees were not.
As such, in the end, he ordered that all of his disciples come to him, but that order was changed. A compromise was concocted between T.K.G. and the new commissioner in Southern California, who received a relay of the order from T.K.G.. Instead of all disciples, the order got changed to two senior men from each zone. This modification was entirely unauthorized. Late November and December were the most important revenue months for the Western temples, particularly in America. It was known as the Christmas pick, and, if so many of those collectors were going to India instead, that revenue would not flow. So, the order was changed, and everybody got short-changed.
(Bhakta Ernest) Gokulänanda has a question.
“Besides the loss of revenue, how could this modification of the order constitute one of the twelve major deviations you are describing? Although some devotees had their sentiments deeply disturbed that they were not informed of Prabhupäda’s wish, that alone seems to be rather unimportant. Is there some other factor, besides the revenue loss, that converts this modification of his order into a major event which contributed to the degradation and destruction of his movement?”
Changing the order was rationalized, obviously, as having to be made in order for the temples to keep meeting their expenses. The two leaders most implicated thought that Prabhupäda might hold on for the remainder of the year. There may have been more than two, but, for various reasons, that is unclear and will never be cleared up. When the order was given, the Christmas pick was still a few weeks away, but December was the focus of those implicated.
Nevertheless, something else transpired when this order was changed: It proved that Prabhupäda no longer controlled his disciples, and it was now THEIR movement. He ordered that he be taken out on parikrama, but T.K.G. would not allow it. When Hansadutta mentioned to T.K.G. that it was the guru’s order and they should follow it, T.K.G. read him the riot act, accusing him of wanting to kill Prabhupäda. That accusation possibly had a mind-boggling irony connected to it.
By October of 1977, Prabhupäda’s orders meant little or nothing to the big guns—or, at least, to many of them who now controlled the movement from the top echelon—a movement that His Divine Grace had founded and developed. The G.B.C. now controlled it. And whoever controlled, or whichever powerful faction controlled, the G.B.C., in effect controlled the movement, even while Prabhupäda was still physically present and could give orders.
This compromise is proof positive that it was no longer his movement, although that had been the case for quite some time before late October of 1977. That fact is what promotes this particular defiance of his order--that all of his disciples were to come to him--into the category of a major event. That the devotees at large even eventually found out about it is a minor miracle, because this compromise by his leading secretaries was meant to be kept a secret.
We see here, in the description of the three events presented, at least two major compromises. It was compromise after compromise that led to the death blow of the movement in the spring of 1978. Prabhupäda never liked compromise, as he made clear in at least four excerpts from his letters. Here is one of those, dated July 27th, 1973, to his original commissioner in Southern California:
“No compromise. Rämakrishna, avatäras, yogés, everyone was enemy to guru mahäräja. He never compromised. Some godbrothers complained that this preaching was chopping technique, and it would not be successful. But we have seen that those who criticized, they fell down. For my part, I have taken up the policy of my guru mahäräja: No compromise.”
Previously, on January 3rd, 1972, he had written:
“My guru mahäräja never compromised in his preaching, nor will I nor should any of my students.”
At the Vaishnava Foundation, we implement this policy. Perhaps adhering to it makes for the exercise of the chopping technique on our part, but, even if it does so, we still follow it. We do not compromise, and neither should you.
SAD EVA SAUMYA
Quotes from the books of His Divine Grace A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada are copyright by the Bhaktivedanta Book Trust