.”…..He (shall) think to change times and laws………”
“And think to change times and laws: to alter the forms and constitutions of kingdoms, and the customs and usages of them; yea, to set up and pull down kings at pleasure; see Daniel 2:21, or to change the use of times and seasons, by setting apart days as holy for canonized saints; and appointing such days in a week, and such a season in the year, for abstinence from meats; and even to change the laws of God and man, by dispensing with both, and making new ones of his own:
Examples of GBC gurus flouting the guru (authorized teacher) and the parampara (tradition):
(1) The GBC (Governing Body Commission) tried to copyright Hare Krishna and Sankirtana, against ISKCON founder Srila Prabhupada’s express wishes.
Meanwhile, they were denigrating his style of teaching as charismatic and authoritarian.
They even accused him falsely of sex-crimes, while their own members stood accused of much worse.
[Here is a link to a gallery of what the author calls “bogus” Hare-Krishna gurus (all whites, apparently), many of them homosexuals and some pedophiles, none of which is remotely orthodox or traditional.]
Note: I cannot attest to the veracity of these charges and link to them only to show the nature of the accusations against these new gurus.
2) A GBC guru teaches consequentialism and claims to find it in the Bhagavad Gita; taking an antagonistic position to his own guru; and playing down Srila Prabhupada’s strict and correct teaching on homosexuality:
In a Bhagavatam purport (3.20.26), Srila Prabhupada says that “It appears here that the homosexual appetite of males for each other is created in this episode of the creation of the demons by Brahma.”
But Maharaja says, “Yet although homosexuality is said to have existed since the dawn of creation, the Bhagavatam does not explicitly describe nor proscribe it.”
 But then what does it mean to call Srila Prabhupada’s statement a purport, wherein Prabhupada explicitly describes it and proscribes it? If Srila Prabhupada’s purport does not convey the intended meaning of shastra, then it is faulty (and why even pretend to call it a “purport”?), and if it is faulty it has no authority.”
I have an abiding affection and respect for the Torah, the Kabbalah and Zohar, despite my dislike for some things in them. I also see Jews as very similar to Indians in their abilities and in their flaws. I believe there are some deep cultural and racial ties between the two peoples that have been obscured by mainstream history.
However, there’s no sense in pussy-footing around this topic, which is central to the whole global-government racket.
The Rothschild cabal uses its co-ethnics and co-religionists as the hit-men in its schemes, just as it used them during the Russian Revolution.
The hit-men often do not know the role they play or are so traumatized by propaganda about unremitting, uncaused persecution that they cannot see through their manipulation or the nature of their provocation of other people.
In the end, innocent Jewish people, sincere followers of the Torah or the Talmud, suffer the back-lash. To them I offer my apologies for any offense I might give.
Mukunda Das at HareKrishna.com makes the charge that the ISKCON (International Society of Krishna Consciousness) has been infiltrated and subverted by “global religion” advocates, just as traditional Catholicism was, according to many sources.
This subversion is in the direction of “diacritical theology.”
“Diacritical theology” supports anti-orthodox, leftist interpretations of Hinduism, pluralism aka multi-culturalism, liberalism (anti-traditionalism), and academic theorizing.
It is against agamic, traditional, orthodox, and practice-based religion:
Devotees since the inauguration of ISKCON have recognized the role that Jewish background devotees (JBD’s, for the purpose of simplification) have played in ISKCON. This is no secret.
If one speaks of this in positive and glowing terms it is thoroughly accepted without comment.
If anyone has a realization or evidence that shows the JBD’s in a lesser light, it is strongly denounced as Anti-Semitic.
Mukunda Das (continued):
Surely there is no harm in intelligently discussing the subject of the Jewish influence in our movement without resorting to being labeled as an Anti-Semite or being labeled a Bigot….. ….
..Having said all of this, I would like to ask Nrsimhananda prabhu why he has only pointed out his opinion of me being Anti-Semitic, and did not make comment on the real issues?
The issue is that when you analyze the movement’s development towards academia, liberalism, pluralism, corporatism, and impersonalism, you will find devotees who hail from a Jewish background.
