26th Jan 2013 
Republic Day-India. Jai Hind!
"Write like a key tripping tumblers to perceptions in a locked mind."
1. Brothers Unkha and Grok lived at a time of great discovery. Iron was old-metal as copper molded the dreams of village blacksmiths.  Then, when a tipsy chalcolithic genius tipped in a ratio of tin (or zinc,) the Bronze Age was born.  Not only was the new metal lighter to carry, it was strong, dependable, easier to shape and most importantly...easier to write on.  Write! Did I write...Write?  But they only drew pictures back then, didn't they?  Well, what the world never knew then...or now (!) is that 'True Writing' was already far advanced in a secret unknown 'gaudiya' cult.  Unkha and Grok when out on an expedition searching for fossilized dinosaur eggs discovered a book (12 cantos long...and purports) written on paper (what?) with stories bigger than giant eagle eggs (and as difficult to swallow).  The brothers stashed the book and passed it down as a family heirloom until strapped-for-cash descendants peddled it on the street millenniums later.  It was snapped up by an early acarya of the Iskcon Gaudiya-Mutt-sampradaya for a donation (he knew about the change-up scam) who instantly recognized it as a back-to-the-future money-spinner.  He held the precious apportation (paranormal gift) in anticipation (or until writing was readable) then stuck a picture of the cult's future (god-predicted) founder on the front page; called it-  Srimad Bhagavatam; said it was written by a god-incarnate sage (and the cult's future founder) then, under divine guidance (or because book retailers recognized it as cult hogwash) began peddling copies on the street for donations.  Now let's take a look at some historical facts.

Unka, Grok & Mama Toosh

2. Everyone, well those educated on Earth, know True Writing was unheard of 5'000 years ago.  No proof of written communication existed prior to Sumerian archaic cuneiform script and Egyptian hieroglyphs or 'proto-literate' symbols which first emerged in about 3400-3200 BC, with earliest coherent texts dating to about 2600 BC (400 years after the undiscovered Srimad Bhagavatam was written!  In pure SANSKRIT ! With purports and a picture of Iskcon's founder- A.C. Bhaktivedanta on the opening page!)  Even so, with research dating the advancement of human literacy and communication, every community had a language which went further than 'ugggh' and 'grrrh.'  Communication is the defining feature of human intelligence, so we must cede a system of oral dissemination existed exceeding gutturals scripted cinematically and pulp proffered as pre-literate chinwag.  Yet, with all dues paid, had written communication developed any earlier than dated, historical evidence would have proved it.  In fact, archeological conclusion is based on evidence left by scholars showing the transition from ideographic/mnemonic (Neolithic) symbolism to True Writing. 
3. Even in this day and age, icons / widgets are in everyday use.  Still, and as it was in the era of hieroglyphic communication, symbols, unless explained by the designer, are open to interpretation.  Ancient peoples, such as the Australian aborigines, still practice symbolism combined with natural ochres and oxide pigments to present 'tjkurpas' depicting native land-rights.  Although one skin group may not be familiar with the interacting symbols of another, all 'tjkurpas' were respected because each outlined its own custodial borders.  In recent times (1972-82), mnemonics in color combinations, explained by tribal elders, proved native possession and ancient Aboriginal title rights to custody.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mabo_v_Queensland_%28No_2%29

Australian Indigenous mneomonics 1

NOTE: In a recent posting on TOI (link below,) scientists claim a migration of Dravidians from India to Australia took place around 4,230 BCE  Indian history tells us-  Dravidians (like Druids of Europe and the Australian Aborigines) were stone and tree worshippers.  The article states that with the migration changes began appearing in the archeological records of Australia.  Basically the Dravidian migration had an overall effect on early Australians.  Now, when we consider the fact... indigenous Australians DO NOT have a written language and continue, even today, to use symbols / oration in communicating heritage, it proves ipso facto, Dravidians did not have a written language on arrival in Australia.  This confirms the non-existence of written communication in India at the time.  Furthermore, and not entirely speculative, the reason for Dravidian migration has been ascribed to the spread of Vedic civilization by Aryan administrators at an age when communication had reached early adolescence. Over time, those Dravidians who remained, compromised and adapted beliefs by shaping 'sacred stones' into deities : personalizing the stones with names, and attributing those names to the energies of Lord Vishnu-  the source of Vedic belief.  In personalizing belief further, the stone and tree worshippers humanized their carvings by sheltering them in sacred stone houses...temples.  With the progress of metallurgy, stone was second choice in favor of shining metal which gave deities the awe, reverence, preservation, and veneration of age (it also made for better business).  Nevertheless, cults like the Hare Krishnas, who still worship stones and trees, will find their spiritual roots buried deep in Dravidian ancestry. 

