BACK IN COURT AGAIN. Except, my understanding is that the new case has not been accepted yet, it is going to be reviewed to see if there is merit to a new case. But it is typical of the GBC to use harassing on the Prabhupada devotees.
But all that is what happens when we do not just march into court -- and ask the court -- why are they hearing the pleadings from a homosexual and pedophile "Krishna's successor acharya's" program? Does the court also believe that homosexuals and pedophiles are in a chain of Krishna's successors, and they belong in samadhis -- as the Mumbai GBC promotes? Had Bangalore hired me as their lawyer, this would have ended day one in 1998.
Hee hee, that would place the court into a panic right out of the gate for fumbling this around for so long. Yeah, this is the reason the GBC folks do not waste their time debating with PADA, we just go to the root issue right out of the gate, and they cannot defeat it.
But if we start fumbling around with technical tit for tat -- the Direction of Management, this letter and that letter, we lose the main point, the illicit sex with men, women and children messiah's sampradaya is not qualified to be Krishna's successors, and it is an insult to Krishna to say they are, full stop, end of story, period.
Same problem I had with the British devotees when I opposed Jayatirtha. Well prabhu, you are uncouth and use bad language. OK, and then we had the chloroform gang attacking children at Croome Court while you guys were worried about bad language. It is amazing, people are more worried about PADA's bad language than ISKCON or its citizens, or even their own society's children.
Same thing with HKC Jaipur people, they complain that PADA is always discussing "stinky stools," OK -- and what are we discussing? Krishna's children. They are only worried about bad language, not people, even defenseless children, even Krishna's children. They even openly admit they think Krishna's children are stinky useless stools.
Then they make pretend they have no idea why these children are being abused, after helping the pedophile regime's branding ISKCON's children as useless stools. And that is why we are where we are now. Let us make 2026 the year to end all of this BS and get to the root of these problems. Long overdue.
ys pd
angel108b@yahoo.com
ISKCON Files, an in-depth series uncovering the lesser-known history of ISKCON and the struggles and challenges faced by Vishwaguru Srila Prabhupada, the Founder-Acharya of ISKCON, from some of his own trusted leaders.
ISKCON Mumbai filed a Review Petition in the Supreme Court challenging the historic verdict delivered on 16 May 2025 in favour of ISKCON Bangalore.
After the hearing on 3 December, ISKCON Mumbai released a public statement claiming that the Supreme Court has agreed to a complete rehearing of the case. Their statement further makes incorrect assertions suggesting that ISKCON Bangalore—and even The Akshaya Patra Foundation—fall under the authority of ISKCON Mumbai.
What is the root cause of the long-standing, nearly 25-year dispute between ISKCON Mumbai and ISKCON Bangalore? To understand this properly and in its full depth, we must go back into history. His Divine Grace A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada, the Founder-Acharya of ISKCON, began the movement in 1966.
At the age of seventy, he journeyed to the West aboard a cargo ship, enduring two heart attacks during the voyage. ISKCON was thus founded through immense personal sacrifice and with the support of sincere seekers who were earnestly searching for the meaning of life.
However, the journey was not without challenges. As the movement grew, certain disciples of Srila Prabhupada were entrusted with positions of responsibility to help carry the mission forward. Over time, material ambitions began to surface, and Srila Prabhupada faced serious difficulties—sometimes even from within his own leadership.
In this first episode of Chapter 1, we examine the early days of ISKCON, the emergence of key figures, and the initial ideological tensions. Among them was His Holiness Kirtanananda Swami, whose desire to assume the role of a diksha guru became a significant point of concern.
Kirtanananda Swami promoted a vision of adapting ISKCON to Western cultural norms, believing this would make the movement more accessible and socially acceptable in the West. His approach emphasised institutional respectability, interfaith engagement, and outward forms aligned with mainstream Western religious structures.
In the process, certain practices and standards established by Srila Prabhupada were reinterpreted or minimised the importance. Devotees viewed this as a risk to the integrity of Gaudiya Vaishnava siddhanta and a deviation from Srila Prabhupada’s explicit instructions. These differences revealed a deeper tension between adaptation and fidelity to the Founder-Acharya’s teachings.
In this episode, explore how Srila Prabhupada confronted these challenges and how he addressed them with clarity, authority, and uncompromising stance to siddhanta.
