Bhakti Vikas Swami VS The Women Diksha Guru Agenda

BVKS with the founder father of the sexual predator messiahs program

Mothers and Masters

BY: H.H. BHAKTI VIKASA SWAMI

Several devotees have asked why the title of Women: Mothers or Masters? has been changed to "Mothers and Masters," and why the cover design has been changed.

These changes were made before the ban was removed. The reasoning was that certain detractors much objected to the title and the cover, so, rather than waste time and energy in defending the title and cover, I simply changed them. Let those who would object do so about the contents of the book, and then we will have something substantial to discuss.

The title "Mothers and Masters" is deliberately ambiguous. Does "masters" refer to men or women or both, or maybe to just some women or men? What would be the best title is of course subjective, but the change was made to attempt to somewhat pacify objectors, who were powerful enough to enact a GBC ban.

The title and cover are not as important as the message of the book, which is unchanged. The ban and the response to it has got many devotees reading the book, including it seems many GBC members. I have received many letters about this book and the ban. Here is a sample from one of them;

"When I was a teenager one of my favorite musicians made a new album. Album was of poorer quality than the previous ones so it didn't sell well. However, it contained a controversial song. Soon after the media started talking against it and called for its ban. I even remember seeing a 30 minutes debate bout it at prime time CNN.

After all that the album sales skyrocketed by 600%. :)

So congratulations on your book ban, and the lifting of it. I'm deeply thankful to the GBC for a free worldwide advertisement. One maharaj recently told in a private conversation, "I''ll publish a new book soon. I hope GBC bans it to promote the sales." :)"

Many thanks to all the devotees who have stood by me throughout this bizarre episode (which is not over yet), specially those who publicly objected to the ban. And very special thanks to the Sampradaya Sun for giving coverage.

This is a time of much churning within ISKCON. Let us hope that, as in the churning of the milk ocean, although poison was first produced, eventually many good things came out and finally there was nectar.

[PADA: The original title of the Bhakti Vikas Swami's book was "Women, Masters or Mothers?" Why? Because some of the GBC's "liberals" wanted to make some ISKCON women into GBC elected gurus or "spiritual masters." Some women were complaining that only the ISKCON men were being made into diksha gurus, why not some women as well? 

And this became known as the "FDG" "Female Diksha Guru" issue. At the same time BVKS applauds Rocana, who says that worship of pure devotees is the "bogus church of ritviks," and he promotes the idea that the GBC can vote in (more deviants?) as their gurus, despite no such guru voting process was ever presented by Srila Prabhupada.   

Anyway, BVKS then came forward to basically say -- women are not eligible for guru posts, and thus he wrote, are women -- Masters or Mothers? The most likely candidates for women gurus were apparently Urmila dasi (Edith Best) and Malati dasi, and maybe a few others. And since Urmila was a big leader of the then GBC's SAC (Shastra Advisory Committee) this created a big rift where some of the other GBC's "conservative" followers created a competing SAC, since they do not think women should be voted in as gurus -- or have a seat on the SAC. Lets not get started on asking why gurus would need a shastra advisory board? 

Urmila Dasi aka Edith Best

Basically Bhakti Vikas Swami is saying that women cannot become ISKCON gurus because they are not really qualified, at the same time the BVKS (and Rocana's) guru program has been certifying various men as their gurus, who are prone to illicit sex and other deviations. And BVKS guru parampara thus has deviations going on left, right and center among the "more qualified men" -- men that the BVKS program rubber stamps as their gurus. 

At the same time BVKS presents no evidence from Srila Prabhupada that any guru appointment / guru voting process was ever made, where either men or women gurus would be "2/3 show of hands voted in" by the GBC. Urmila herself admits the GBC's guru voting program is a giant scam, at the same time she supports the people in charge of this scam as bona fide gurus? 

And she has been cited by a PADA reader as "being critical of Bangalore" because they worship Srila Prabhupada and not the GBC debauchee guru process. OK so its a scam to worship the bogus GBC gurus program, but its even more bogus to worship Srila Prabhupada? These people are really spinning words these days.