 Australian Indigenous mneomonics 2

FYI. A true rendition of ancient Vedic wisdom: beliefs and systems free of commercial contamination, can be found in the writings of the last great Vedic scribe whose revelations now form part of the Indian educational system-  Maharishi Dayanand Saraswati.  The Maharishi translated two of the Vedas from Sanskrit to Hindi and was in the throes of starting on another when he was poisoned to death.  Indian scholars have only recently begun translating his Hindi texts to English.
4. To raise education above tribal communities and into a national arena, schools were established.  But this was a much later development; sporadic, uneven, slow in maturing, and even slower in honing to a standard of general understanding. True Writing was a system developed to encode the linguistic utterances of an entire continent so that a reader could mentally construct, with a fair deal of accuracy, a picture of the communicator's ideas and intent.  This was far more advanced than proto-writing which avoided encoding grammatics; phraseology, words and affixes, which gives written language the platform of sophistication it presses today.  Iconography is still prevalent in daily existence, and still poses the same conundrums faced by our ancestors unless accompanied by explanatory manuals to be understood, recognized, and to personalize clientele.
7. Albeit researchers define clearly between early proto writing and True Writing, they disagree on when prehistory became history.  What does come to surface is the universal agreement on earliest written systems of communication as being 'Neolithic and having first taken shape in the early Bronze Age (4th millennium BC). Of these early systems the Sumerian archaic 'cuneiform script' and the Egyptian 'hieroglyphs' are considered the earliest.  Both forms emerged out of an ancestral proto-literate symbol system with the earliest COHERENT texts dating- 2600 BC.  By coherent, historians indicate some possible clarification and explanation. It does not mean that these early texts were easily translated or clearly understood.

proto-literate symbols- 2600 BC

" The earliest literary authors known by name are Ptahotep and Enheduanna, dating to ca. the 24th and 23rd centuries BC, respectively. In the early literate societies, as much as 600 years passed from the first inscriptions to the first coherent textual sources (ca. 3200 to 2600 BC).....[...].....It is thought that the first true alphabetic writing was developed around 2000 BC for Semitic workers in the Sinai by giving mostly Egyptian hieratic glyphs Semitic value."
8.  With the development of written communication historically documented on other parts of the globe, we turn our attention to the Indian sub-continent where the FIRST Indian script developed was in the Indus Valley around 2600 B.C.  This script remains UNDECHIPERED TO THIS DAY.  "Thus it is not possible to fully understand this civilization, as we have no readable records of their beliefs, history, rulers of literature." ....[....]... "Actually, 5000 years ago, India did not even have a ceramic age. Stylized artifacts (ceramic development) began later."  So unless we succumb to the believe-it-or-not indoctrination of religious cults, the first Indian scripts like Brahmi and Kharosthi were evolved to write language and official documents, and by all accounts-  developed far post 2600 BC.  These scripts flourished in time to give us wonderous epics, royal inscriptions, RELIGIOUS TEXTS and administrative documents.  It is through these writings that the world came to know of Indian literature, mythology, history and beliefs. 

