Yeah, you can tell by Butler's "spaced out" look that he's really deep in thought about how he can jump in on this "guru gig"...

Yes, Butler was very opposed to the idea of an "appointed" guru. I remember that very vividly. Ironically, in Gaudiya Matha this was a standard practice to this very day—a guru in these Krishna cults is 9 out of 10 mostly appointed by a predecessor achary. It's standard practice and 100% "bonafide".

I don't want to get into the nitty gritty of the GBC, but it was absolutely vouched for by Swami Prabhupada. Even in his lifetime, there was ritvik diksha being carried out by the GBC, as far as I recall. and on that note, concepts like "shiksha" and "Diksha" guru were so foreign and not even discussed in the butler group that when his followers started coming out and saying they were taking "shiksha" from some godbrother of his, lets just say that Butler lost his shit and largely had no idea of the concept and what it even meant in the Gaudiya Tradition—which is largely shiksha based on NOT diksha.

I'm not sure of the logic surrounding Butlers idea on guru-ship, but he always touted that a guru is "self-effulgent" whatever the fuck that means. But the fact is that he WAS appointed. He was appointed by Tusta on a number of occasions and many early followers who were sort of in ISKCON and took diksha from Prabhupada Bhaktivedanta were vouching for him to be the next guy and ISKCOn wasn't having it so he left. He left with basically everyone he came into ISKCON with.

A Babaji sitting privately practicing his bhajan and getting "discovered" by a true "seeker" is one thing. A Babaji who has his stoner buddies make posters and advertise his kundalini LSD party on the North Shore is not self-effulgent.

When Bhaktivednata left India, Gaudiya Matha was in utter disgraceful shambles. and faction groups splintered all claiming some sort of special "appointed" status. And who really knows? I am sure Bhaktisiddhanta did not just leave it to the wind who was going to manage his cult when he died. But suffice it to say, that before his body was even cold in the samadhi tomb, the fighting started.

Bhaktivednata became disillusioned with the mess the cult became. He left his wife, got sanyas, and took years to draft one volume of bhagavatam while he peacefully chanted in Radha Damodar mandhir. Then he supposedly had visions and dreams as it often goes, and felt the stars align for a trip to the west.

We know the rest. But what many don't know is that all the while Bhaktivedanta, who gained some success in the west with the cult, had Gaudiya matha knocking on his doors regularly for help with projects, and all manner of "let's be friends" talk. Now, I don't have citations, but let's just say the swami was not friendly in his replies to his "godbrothers".

Basically, it takes on average no more than 20 years between these cult leaders for issues to arise. Where all the "you're not the doer", "You're not the body", "everything belongs to Krishna", and "chant and be happy", quickly goes down the drain. From stalwart acharya, to minion dishwalla.

Within the bulter cult, an appointment of types was always happening. It was made very clear early on in joining the cult that Tusta and Katyayani were sort of "satellite" gurus we were to listen to and venerate. Now mind you, from a lay, child-like perspective all I saw that as special about Tusta and Katyayani was that they were successful businesspeople. And they gave a lot of money to Burler. Now it all makes sense.

I don't think swmai Prabhupada was some greedy money hungry old man. I don't think he was above money or felt that money was not a MAJOR part of operating an expanding cult dynamic with a long wish list of expensive shit: Templs, traveling, properties, events, books publishing, etc etc, A far cry from the babaji sitting doing his bhajan.

I would not call this cult insidious. UNLESS we look at what the word means:

insidious
adjective
Working or spreading harmfully in a subtle or stealthy manner.

Absolutely. This cult and ISKCON caused a lot of harm to followers and often did not look back or stop to reassess the damages in their wake. They had underhanded money/business dealings and took advantage of people. Butler did shady stuff with ISKCON properties and money and obviously ISKCON has had many shady dealings. They also use underhanded recruitment methods to try to appeal to a broader crowd and are rarely forthcoming about what they really believe and teach.

Intended to entrap; treacherous.

Again, I believe they do this all the time. Butler used to send disciples to gay clubs to gather intel on the "gay lifestyle" and dig up dirt on opponents and definitely a good number of Butlers followers were tricked and persuaded to hand over their businesses to him or other similar tactics.


But that's to be expected.

Hey man, I was not trying to be argumentative or anything earlier; I was only seeking clarification. No hard feelings, I hope? I have none for you.

Tell you what: send me an address in a private message, and I'll send you a copy of "Emperors" as a Christmas gift. I could probably even get you an autographed copy.