The "liberals" (the pro-women guru party) are headed up by people like Hrdayananda and Bir Krishna swamis of North Carolina, and that is also where their proposed woman guru Urmila dasi who has lived previously -- as Bir Krishna's friendly cheer leading neighbor. Bir Krishna is reported to be very liberal with his views on women, and that is apparently why his disciple complained to PADA that Bir Krishna's cigarette smoking and meat eating mother is being worshiped there as the "guru mata." 

And his disciples are thus reportedly offering obeisances to their guru mata. Apparently her used cigarettes are some type of "maha prasada"? So this is a very liberal interpretation of how women, even mundane women, should be worshiped as divine beings in ISKCON, again not based on any citations from Srila Prabhupada. And we never get any explanation why folks like Urmila and other "seniors" sit in the midst of all these things, and we do not see much of their protest all these deviations either? Urmila did return a letter I sent her a long time ago addressing the child molesting issue, and she wrote "no interest" and sent it back to me. She is an alleged authority on the GBC's schools, and she has "no interest" in what goes on in these schools?

All this worship of a cigarette smoking elderly woman is supposedly because Bir Krishna's mom "has a pure devotee (Bir Krishna) as her son." OK, so this means that the GBC overall approves of having an elderly cigarette smoking and meat eating woman being worshiped as the guru mata, because Bir Krishna is one of their certified gurus. Why doesn't Bhakti Vikas Swami ever address these types of issues? He is complaining about the women -- who are making complaints about not being gurus, what about the men who are creating all these other deviations?

Notice that this is all a tempest in a teapot. They are all actually on the same page. 

Bhakti Vikas Swami is part of the illicit sex with men, women and children acharya's club, so is Hrdayananda, so is Bir Krishna, so is Urmila, so are the SAC members. And Rocana is saying his post-1977 gurus will fall into illicit sex, so we need to tighten up the enforcement rules of his illicit behavior gurus. And that means Rocana still thinks gurus are prone to illicit sex as well. So everyone in this group agrees that gurus are often debauchees.    

And Urmila is simply another one of them, that's all, and so some folks want to make her officially one of them because she has been loyal to the promoters of the illicit sex guru sampradaya. So this seems to be really all about their guru franchise business handing out more franchises. Already many men have gotten their guru franchise program, and so naturally some women in their clique would eventually become envious of the men getting the only available acharya seats in the guru sabha. 

And so they would also protest and demand a seat there too. However, all of them, Bhakti Vikas Swami / Hrdayananda swami / Bir Krishna swami / and Urmila et al. have all been enforcers in the cult enforced ritualistic worship of deviants as acharyas program. So they are all fighting with their own shadows, because their whole idea that we have deviants in the parampara is bogus.

Hrdayananda now says that we cannot enforce corruption over others, but that has been his trade mark activity since 1977. Worse, he still claims he is a guru despite all the devastation his program generated. 

Their program only works because it enforces the worship of deviants by systematic banning of dissenters. Urmila for example allegedly designs the school curriculum for ISKCON schools, and it is self-apparent she is part of the illicit sex with men, women and children messiah's project. Why is she being allowed to make ANY agenda for ANY school children when she is participating with the program that is teaching teeny innocent children -- the path to attain God is to worship an illicit sex acharya's process? 

And some people have actually asked PADA about this, is what Urmila is doing even legal? Are there any actual documents found in any pre-1977 ISKCON papers or writings where we are supposed to be teaching children to worship the GBC's illicit sex with men, women and children guru parampara lineage? Nope. Its fraud. 
  
Meanwhile when a karmi CBS TV woman filmed Kirtanananda covered with the hands of fifty little boys, she figured out he was a sexual predator of minors in a second. So that means the ordinary karmi woman on the street is more advanced than this whole lot put together, because one of these karmi women was able to figure out the whole GBC process is promoting deviants as its messiahs -- and she figured this out before the assembled GBC men (and women) did. 

Did we forget to mention that the GBC's guru program, ok same GBC's guru program as the Bhakti Vikas Swami, Hrdayananda Swami, Bir Krishna swami, and Urmila program -- buried Kirtanananda in Vrndavana? So their program is worshiping known sexual predators of minors as their departed acharyas in samadhis -- no less. 