Indian proto-literate symbols- 2600 BC

9. Earliest discoveries of Indian writings were made along the banks of the ancient Saraswati river.  The discovery sites include Dholavira, Ganweriwala, Kalibangan, Lothal, and Rakhigarhi.  Historically referred to as the "Harappan world," it covered an area of about a million square kilometers and stretched from the Himalayas in the north to the Tapti river in the south, and from the Indus river valleys in the west to the plains of the Ganges and Yamuna rivers in the east.  Allow us to zoom in on claims being made by the Hare Krishna- Iskcon cult, who have amassed millions of dollars based on the fraudulent facts mouthed by its founder- A.C.Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada who claimed the cult's Srimad Bhagavatam to be an "...epic philosophical literary classic which holds a prominent position in India's voluminous written wisdom.  It was WRITTEN in Sanskrit by "Krishna" Dvaipayana Vyasadeva about 5,000 years ago."  How could it be possible that this spit-and-polished cult money-spinner (written in Sanskrit!?) was penned one millennium prior to the origins of any structured legible script?
10. Before presenting the historical evolution of Sanskrit as a written language, allow us to state unequivocally a) the SB is not considered a 'literary classic' in India. It is understood by a larger percentage of Indians to be a work of fiction written by a poet named Bopadev (1100-50 CE.)  These uncontested fallacies are nothing more than buzz-word-gimmickery by the (late) cult founder and his American / Jewish Hare Krishna organization, b) Vedavyas is never referred to as "Krishna" outside the Hare Krishna sales office.  It is simply another ruse to authenticate the cult and its literature by claiming a Vedic (Hindu) saint as the Hare 'Krishna' author, and c) It is not possible for anyone to have written anything in Sanskrit (or moon dust) 5'000 years ago.  True Writing (alphabets were not invented) did not come about until 2000 BC....IN THE SINAI...while the earliest Vedic Sanskrit text is dated at 1500 BCE, followed progressively by Classical Sanskrit, the language used by poet Bopadeva to scribble his twelve cantos which was then elaborated on by South Indian (Nambudiri) brahmanas to form the Bhagavatam.  Now let's take a look at historical fact in connection with Sanskrit; its evolution as a written language.
11.  First and foremost it is necessary to understand the ancient and current definition of the word- "Sanskrit."  The meaning has never changed i.e., Perfect Speech. No! Not perfect WRITING but perfect SPEECH.  Why is it important to clarify the difference?  Glad you asked.  But first:- "The pre-Classical form of Sanskrit is known as Vedic Sanskrit, with the language of the Rigveda being the oldest and most archaic stage preserved, its oldest core dating back to as early as 1500 BCE.  This qualifies Rigvedic Sanskrit as one of the oldest attestations of any Indo-Iranian language."  Now we can understand why the Vedic Sanskrit (spoken) of ancient India is considered timeless: Sanskrit=Perfect Speech=perfect understanding=perfect repetition=perfect representation in written script.  It tells us that the ancient sages used 'perfect speech' to pass on knowledge, which was then perfectly repeated (or it would not be perfect any longer, would it?)  This system of perfect narration; hearing and repetition (srutidhar) was continued until the written alphabet was honed enough to perfectly document the perfect instructions of the Vedas.  Had there been claims the Bhagavatam was passed down in similar fashion, there would be reason for credibility.  As it is the claim that it was WRITTEN about 5,000 years ago cannot possibly be true unless we go with the Unkha and Grok proposition in paragraph one.  Furthermore, when glottochronologists studied the Vedic Sanskrit presentation of the ancient Uttar Mimansa attributed to Maharishi Vedavyasa and compared it to Srimad Bhagavatam, the language and presentation were centuries apart.  Further still, under study by Vedic historians, the Bhagavatam was recognized as just another puranic plagiarism.  Here are some quotes as proof:
"Let the Bhagavata (SB) and the VP (Vishnu Purana) be now compared. As regards the contents, the Bhagavata is closely connected with the VP with which it often agrees literally and it is undoubtedly dependent on the latter. By comparing the genealogies in both Puranas, Pargiter has come to the conclusion that 'the Bhagavata has used the Visnu in its composition.' Many myths and legends, which are found in a concise and older form in the VP, appear in the Bhagavata in a much enlarged and elaborate version. For instance, the stories of Dhruva, Vena, Prthu, Prahlada, Jada Bharata and others occurring in both Puranas may be compared. The Bhagavata (Book X) contains the biography of Krsna which is here given in much greater detail than in the VP and the Harivamsa. In particular the love scenes with the cowherdesses (Gopis) occupy a much larger space. In the VP a black hair of Visnu is said to be incarnated as Krsna, i.e. Krsna is an incarnation of an exceedingly small portion of Visnu; but in the Bhagavata he is called amsavatara or Bhagavan himself (krsnastu bhagavan svayam). In the Bhagavata there are stories not found in the VP. The story of Kapila (in Bhag. III 24 to 33 Adhy.s) may be cited as an example. From all these it appears that the VP is older than the Bhagavata. If the latter Purana is assigned to the sixth century A.D., then the date of the former should be placed earlier."

- Rajendra Chandra Hazra

"Except Gaudapada (the grand preceptor of Sri Adya Sankaracaryaji), none has any knowledge of the BGP. The time of Acarya Sankara has been given 788-820 AD, so that the time of Gaudapada should not be earlier than the middle of the 8th cent. AD. Hence the BGP is earlier than the 8th cent. AD.