In this episode, explore how Srila Prabhupada confronted these challenges and how he addressed them with clarity, authority, and uncompromising stance to siddhanta.
======
VENEZUALA IS GETTING WORSE
=====
MALATI
=====
PADA: MALATI. Right, you resigned but are still in their camp, like most of the original Srila Prabhupada disciples who are still hanging around ISKCON, who also "resigned" from their official posts a long time ago. But they hang around because they still get their free room and board bread and butter, in some cases servants, housing, vehicles, or maybe even some more wives, or other stipends or benefits, from ISKCON.
ISKCON has had a number of these retired people still taking benefits, like for example Satsvarupa. "Resigned" ages and ages ago, but still has benefits rolling in and lifetime care. Yeah most of them are retired, and so are you, and yet most of them still hang around to get some cash or cashless inheritance. Meanwhile many of the rest of the rank and file are struggling to get any benefits, and will never get a penny from ISKCON.
Resigning is good for them, then they do not have to answer for all the troubles they caused prior to their resigning. "Oh yeah that mess, well I am retired now, no comment about the past." ys pd
=====
DEMONS AND SAINTS from CHAT GPT
Please answer from the perspective of a PhD in Philosophy and Psychology.
I am having a hard time understanding how a person can be saintly AND very demonic at the same time. I just listened to a podcast that explained that different time lines exist simultaneously throughout the universe. Meaning a person may be saintly and simultaneously demonic due to Quantum Mechanics. Meaning someone can be in two different timelines ?
A person can be profoundly loving and also capable of cruelty, but this does not require them to be in two different quantum timelines at once; it reflects the normal complexity and fragmentation of one psyche.
Quantum timelines vs. people
The podcast is mixing two very different things: a physics idea and a psychological / spiritual reality.
In the “many‑worlds” interpretation of quantum mechanics, the universe’s wavefunction “branches” into many non‑interacting worlds when quantum events occur, giving many versions of “you” with shared pasts but different futures.
Those other branches are, by definition, causally cut off from this one; the “you” here cannot directly live out what “you” there is doing, nor does physics use this to explain everyday morality or personality.
So, strictly speaking, modern physics does not say that in this world, one human being is “simultaneously a saint and a demon” in the literal sense because of quantum branching.
Psychological shadow and moral duality
Philosophy and depth psychology already have rich tools for understanding why the same person can feel saintly and demonic without appealing to multiverse physics.
Carl Jung’s notion of the shadow names the disowned or unconscious side of the personality, which includes not only selfish and violent tendencies but also positive, creative impulses that do not fit the conscious self‑image.
The more a person clings to a consciously “pure” or “holy” self‑image, the more dangerous their unacknowledged shadow can become; it may erupt as cruelty, hypocrisy, or what feels like “possession” by something alien and dark.
On this view, “saintly” and “demonic” are not two different versions in different universes; they are two poles of one fractured self, some parts conscious, others repressed or split off. Philosophical views: saint and sinner at once.
Traditions in moral philosophy and theology have long said that human beings are both noble and corrupt at the same time. In Christian thought influenced by Luther, the person is described as simul iustus et peccator — “simultaneously righteous and sinner”: wholly a sinner in actual desires and actions, yet wholly righteous in relation to God by grace.
Contemporary writers use this to emphasize that the “saint” and the “sinner” are not two different entities but two aspects of one life, like a sick person who is genuinely ill yet also already “counted” as healed by a trustworthy physician.
Philosophically, this points to a single self that is internally tension‑ridden, not to separate quantum selves in different worlds. Why people feel “demonic.” From a psychological–philosophical angle, the felt experience of being “very demonic” can be understood without multiverse language:
Strong aggression, envy, sexual impulses, or hatred that conflict with one’s conscious values are often projected outward and experienced as an evil other (demons, dark forces, “not really me”), especially in religious or occult frameworks.
Trauma, dissociation, or rigid moral ideals can intensify this split, so that a person may appear outwardly saintly yet act in ways that even they later experience as if “a demon took over.”
