Re: Chris Butler, Jagad Guru, Science of Identity
Posted by:
RUN_FOREST_RUN
()
Date: December 21, 2023 06:23AM
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.