"There is only one factor, which will be helpful to derive the time of the composition of the BGP. Unlike the prose of the VP, that of the BGP presents the prose (given mostly in the Skandha V) nearing to the classical style of the most famous poet Bana, the author of Kadambari (first half of the 7th cent. AD). It means that the time of composing of the BGP is not earlier than the later half of the 7th cent. AD and not later than the first half of the 8th cent. AD."

- Prof. K.K. Shastree

"It is clear that whoever the author or authors of the Bhagavata was, he or they were deeply steeped in the Vedic texts (I am not using Vedic ignorantly here. I really mean the Vedas, Brahmanas, Aranyakas and Upanisads). In that sense the Bhagavata is an interpretation or commentary on those ancient texts. That is why I think the Bhagavata was written in a community of brahmanas in the South among whom memorization and use of the Vedic hymns in rituals was (and is) still active and alive, a community like the Nambudiri brahmanas of Kerala which is the community that Sankara came from. They were in his time mostly Vaisnava and, i think, still are today. Anyway, their level of learning and engagement with the Vedic texts and practices is a good match, in my opinion, for what we see in the Bhagavata."

"The Bhagavata was written by a Vaisnava southerner (who did not know the geography of Vraja at all). The Nambudiris are Vaisnava southerners."

"The Bhagavata espouses a theistic-advaitism that is very similar to that of Sankara and he was a member of that same Nambudiri community. This, of course, depends on one's acceptance of the recent research on Sankara done by Paul Hacker, Nakamura, and Mayeda which argues that most of the works of Sankara were not really by him and that those that probably are by him are all Vaisnava and are not atheistic or mayavada. If this is true this invalidates most of what has been said about Sankara by both IGM and CV. They misunderstand Sankara as an incarnation of Siva, a Saivite, who accepted the vivarta form of Advaita. Actually, he was a Vaisnava for whom Brahman=Visnu. This is very close to the position of the Bhagavata."

Iskcon's 5'000 year old Bhagavatam

"So what else can the Bhagavata tell us about itself?
Its use of the word yavana tells us that it was composed after the incursion of Alexander the Great into India in 326 BCE. Now that may not apply to all of the text because it is obviously a composite text. Here are the parts of the text that should be regarded as separate parts added perhaps at different times and from different sources."

"The first skandha and the last skandha are the most recent additions. Because of the way Sanskrit books were bound in the old days it was easy to add leaves on to the front and the back. To put them in the middle was problematic. The first skandha is clearly an advertisement of the main text. It and the last are like the blurbs found in modern books on the front flap of the cover and the back flap of the cover. They mostly tell us what a wonderful book the Bhagavata is and praise and substantiate its author. These are certainly not by Vyasa no matter how you conceive of him. They fall well outside the portion of the text represented as spoken by Suka. They are high quality, no doubt, but clearly presuppose the existence of another text called the Bhagavata."