And I agree, though I have no direct personal experience with SOIF or any of its active members: both ISKCON and SOIF are "insidious" groups. ISKCON sure is.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 12/21/2023 06:29AM by XKRISHNA.

It's ok man. You don't need to send me the book.

And no hard feelings.

No hard feelings. I get your point. But you'd be hard-pressed to get much of a direct citation for shit that was done in private, often through letters or audio recordings, many if not all destroyed by now some 30 years later.

I appreciate the gesture of the copy of the book, but I'm not likely going to read it, though I know it's interesting I am sure.

Thank you kindly, friend.

You are right: some things are not cite-able and one just has to take the word of the person who is reporting the information, that it is accurate. I never doubted your words, either: I just wanted to be able to look at the "idiots" quote in context.

If you ever change your mind about the book, I will hook you up. Peace be upon you.

And you.

RUN_FOREST_RUN Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> And you.

OK, so I did my homework. Pages 70-71 and 151-152 of Henry Doktorski's "Eleven Naked Emperors" deals specifically with Chris Butler and SOIF. There it is.

[www.henrydoktorski.com]



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/21/2023 11:17PM by XKRISHNA.

RUN_FOREST_RUN Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I'm not sure of the logic surrounding Butlers idea
> on guru-ship, but he always touted that a guru is
> "self-effulgent" whatever the fuck that means. But
> the fact is that he WAS appointed. He was
> appointed by Tusta on a number of occasions and
> many early followers who were sort of in ISKCON
> and took diksha from Prabhupada Bhaktivedanta were
> vouching for him to be the next guy and ISKCOn
> wasn't having it so he left. He left with
> basically everyone he came into ISKCON with.

From the perspective of a member of the SoI/SIF group in Poland, it looked like this: "guru" Chris Butler says he is a self-effulgent, a transparent medium for God. Nevertheless, he sends Tusta Krishna das. Rarely anyone has seen him in person - and Bhagavad Gita says - get close to a self-realized person. Okay, let's ask questions. But the "guru" did not respond to the letters. However, point 3 - dedicated service - absolutely. Then it turns out that Tusta Krishna das is sick, so he introduces his friend Balakhilya das to everyone. Wait a minute - what about the idea of a 'self-effulgent' guru? After all, it was said that the appointed "gurus" are bad. The "guru" here is Chris Butler but Tusta Krishna das arrives and in a moment he introduces his friend Balakhilya das? Double appointed? Two hierarchical opaque mediums for a transparent medium for God? Okay, Tusta Krishna das is also a "pure devotee" so he is also a "transparent medium for God". But does being a "transparent medium for God" mean being a "transparent medium for a transparent medium for God"? Nobody asks about the title "Paramahamsa". But we find out that the "guru" has a wife. Married paramahamsa? Renounced order of life? But the wife runs a business. He is not at the "vanaprastha" stage - sacrifices and pilgrimages, he is just making money. So what? A married paramahamsa has a wife who is a vaisya from China? Something is not right here. In addition, A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami clearly wrote in his letter that Chris Butler and David Muncie are sanyasins, but it turns out that they are married sanyasins...

To this day, there is a joke about the center's leaders among former SoI/SIF members in Poland. "So-and-so 'das'. Could you tell us something about Krishna? Yes, I could tell you something about Krishna"....

Or the question of "Jagad Guru". We ask - who gave Chris Butler the title "Jagad Guru" - which parish? What body? The answer is that it is his students. Ajajajaj, appointed gurus are bad but appointent "Jagad Guru" is the best... Hmm....

Sharing knowledge and love should be free. As soon as you start attaching elaborate titles to a personality and needing excess money to satisfy them and please them and worship them, it is no longer pure. It is a transaction. So any guru that requires more from their disciples and followers and students then simply listening to them share their knowledge and love for free is a charlatan. It doesn't matter how nice they are, how seemingly loving they are or how much they pretend to care about everybody. It's a business transaction and it no longer is the real thing.

RUN_FOREST_RUN Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Shoot. I'm an idiot for thinking that occasionally
> posting here helps ex-members or those looking to
> get out or in the process of being sucked in...

It's called confirmation bias, aka Tolstoy Syndrome. If somebody wants to believe in something badly enough, then they're going to believe in it even if all the evidence points to a contrary conclusion. That's just the nature of belief, especially spiritual/religious belief. You know, faith.

XKRISHNA Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> You know, faith.

Flesh!

[www.youtube.com]