Origins Of ISKCON's Pedophile Messiahs' Project

[PADA: A number of the alleged ISKCON 1978 "good as God" messiahs began having affairs with followers shortly after they began their "11 appointed gurus / big lie." However, Srila Prabhupada says -- when a guru has sex with his disciple, it is the same as a father having sex with his own daughter. It is pedophile behavior. 

And thus, after 1978, ISKCON has made one direct or de facto pedophile guru after the next to be their acharyas / gurus / messiahs, including one of their current gurus named Lokanath swami. And / or they made the cheer leaders of that process also gurus. The Vedas say -- the people who worship deviants [or pedophiles] as their gurus are all going to hell, and so are the promoters of that system also going to hell, along with the bogus gurus who are the leaders of that system. ys pd] 

Books by Hare Krishna Historian Henry Doktorski

Yesterday at 10:37 AM ·

February 1979: On or around this date in history 43 years ago, Yashodanandan Swami challenged the zonal acharyas to a debate at the February 1979 GBC meetings in Vrindaban, India. Kailasa-Chandra dasa, who was regarded as a philosophical pundit, was asked to write a position paper for the challengers. Although Yashodanandan had issued the challenge to debate the new gurus, and Kailasa-Chandra had written their position paper, it was Pradyumna—a scholar whose knowledge of logic and shastra was formidable—who was chosen to be the spokesman for the reform party. 

All eleven new gurus showed up for the Vrindaban debate. The atmosphere was tense. The chief points of contention by the reformers were:

1) The new gurus were not entitled to accept worship from their godbrothers and / or godsisters;

2) Any worship of the new gurus should be held in some kind of private quarters, not in front of the deities in a temple established by Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada;

3) The worship of the new gurus was far too lavish, and they did not deserve to accept such worship whatsoever;

4) To perpetuate the line of ISKCON, the current arrangement for the disciplic succession (by the GBC, which was dominated by the Acharya Board) was a counter-productive concoction, and had to be immediately reversed before it was too late;

5) There were other godbrothers who deserved to be able to initiate new disciples into Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada’s branch of the disciplic succession, and some kind of accommodation needed to be made as soon as possible for them.

The strategy of the reform group relied, in great measure, on the presentation of Pradyumna, who would represent them in the debate. They also relied upon the confrontation remaining civil and conducted in brahminical fashion but, unfortunately for the reformers, the debate was not conducted this way, except during the first ten minutes.

Kailasa-Chandra described the debate:

The debate ensued and, without question, Pradyumna was winning. Everybody in the room knew it. It was a bit contentious, but it remained civil. There can be little doubt that the new “gurus” were becoming uncomfortable, as things were not going their way. This back and forth between these two men was riveting, and then Pradyumna brought up the point about preserving Prabhupada’s line by emulating how the current acharyas of the South Indian lines (Madhvacharya line and Ramanuja sampradaya) carry on after the disappearance of the acharya, the maha-bhagavat.

Hridayananda, a proud man, jumped on this opening. He had been chafing at the bit previous to this point, but now he pounced: “Who cares about the Ramanuja sampradaya!?!?!” 

Hridayananda’s bellicose side came out in a big way, and he parlayed that audacious comment with one after another after another. He made it clear that Pradyumna was simply engaged in offending “gurus,” that Prabhupada never named Pradyumna as a guru, that the “gurus” were unassailable, that all the men of the reform party simply were agitating in order to themselves be named as gurus, that the movement was going on nicely and only in Vrindaban was it not going on well, because Pradyumna and Yashodanandan had allowed Vrindaban to become poisoned by fault-finding and enviousness, etc.

The debate was over! The tenor had been set, and speaker after speaker followed in suit. It was all designed to invoke fear, doubt, and guilt in everybody on the reform side. Ramesvara, who was sitting right next to Hridayananda, came in right away with a similar volley, emphasizing how the rest of the movement—and particularly his zone—is fully dedicated to distributing books, but there was no book distribution going on in Vrindaban, which had thus become merged in fault-finding as a result.

Panchadravida Swami [the GBC representative for Mexico, Central America, Colombia and El Salvador] spoke, and he was ultra-heavy, saying that all the initiates not named gurus by Prabhupada were duty-bound to recognize the gurus Prabhupada had [supposedly] appointed as basically almost as good as Prabhupada himself. Kirtanananda spoke only once, and his speech was just about as heavy as Panchadravida’s, relating how his worship at New Vrindaban enlivened his disciples, godbrothers, and godsisters.

Jayatirtha waved a document in the air (not the position paper written by myself, but another paper which I had influenced) and announced that this philosophy was poison. I asked, “What is that [allegedly-poisonous] philosophy?” and Satsvarupa dasa Goswami piped up and shouted, “We do not want to hear this man’s philosophy!”

The new self-appointed “gurus” ended the meeting in complete triumph. Pradyumna left the meeting early on when the “gurus” began their tirade. He later explained, “These men are not honest.”

Eleven Naked Emperors, Chapter 8: Crushing the Opposition, pp. 148-151.

http://henrydoktorski.com/11NakedEmperors.html