"The Third and Fourth Skandhas seem also to form a unit distinct from the rest of the work. Those likely came from another source. It is as if the story starts over again at the beginning of three. We are plunged back into creation and eventually presented with the dialogue between Devahuti and Kapila which is not found in the VP or Harivamsa. If these are later additions then it is likely that two is too. Skandha Two is one of the places where the word yavana (from ionian) occurs as well as the word huna (for Huns)."
"One has to wonder, however, how the form of the text might change in its various manifestations. Does it take a form that fits into each historical context in which it manifests? So in the form before us, it mentions the Greeks (yavana) and the Huns (huna), the Buddha and Mahavira, and even, it would appear, the Tamil saints known as the Alvars, in order to fit into the historical place in which it appears. Surely these accidents of history are temporary and impermanent and would not figure in an eternal text. Maybe they are like lint that is drawn and attached to the fabric of the text whenever it manifests, in which case we need to separate the fabric of the text from its lint to get to the eternal part."
-Neal Delmonico
"This book was made by Bobadeva whose brother Jayadeva wrote Gitagovind. He has written some verses in his book called Himadri to the effect that he was the author of shrimad Bhagvat. We had 3 leaves of that book with us, out of which the first one was lost. We have composed the following two verses of the same purport as those that were on the leaf that was lost. Whosoever cares to see the original verses should consult the Himadri.
"The Prime Minister Himadri said to Pundit Bobadeva, I have no time to read your book called the Shrimad Bhagvat or hear it read. Please make a brief summary of it in verse so that by reading it I may be briefly acquainted with the story of the bhagvat." There were altogether 10 verses on the leaf that was lost. The following verses beginning with No. 11 that are given below are all the composition of Bobadeva:
11. "certainly the story of the Bhagvat, retold is as follows:- The five questions of Shaunaka and Sutas's answers (are given) in three (verses)." HIMADRI.
12. questions and (subject of) incarnations, Vyasa's disinclination for (writing) work, Narada's convincing speech supported by arguments and (an account of his) own birth.
13. Murder (of Arjuna's children) while asleep by Drona, protection of Paarikshaita while he was in his mother's womb by the Pandavas with arms, attainment of his position by Bhishmama, and Krishna's arrival at Dwarka.
14. The birth of Parikshita, who had heard Bhagvat read, Dhritrashtra's going away, Krishna's shuffling off his moral coil and then the Pandvas' departure for the Himalayas (have all been described in the Bhagvat).
15 Thus have 18 Chapters of the first Book of the Bhagvat been summarized in 18 padas* (of this summary) in consecutive order. The king (ydhishtra) renounced his extensive kingdom in which justice was meted out to all, etc.,**
This completes ( the summary of )Book 1."
Thus was a brief summary of the 12 Chapters of Bhagvat prepared by Pundit Bobadeva and given to the Prime Minister Himadri. Whosoever wants to see a detailed account of it should consult the book called Himadri." (excerpt:  Satyarth Prakash, by Maharishi Dayanand Saraswati.)
12.  None of the above facts appear to hamper shonky Hare Krishna (Iskcon) businessmen and shills who claim their Bhagavatam was written 5'000 years ago, and that they are a genuine god-originated Vedic outfit.  Here is a current excerpt (and link below) in which a guru  from Iskcon (yes an American) claims their 'sampradaya' is Vedic: "Nevertheless, all sampradayas and organizations that profess Vedic culture have procedures for choosing or appointing who will represent them as gurus. It is not that just anyone can claim to be a guru and be recognized as such in an established tradition. So in having a system, ISKCON is not unique or deviant from sastric tradition." http://www.harekrsna.com/sun/editorials/01-13/editorials9638.htm

ISKCON: Gaudiya Vaisnavism's last waltz

13.  As pointed out in previous postings on this site-  the word 'sampradaya' is not Vedic but a fairly recent cult concoction.  As seen in the post above, Hare Krishnas are still seeking a 'Vedic system' into which they can be recognized as traditionalists.  After nearly fifty years of Yankee-doodle-diddling they remain outside the mainstream as a 'Dangerous cult'.  The key to cult disposition lies in the true confessions of its founder- Prabhupada: his understanding / explanation of the word 'veda,' and the fact that he never studied the Vedas i.e., Vedic tradition: 
 Prabhupada: "I have not studied all the Vedas and Upanishads. I have read only Bhagavad Gita and Srimad Bhagavatam."  
Prabhupada: "No... When we speak of veda, veda means knowledge. So knowledge means knowledge of God. Any scripture that gives knowledge of God, that is Vedas. Don't think that Vedas means that only the Sama, Yajuh, Atharva.... Those who are following the principles to give knowledge about God, that is veda. Veda means knowledge." 
14. In conclusion, the Hare Krishnas claim to be Vedic without studying the Vedas and; under a guru / godman who admitted to never having read the Vedas himself yet professed his writings to be 'Vedic' because veda means knowledge and; whose ramblings are street-flogged by cultists promoting it as 'law books' for the next 10,000 years and; all this cult bul-bul was supposedly written 5'000 years ago when no True Writing existed.  Before moving away from the Bhagavatam and onto another cult bible-  Bhagavad Gita As It Is, we post an excerpt from a letter by a reader who, like BIF, sees the Bhagavatam as a tome riddled with flaws, impossibilities and improbabilities:
"Vidura took all day driving horses that ran at the 'speed of wind' to reach Vrindavan from Mathura. It is pedalled daily and frequently by bidi smoking rickshaw-wallas in twenty minutes flat....Did Vidura check his speedo?  Dravivida gorilla jetted in from Africa (gorillas are not native to India) just so he could rape Indian princesses and churn the ocean with his hands while shouting Kela! Kela!...Maybe he had a sore throat, and maybe Darwin had a point.  What about the witch Putana?  The farming community decided to hack up the 12 x 8 mile witch and burn her.  Just think about it...a twelve mile long witch, eight miles wide.  What would it take to clear away fallen trees and debris before farmers (using sickles?) could begin butchering a rotting corpse with organs, tissue, tendons and kilometer-thick hard-bones in a body that freaking big?  Baby Krishna sucking on a witch's breast that are ' like mountains' with nipples bigger than.....  Who the hell could see what was going on anyway?  Was it Sanjaya doing his remote hearing/viewing from 100 miles away?  Because if the witch had fallen to earth as described, there would be no witnesses left to tell the tale...Mathura, Vrindavan and Nanda Maharaja's 900,000 cows (that's another Ripley's believe-it-or-not when you consider the size of Vrindavan) would have flattened.  There are so many geographical contradictions, impossibilities and impracticabilities involved that anyone giving this stuff serious attention would see Hindus, and Indians in general, as morons.  Surely these cult storytellers are prophets-4-profit.  It is NOT VEDIC or Hindu.  It is fictitious garbage." 