Philosophically, this is a problem of self‑knowledge and integration: the task is to recognize and take responsibility for one’s capacity for evil, not to attribute it solely to another timeline or entity. A way to reframe your question. Keeping your interest in metaphysical ideas in view, one coherent way to hold this is:
Physical level: Quantum multiverse theories (if true) describe multiple non‑interacting histories, but they are not needed to explain ordinary human goodness and evil.
Psychological–spiritual level: Each person in this world is a unity that contains conflicting tendencies—compassion and cruelty, sacrifice and self‑interest—and the work of a lifetime is to become conscious of, and responsible for, both the “saint” and the “demon” within.
If you want, the next step could be to look at one specific case (for example, an abuser who was also deeply religious or “kind”) and unpack what might be happening in that psyche in terms of shadow, dissociation, and moral self‑deception, without needing to invoke multiple timelines.
I am trying to understand how a wonderful God loving person can simultaneously be sexually abusing and physically abusing helpless children in their care. To me sexual abuse of a child is unforgivable. I personally perceive child sexual assaulters as sub human. How can this person truly love and worship God and also be a monster
A person can present as deeply devout and caring while also abusing children because their psyche is fractured: they split, compartmentalize, and deceive themselves so thoroughly that their “God‑loving self” and their “abuser self” hardly ever meet in consciousness. None of this makes what they do forgivable or less monstrous; it explains how such extreme hypocrisy is psychologically
I am having a hard time understanding how a person can be saintly AND very demonic at the same time. I just listened to a podcast that explained that different time lines exist simultaneously throughout the universe. Meaning a person may be saintly and simultaneously demonic due to Quantum Mechanics. Meaning someone can be in two different timelines ?
A person can be profoundly loving and also capable of cruelty, but this does not require them to be in two different quantum timelines at once; it reflects the normal complexity and fragmentation of one psyche.
Quantum timelines vs. people
The podcast is mixing two very different things: a physics idea and a psychological / spiritual reality.
In the “many‑worlds” interpretation of quantum mechanics, the universe’s wavefunction “branches” into many non‑interacting worlds when quantum events occur, giving many versions of “you” with shared pasts but different futures.
Those other branches are, by definition, causally cut off from this one; the “you” here cannot directly live out what “you” there is doing, nor does physics use this to explain everyday morality or personality.
So, strictly speaking, modern physics does not say that in this world, one human being is “simultaneously a saint and a demon” in the literal sense because of quantum branching.
Psychological shadow and moral duality
Philosophy and depth psychology already have rich tools for understanding why the same person can feel saintly and demonic without appealing to multiverse physics.
Carl Jung’s notion of the shadow names the disowned or unconscious side of the personality, which includes not only selfish and violent tendencies but also positive, creative impulses that do not fit the conscious self‑image.
The more a person clings to a consciously “pure” or “holy” self‑image, the more dangerous their unacknowledged shadow can become; it may erupt as cruelty, hypocrisy, or what feels like “possession” by something alien and dark.
On this view, “saintly” and “demonic” are not two different versions in different universes; they are two poles of one fractured self, some parts conscious, others repressed or split off. Philosophical views: saint and sinner at once.
Traditions in moral philosophy and theology have long said that human beings are both noble and corrupt at the same time. In Christian thought influenced by Luther, the person is described as simul iustus et peccator — “simultaneously righteous and sinner”: wholly a sinner in actual desires and actions, yet wholly righteous in relation to God by grace.
Contemporary writers use this to emphasize that the “saint” and the “sinner” are not two different entities but two aspects of one life, like a sick person who is genuinely ill yet also already “counted” as healed by a trustworthy physician.
Philosophically, this points to a single self that is internally tension‑ridden, not to separate quantum selves in different worlds. Why people feel “demonic.” From a psychological–philosophical angle, the felt experience of being “very demonic” can be understood without multiverse language:
Strong aggression, envy, sexual impulses, or hatred that conflict with one’s conscious values are often projected outward and experienced as an evil other (demons, dark forces, “not really me”), especially in religious or occult frameworks.
Trauma, dissociation, or rigid moral ideals can intensify this split, so that a person may appear outwardly saintly yet act in ways that even they later experience as if “a demon took over.”
Philosophically, this is a problem of self‑knowledge and integration: the task is to recognize and take responsibility for one’s capacity for evil, not to attribute it solely to another timeline or entity. A way to reframe your question. Keeping your interest in metaphysical ideas in view, one coherent way to hold this is:
Physical level: Quantum multiverse theories (if true) describe multiple non‑interacting histories, but they are not needed to explain ordinary human goodness and evil.