The real issue is that these JBD’s are steering the movement into becoming a generic religion and using academia and interfaith ideologies to do so. These JBD’s don’t make public their papers and ideas, which are well guarded by the walls of academia and cries of Anti-Semitism by apologists and uneducated disciples and associates.
We know that these JBD’s are being very secretive in publishing their views and opinions.
If you logged onto the ISKCON administered Oxford Centre for Hindu Studies website, you will find Dr. Kenneth Valpey’s (Krishna Kshetra prabhu’s) papers are presented in a list of many other lecturers.
The only problem is that his papers are not downloadable nor are Madhavi Nevader’s “A Jewish understanding of monotheism in the Hebrew bible: In conversation with Hindu perspectives.”
Both Dr. Kenneth Valpey’s and Madhavi Nevader’s are not, but the other lecturer’s lectures are freely available and easily downloadable.
Try and find a copy of Tamal’s Thesis.”
[Lila: Despite his name, Tamal Krishna Goswami is of American and Jewish extraction. All the maha-bhagvats, the senior leaders, are American Jews. Not one is Indian!]
Mukunda Das (cont):
Dr Lipner, Tamal Krishna Goswami’s handler, states in Tamal’s Obituary:
“He placed the last chapter of his dissertation on my desk before he left for India. We were due to discuss it the week after his return. It is my intention to seek to publish the thesis in his name after due formalities have been seen to.”
Dr Lipner, a Professor at Cambridge University England, has not to date published or made public the work of the student he glorified so much. It has now been seven years since Tamal Krishna Goswami’s demise.
Nrsimhananda prabhu, if you looked at the Jewish influence in our movement from a simple statistical point of view and compared it by world population standard, the Jewish people number some .2 percent of the world population. That is Point Two Percent.
If this math is correct, then if there were 10,000 active devotees in the movement there will be only 20 devotees who come from a Jewish background.
I think you will find that there are many more than that number. What that means is not of interest here. What is of interest is how many devotees in leadership and senior positions in ISKCON are JBD’s.
You will certainly see that a disproportionate number of our leaders are of Jewish background. As Kailasa Candra dasa mentioned in his article ““ISKCON” Gurus, Initiations, and Party Men”: “In America, Jews account for less than three percent of the population.
But six of these eleven pretender maha-bhagavats, so-called Zonal Acaryas, were of Jewish descent.”
One of the European Zonal Acaryas was engaged in LSD ecstacies, and, although this was covered up for years, that bluff could not last long. A West Coast Zonal got implicated in criminal activities, some of them violent, and he was relegated to the same bad boy status as TKG (eventually culminating in excommunication a few years later). Another European Zonal in due course became exposed for lavish expenditures and gold bathroom fixtures. Two of the “new gurus” became either rumored to be involved in or directly implicated in separate homosexual activities. Worst of all, the Zonal who was the chief scribe produced a very offensive and misleading biography of Srila Prabhupada.” ]
Mukunda Das (cont):
That’s well over fifty percent of the so-called successors. Why so many Jews?
TKG, himself of Jewish decent, was the man exemplifying the whole scheme. Was it some kind of Jewish cabal?”
The fact is that there is a disproportional number of JBD’s to non-JBD’s in the leadership of our movement, especially when you are referring to world population statistics.
[Lila: It is no use to suggest this number is due to high Ashkenazi IQ’s, hard-work, and superior genetics, because there are countless exemplary Indian gurus and academics who could well occupy the same positions.
Also, Brahmins, especially Tamil Brahmins, have IQs as high, if not higher, than Ashkenazim.
Finally, the Indian gurus’ command of the language and culture must naturally be much greater than that of a majority of foreigners.
By contrast, imagine if the majority of Rabbis in Israel were of American Baptist origin or the majority of the College of Cardinals in Rome were African converts from Islam…or the majority of senior Imams in Iran were originally Christianized Israelis….well, one cannot even imagine such things, because they’re so ridiculous. ]
For example, if there were conservatively speaking 300 senior leaders in our movement, according to world population statistics at least 0.6 of them will be JBD’s.