Bhagavad Gita As It Isn't

15.  Bhagavad Gita As It Is ( apparently Vyasadeva's original title was not good enough,) another Iskcon street-seller, formed part of the Mahabharata which started with 4'400 verses but now sells at a whopping 100'000 verses, plus.  The Gita also swelled with time from 76 to 84 verses and is currently an interpolated work of 700 verses in 18 Chapters.  To that bulk, Iskcon's Gita (aii) has added its recently discovered 'parampara' along with steroid-pumped purports identifying guru as god and the American established Iskcon institution as heaven's embassy on Earth.  But who wrote the Gita?  When was it written and what is the cult spin on its origins?
"The Bhagavad-gita is a fascinating text. Who was it written by and when? And for what purpose? These are important questions in the textual criticism of the work. The answers to these questions can reveal a whole new dimension to the Gita and explain some of its glaring anomalies. That it was not written by Vyasa seems rather obvious. It is first of all clearly a post-Buddhist work and it may be that Buddhism played an important role in the reason it was written. So when was the Buddha? The traditional answer seems to place him in the 6th century BCE and extending into the 5th century. But, more recent studies have suggested that in actuality he lived in the middle of the 4th century BCE (History of Early Vedanta). The Gita then can be dated to the 3rd century BCE or later. It appears to date from a time when Buddhism was recognized as a real threat to Hinduism and it in many ways was a Hindu response to Buddhism."
16.  So the first problem we confront is the dating, viz written 5'000 years ago  vs. historical records i.e., True Writing.  Next we notice the word 'Yavana' (from Ionian...Greek).  The Greeks were in India between 330 BCE to about 250 BCE.  We must conclude the Mahabharata was started after that time, which sends the 5'000 year claim down the gurgler.  Again, glottochronologists date the language as 'Non Vedic Sanskrit'.  The text is  written in 'Classical Sanskrit'...a much more recent development.  Notwithstanding, had the Gita been composed 5'000 years ago as claimed, it would be eighteen chapters of proto-literate symbols, wouldn't it?  Now there's one to screw the head of any historian.

om no no bhagavate

17. There are several theories about how it was written.  The cult story is that the sage Vyasa entered into a verbal contract with the elephant god Ganesh who actually 'wrote' the Mahabharata.  Historians present a more practical theory.  They believe the original concept started with one man (let's call him Vyasa) and was then added to over time by disciples who 'wrote different parts according to that overreaching, unified plan.'  The Gita was part of the original idea because 'it fits so well into the text that it appears as part of the original and not a later edition.'  What eventuated was the isolation of the Gita from the original work by cult designers to cultivate business and belief in-  'Krishna is the supreme god'  and subsequent interpolations to bolster and enforce that belief.

the contract

18.  Whatever else the contention to claim nothing rings bells of disbelief and bafflement louder than the saga of the narrator- Sanjaya: his unique, never heard of before, unplugged audio/video ability, and his subsequent  dumping into anonymity after the miracle WiFi exhibition.  It's a head-scratcher.  'Empowered' with the ability to see every action, hear every word, know every thought. and even make public god's secret- 'raja guyham,' he was shoveled into the sastric dumpster like an ad hoc mystic with no further purpose in the scheme of things.  Let's take a gander at the set up and delivery.
19. King Dhritarashtra was blind.  After the death of his brother Pandu, he usurped the kingdom from his nephews- the Pandavas.  What ensued was a fratricidal war which was staged at Kurukshetra, about 100 kms from Hastinapura (Delhi) where the blind king sat in anxiety.  He wanted to know what was going on but had no live streaming video so he called for a guy named Sanjaya.  We don't know how Sanjaya advertized his super hero abilities, or what he smoked to get his buzz, but what we do know is Sanjaya had some kind of 'spiritual TV' going on that gave him remote access to visuals complete with words and thoughts....powers never before, or since, attributed to anyone else.   Where did he get his super powers?