Psychological–spiritual level: Each person in this world is a unity that contains conflicting tendencies—compassion and cruelty, sacrifice and self‑interest—and the work of a lifetime is to become conscious of, and responsible for, both the “saint” and the “demon” within.
If you want, the next step could be to look at one specific case (for example, an abuser who was also deeply religious or “kind”) and unpack what might be happening in that psyche in terms of shadow, dissociation, and moral self‑deception, without needing to invoke multiple timelines.
I am trying to understand how a wonderful God loving person can simultaneously be sexually abusing and physically abusing helpless children in their care. To me sexual abuse of a child is unforgivable. I personally perceive child sexual assaulters as sub human. How can this person truly love and worship God and also be a monster
A person can present as deeply devout and caring while also abusing children because their psyche is fractured: they split, compartmentalize, and deceive themselves so thoroughly that their “God‑loving self” and their “abuser self” hardly ever meet in consciousness. None of this makes what they do forgivable or less monstrous; it explains how such extreme hypocrisy is psychologically
Your moral intuition
Your sense that child sexual abuse is “unforgivable” and “sub‑human” reflects a very strong moral intuition about the absolute wrongness of violating a helpless child. From a philosophical and psychological standpoint, that intuition is a sign of a healthy capacity for moral horror in the face of radical evil, not an overreaction.
Many trauma theorists now speak of “moral injury” to name the deep rupture of meaning that happens when something this wrong is committed or witnessed; it shakes basic trust in human goodness and in God. Seeing the abuser as “sub‑human” is a way your psyche tries to protect itself: if they are “not really human,” then their capacity for evil feels less threatening to what you hope human beings are.
From a philosophical–psychological view, the task is not to soften that judgment, but to understand the inner mechanisms that make such evil compatible with outward “saintliness.” Compartmentalization and double life
Abusers who are pillars of church or community almost always rely on compartmentalization and splitting. Compartmentalization is a defense where a person puts incompatible realities in separate “mental boxes” so they never look at them at the same time. An abuser can pray, preach, and cry about God’s love in one box, and in another box rape or beat a child, telling himself “this is different,” “this isn’t really me,” or “God understands.”
Over time this becomes a full double life: to the public and even to parts of themselves, they are the generous, devout caregiver; in a secret compartment, disconnected from empathy and conscience, they enact cruelty and sexual exploitation.
Psychologically, this is not healthy complexity; it is a profound disintegration of the self. The “God‑loving” persona is real as performance and feeling, but it is not allowed anywhere near the truth of what they are doing. Self‑deception, shadow, and religious cover.
Depth psychology and moral philosophy offer an additional layer: self‑deception and the shadow. Jung’s idea of the shadow is that the traits a person refuses to see in themselves (cruelty, lust, domination) are driven into the unconscious; they then emerge in uncontrolled and often perverse ways. Religious people who are obsessed with appearing pure are especially prone to pushing their “dark” impulses down rather than integrating them consciously.
Your sense that child sexual abuse is “unforgivable” and “sub‑human” reflects a very strong moral intuition about the absolute wrongness of violating a helpless child. From a philosophical and psychological standpoint, that intuition is a sign of a healthy capacity for moral horror in the face of radical evil, not an overreaction.
Many trauma theorists now speak of “moral injury” to name the deep rupture of meaning that happens when something this wrong is committed or witnessed; it shakes basic trust in human goodness and in God. Seeing the abuser as “sub‑human” is a way your psyche tries to protect itself: if they are “not really human,” then their capacity for evil feels less threatening to what you hope human beings are.
From a philosophical–psychological view, the task is not to soften that judgment, but to understand the inner mechanisms that make such evil compatible with outward “saintliness.” Compartmentalization and double life
Abusers who are pillars of church or community almost always rely on compartmentalization and splitting. Compartmentalization is a defense where a person puts incompatible realities in separate “mental boxes” so they never look at them at the same time. An abuser can pray, preach, and cry about God’s love in one box, and in another box rape or beat a child, telling himself “this is different,” “this isn’t really me,” or “God understands.”