That is, only ¾’s of a person would be a JBD. If we are referring to Americans, where 3% of the population are Jews, then 9 would be JBD’s. But the movement is not made up of Americans.
Looking at these very simplistic statistical results we can at least expect that one or maybe two of our leaders would be JBD. If I was to count how many JBD’s I know are in leadership, I would hazard a guess that it would be considerably more than .2% — at a very conservative guess, I would say at least 50% are JBD’s. Do the math yourself and see how many you know are our senior leaders and gurus.
You will probably find that the percentage could well be much higher than I suspect. Nrsimhananda prabhu, how many of our leaders who are JBD’s promote Pluralism, Academia, Secular Education, Interfaith and Liberalism? Then see if I am being Anti-Semitic, or am I being realistic.
Diacritical Theology is the main thrust of the various Religious Academic Institutions and interfaith dialogues. This form of Theology demands an academic approach to Scripture and its implementation.
[Lila: This is precisely what happened to orthodox Catholicism. Academic theologians – under no authoritative religious discipline – were allowed to shape Catholic doctrine and pass off pure heresy as doctrine.Then the heresies and malpractice were used to denigrate Catholicism, while the doctrines were diluted or changed.
The same thing is being done to Hinduism: it is being remade to conform to the need of the New World Order for a one-world religion.]
Diacritical Theology, put simply, means that one must use one’s intelligence to critically analyze Scriptural text and the word of the guru or theologian.
[Lila: The first demand of a guru in any monastic/religious order is the demand for obedience. That is why Jesus himself is described as “obedient unto death.”]
Mukunda Das (cont):
…… The result of Tamal Krishna Goswami’s and Krishna Kshetra prabhu’s analysis of Srila Prabhupada and his teachings is clearly evident in this paper.
We have no need of Tamal Krishna Goswami’s so-called Doctoral Thesis to elucidate their opinion.
To sum it up, they say that Srila Prabhupada’s time has come to an end and it is now the time of the Academic Diacritical Theologian.
Srila Prabhupada’s approach was old school, top down authoritarian, and acculturated blind following. Therefore, it was counterproductive for the achievement of the fullest human potential.”
[Lila: This is a direct reference to the “Human Potential Movement,” another counter-cultural movement.]
He promulgated an archaic sectarian approach to religion that did not allow for open and honest religious dialogue and acceptance of other faiths.
In other words, they know better than Srila Prabhupada. Nrsimhananda prabhu, if you were to critically analyze the paper that they presented to the academic world, then maybe you will see what I am saying instead of hiding behind name calling.
I fully acknowledge that there are many sincere JBD’s in ISKCON who are very serious about their spiritual life and are serving Srila Prabhupada to their best ability and with all their heart, who have nothing whatsoever to do with these people.
To these devotees I offer my most humble and sincere apologies if I have offended you. My only desire is to have this subject matter discussed in an open and honest manner and to end all this secrecy and deception. For what a wicked web we weave when at first we practice to deceive…”
Wikipedia says that Srila Prabhupada himself created the GBC and appointed the gurus.
But whether he did or not, he could not possibly have intended for it to do away with the guru-shishya (master-apprentice/devotee) parampara (tradition), subjecting it to a centralized bureaucratic committee that depends on voting:
Krishna advises in the beginning of the Bhagavad-gita that if one wants to make spiritual advancement, he must surrender to a bona fide spiritual master, inquire submissively, render service and offer obeisances because such a self-realized soul can give him real knowledge, as he has seen the truth. ISKCON has long ago rejected these clear instructions from Krishna and openly preaches to the devotees that they should surrender to ‘spiritual masters’ who are not self-realized and who have not seen the truth, and that somehow they will benefit from this.
But now, since this new parallel lines paper has become ISKCON law, they have practically eliminated the guru from ISKCON. Now the guru in ISKCON is simply a servant of the centralized, bureaucratic and dictatorial GBC, who give orders which the ‘gurus’ must follow, or be considered ‘rogue gurus’ and face excommunication from ISKCON. There are no parallel lines of authority any more. There is only one authority, the GBC, and everyone in ISKCON must surrender to and serve the GBC.