Sanjaya on WiFi

20. In the final chapter of BG, 18-75, Sanjaya tells us who gave him his WiFi:- "By the mercy of Vyasa...."  Who was Vyasa and who gave Vyasa the power to empower someone else with remote transceiving capabilities?  In introducing Vyasa we are informed by cult interpolated scriptures that he was a "shakti-avesh-avatar," which means:- "an individual jiva/soul empowered with specific power and task by god/Vishnu."  So what was the specific power entrusted to Vyasa by Vishnu?  Here it is: "Srila Vyasadeva, also known as Dvaipayana Vyasa or Vedavyasa, is the literary incarnation of God."  But if Vyasa was empowered to WRITE literature where did he get the transmission to empower someone else to live stream?  And why did he expend his precious time (and Ganesh's) in WRITING when his super power as a one-man TV station gave him broadcasting wherewithal?  Why a literary incarnation when he should...could have been WiFi incarnation?   It would have given cultists more mileage / money than the donation-begging-belief Bhagavatam, for sure.
21. Furthermore, why did Vyasa empower (without being empowered himself) someone to remote view/hear/narrate just so he could author the Gita?  Why didn't he do it himself?  We know Sanjaya never used his super WiFi powers again, so we must conclude it was an ad hoc stint.  Was it because (the old cult apophthegm) Vyasa wanted his disciple Sanjaya to be glorified?  Nonsense!  When we scan the Gita, Sanjaya is only mentioned eleven times in eighteen chapters.  Six of those eleven mentions are nothing more than 'Sanjaya uvacha' (Sanjaya said).  Of the remaining five mentions, one is the initial introduction by Dhritarashtra identfying Sanjaya as the super WiFi guy.  Three are statements by Sanjaya identifying Krishna as god and the one remaing identifies his guru Vyasa as the WiFi sub-station.  We never hear from the super-transciever again.  His butt is kicked to anonmity...an inherent cult characteristic...use and abuse. 

WiFi sampradaya

22.  And, lest we forget, Sanjaya was called by the blind king for a specific reason: Dhrtarastra said:- "O Sanjaya, after assembling in the place of pilgrimage at Kuruksetra, what did my sons and the sons of Pandu do, being desirous to fight?" (Ch-1/1).  But what we get from Sanjaya has nothing to do with the King's immediate concerns.  Instead he is presented with an EIGHTEEN CHAPTER (!) discourse between two of his enemies (which has little or nothing to do with the war at hand) in which one claims to be god incarnate and the other asks leading questions like a paid stooge in a vacuum cleaner commercial.  And through it all the king never makes even one interruption like- " What the...! Off with this traitor's head!"
Besides aiding the pretention of knowing 'Sanskrit' (learnt from English transliterations) and parrot-quoting its verses in a spray of spittle from a cult-constructed 'Vyasasana,' the Gita is basically inapplicable in this day and age.  We do not deny the existence of Sri Krishna, the Aryan Prince, nor do we negate the influence his teachings had on Vedic groupies.  In fact, it was his definition of yoga which possibly initiated the cults of yore.  Aware of that influence, Bopadeva and his brother Jayadeva picked Krishna as the protagonist for their dramaturgy...fictitious series.  Their work was a hit not because it was fact but because it cunningly used an Aryan hero to break down Vedic censorship and introduce the first soft-porn industry.  Seeing opportunity and  potential to break the stranglehold of Brahmanism and bite into the spiritual buck, Shatakopa, the son of a professional prostitute (appropriately,) began vigorously promoting writings of the poet brothers as god-written-gospel and signed it off as Vyasadeva.

uttama adhikari prospects?