Over time this becomes a full double life: to the public and even to parts of themselves, they are the generous, devout caregiver; in a secret compartment, disconnected from empathy and conscience, they enact cruelty and sexual exploitation.
Psychologically, this is not healthy complexity; it is a profound disintegration of the self. The “God‑loving” persona is real as performance and feeling, but it is not allowed anywhere near the truth of what they are doing. Self‑deception, shadow, and religious cover.
Depth psychology and moral philosophy offer an additional layer: self‑deception and the shadow. Jung’s idea of the shadow is that the traits a person refuses to see in themselves (cruelty, lust, domination) are driven into the unconscious; they then emerge in uncontrolled and often perverse ways. Religious people who are obsessed with appearing pure are especially prone to pushing their “dark” impulses down rather than integrating them consciously.
Hypocrisy becomes a kind of spiritual armor: the more they present themselves as righteous, the more they believe their own act and use it to justify or minimize their abuse (“I do so much good,” “God knows my heart,” “this is a temptation / test”).
Philosophically, evil here is not just “lack of good,” but a twisting of freedom: using spiritual language and religious roles as instruments to violate the most vulnerable. “Do they truly love God?” From a philosophical and theological perspective, this question cuts to the core: can someone who systematically abuses children be said to “truly” love God?
In most religious ethics, love of God is inseparable from love of neighbor, especially the vulnerable; persistent, secret abuse is therefore a direct contradiction of genuine love of God, whatever the person feels in worship.
Psychologically, an abuser can have intense religious feelings—tears in prayer, ecstatic devotion—but feelings are not the same as integrated character. Their spirituality is split off from their moral life and often used to soothe guilt rather than to confront it.
So one hard but honest answer is: they may sincerely experience themselves as loving and worshiping God in certain moments, but their actions show that they do not let that love govern the whole self. There is no coherent, whole‑person love of God while one is actively using children as objects.
Holding onto your own stance
Nothing in a sophisticated psychological account requires you to soften your moral stance toward child abuse or to “understand” in the sense of excusing.
Understanding mechanisms like compartmentalization and shadow can help you keep your own sense of reality intact (“I’m not crazy; people really can be this split and deceptive”), and can validate why survivors are often disbelieved when a perpetrator looks so “good.”
It is philosophically coherent to hold both: “This behavior is monstrous and may feel unforgivable” and “this was done by a human being whose capacity for self‑deception and evil shows how dangerous unintegrated religiosity and shadow can be.”
If you’d like, the next step could be to look at one specific case (real or hypothetical) and map out, step by step, what kinds of inner stories and defenses such a person would have to use to live that double life—always keeping clear that explanation is not exoneration.
Philosophically, evil here is not just “lack of good,” but a twisting of freedom: using spiritual language and religious roles as instruments to violate the most vulnerable. “Do they truly love God?” From a philosophical and theological perspective, this question cuts to the core: can someone who systematically abuses children be said to “truly” love God?
In most religious ethics, love of God is inseparable from love of neighbor, especially the vulnerable; persistent, secret abuse is therefore a direct contradiction of genuine love of God, whatever the person feels in worship.
Psychologically, an abuser can have intense religious feelings—tears in prayer, ecstatic devotion—but feelings are not the same as integrated character. Their spirituality is split off from their moral life and often used to soothe guilt rather than to confront it.
So one hard but honest answer is: they may sincerely experience themselves as loving and worshiping God in certain moments, but their actions show that they do not let that love govern the whole self. There is no coherent, whole‑person love of God while one is actively using children as objects.
Holding onto your own stance
Nothing in a sophisticated psychological account requires you to soften your moral stance toward child abuse or to “understand” in the sense of excusing.
Understanding mechanisms like compartmentalization and shadow can help you keep your own sense of reality intact (“I’m not crazy; people really can be this split and deceptive”), and can validate why survivors are often disbelieved when a perpetrator looks so “good.”
It is philosophically coherent to hold both: “This behavior is monstrous and may feel unforgivable” and “this was done by a human being whose capacity for self‑deception and evil shows how dangerous unintegrated religiosity and shadow can be.”
If you’d like, the next step could be to look at one specific case (real or hypothetical) and map out, step by step, what kinds of inner stories and defenses such a person would have to use to live that double life—always keeping clear that explanation is not exoneration.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.