Yep. Their program is still worshiping sexual predators as their "samadhi acharyas" even after they depart their bodies. However! Ask any normal woman walking down the street in San Francisco, should a sexual predator of minors be worshiped as a departed saint? And the average woman knows the answer is no, while this group is sitting around drooling on themselves because they cannot figure this out one way or other. 

OK so their whole GBC affiliated group includes Bhakti Vikas Swami, his alleged nemesis the liberals, and their proposed woman guru Urmila, and none of them are taking a stand against the whole GBC idea that debauchees are often Krishna successors and that we have to follow the Prabhupadanuga process forwarded by PADA and others.

So:

The Bhakti Vikas Swami guru parampara contains illicit sex with men, women and children ...  

The Hrdayananda, Bir Krishna Swami, Urmila dasi -- guru parampara also contains illicit sex with men, women and children ... 

and maybe sex with goats ...

Ditto heads? So what is the difference between all these parties? There is none, the entire claim of Bhakti Vikas swami is that only MEN are allowed into his illicit sex with men, women and children guru's program, whereas women should not be allowed in -- because they are not qualified? Meanwhile it is self evident BVKS has no idea who is qualified to be voted in as the local dog catcher. 

And thus any average women on the street is more qualified than this whole bunch because she knows that deviants are not messiahs? What difference does it make if a deviation is being promoted by men or women? And why are these people not listening to the average woman on the streets of San Francisco, that deviants cannot be gurus, and should not be buried in a samadhi?    

Anyway we are glad that the members of the illicit sex with men, women and children messiah's sampradaya are fighting over who can promote that deviation. Only men can promote these deviations! Nope, women can also promote these deviations? Ummm, sorry, no one is allowed to promote deviations.     

At the same time, Hrdayananda admits that the GBC's rules for deviating acharyas are not even being actually published publicly:

 
GBC Does Not Publish Self-disciplinary Rules

The GBC also discourages possible challenges to GBC conduct by concealing GBC laws that speak in detail of possible GBC misconduct. For example, at the 1988 Mayapur meetings, on February 26, the GBC passed a resolution explicitly stating under what circumstances a GBC member may be censured, put on
probation, suspended, or removed. But this resolution was not published in ISKCON Law. 

Rather, in ISKCON Law 5.5, the word GBC has been everywhere deleted from this elaborate text, and replaced with the words, “an ISKCON official.” GBC published law thus refers only indirectly to a GBC member. 

Although technically, “an ISKCON official” could be a GBC member, the GBC is shy to ever publish laws that explicitly spell out possible GBC misconduct.
The GBC is not shy about explicitly mentioning other leaders, especially diksa gurus. Basically, the same rules to censure, put on probation, suspend, or remove a diksa guru, by name, are found in section 84 of ISKCON law. The GBC did not soften the laws on diksa gurus by, for example, replacing the word diksa guru with spiritual authorities. But they did remove the name GBC from all detailed disciplinary laws. (Hridayananda Das Goswami)

[PADA: Yep, what a bunch of mumbo jumbo, however we would not want people to think that the person who is deviating is one of our voted in diksha guru messiahs. Heh heh heh. So they are also fighting over how hard they should try to hide the deviations of their own alleged "officials" who are generally their messiahs. That is why it is said, what a tangled web we weave when first we try to deceive. 

Anyway this is a fight over basically nothing really, since all of the fighters are in agreement that God's successors / gurus / acharyas / messiahs are often deviants. And the main fight seems to be, how hard should we try to cover up the deviations of our voted in gurus, and should we allow women to also become our voted in acharyas -- so we can start the next fight -- how far we need to go to cover up their deviations? 

Why not just worship the pure devotee Srila Prabhupada instead of all this elaborate ruse, well prabhu, that would be too easy! Did we forget to mention that either a man or a woman can give others bhakti, its not a question of the body, its a question of the purity of the consciousness. 

Meanwhile, hardly no one seems to understand that men or women kanisthas cannot be diksha gurus and take the sins without severe reactions. Nor is anyone from their group even discussing this factor apparently?

ys pd]