So what does this article offer thralls chained fast to cult indoctrination?  Nothing!  They will continue striving to be Prabhupadas...a gig done and dusted...a jack out the box.  They will continue in belief that becoming uttama adhikari (a cult title meaning... ready for sex with god- Krishna) is only one celibate sleep away.  They will continue to believe cult-corporate gurus will eventually raise their consciousness above Bangkok-banging to become Vraj-molested-minors and puberty invigilated adulteresses.  Their beliefs shall remain as indomitable as their souls are irretrievable.  Unless study is undertaken to research revelations and investigative work of the TRUE authority on Vedic history- Maharishi Dayananda Saraswati,....the lights flash, the bells ring, the boom-gates stay down, but the train just aint coming.
Thank You for spending time with us.
"Spiritual TV what a joke. The only reason that garbage was added to the GITA is because if it were left just as a conversation on a battlefield (no scribe on a chariot or TV anchorman) THEN it would be obviously a  morality tale and NOT an historical verbatim conversation.  They needed Sanjaya and his mind reading magic to get the conversation from battlefield  to book.  Without a scribe at the time, it is an obvious fiction, a morality dialogue.  They tool the greatness and poetry out of the Gita when they added Sanjaya and the rest of the interpolations, and turned the great thinking of Vyasadeva into a dogmatic piece of religious conversation.  As Gandhi said, the Bhagavad-Gita is not a treasure house,  but a mine filled with foreign matter."

"The Gita stands out as a more recent work when we consider:
1. There is no mention of demigods in the original four Vedas.  The names ascribed to demigods were originally the different names of God's (Vishnu) energies.
2. There is strong opposition to the Vedic understanding of Gods omnipresent form in that God is referred to as being impersonal in his pervasiveness. No doubt this idea was necessary to promote worship of deities so that priests could exploit for competition lest Jains and other speculators in the religious bazaar won the ante.
3. The tone of the Bhagavad Gita takes people away from the importance and main message of the 4 Vedas (Truth) to a an exploitive situation where philosophy is used for profit (fruits) adoration and distinction of priests. Due to this deviation the world suffers in miseries of different types.  Man is capable of these actions, not God. Therefore these understandings were based on later teachings, and not based on the ancient Vedas.
4. There are dubious promises and teachings that oppose scientific facts/findings .

"Not only does ISKCON use lies to manipulate people into becoming members, but they justify anything to spread their religion.  It doesn't matter if they are breaking the law because the Law of God (distribute my books, distribute my books, distribute my books) trumps the laws of man. Not only that, but they go by the principle of  'the end justifies the means'.  Whatever it takes to spread their books, whatever it means used is 'ok', if it furthers spreading KC, which often is equivalent to just getting money, however.

"Prabhupada said "Catch the big fish but don't get caught" and "Beg borrow or steal but get the ghee" and "By hook or by crook".  He may have said that we should act like perfect gentlemen, but that was just to keep his ass shiny in public but the real message was in the instructions above, those famous quotes that devotees know better than Aham sarvasya prabhavo...the implication that one can steal money for god (Krishna) just don't get caught.  We all knew this.  It is ok to lie for Krishna, right?!?  Yudhisthira's alleged honesty is scoffed at as extreme to the point of offensive to God because of his strict honesty.  Honesty in ISKCON is ridiculed as mundane morality, and Yudhisthira is glorified with tongue in cheek." 

"Srimad Bhagavatam (SB) 1.1 is laden with theistic philosophy used by ISKCON to convince people of their astuteness, but what happens is that as the SB unfolds, you are pushed to believe more and more incredible stuff, as the philosophy morphs into dramas, until you finally get to the most confidential part (you know the super-secret hush-hush part that is celebrated universally in painting and sculpture, Krishna, the God of Love), the 10th Canto, where you learn that God's greatest pleasure is immorality...with the 10 year old wives of his best friends...his cowherd boyfriends and pedo-pals.  Well...at least they don't have him into bestiality....Albeit, one can't help wondering what root the boar incarnation digs up on a Saturday night".

"Ahhhhh historical fact… religion’s best friend.
Prabhupada was asked why there was no evidence of human civilization from past yugas (like Satya and Treta Yuga).  As I recall, he said that they “burned the bodies” (and they lived in little grass shacks?) 

Well, since the yugas cycle like the foxtrot, then…  why haven’t archeologists unearthed any evidence from the last Kali Yuga?”  A nosecone from a rocket ship, a knee replacement, a hub cap, an AK, a TV, or even a house key would suffice to convince me.  Like the bodies, I guess they were all consumed in the fire of perfect knowledge..Eh? 

640,000,000 people died in the 18 day Kuruksetra battle, and nary a sword or a tooth to be found.  They must have had a kickass cleanup crew." 

.....the end....