Суд над Бхагавад-гитой / Attempt to ban Bhagavad-gita

SD: When you were there in Miami, did he interfere in marriages the way so many of these gurus do? Did he directly tell a woman to leave her husband if the husband didn't worship him?

AD: This is something I don't really like to talk about. I realize that it's not heavy stuff, but for the sake of what you're doing I'm willing to talk about it. He's very attractive to women. I never saw him fall down, but even on his vyasasana during japa he would constantly, before public view be calling women up and talking to them. I guess he was thinking that because it was public it's all right."I'm not hiding anything." Even before he was a guru and he was just sannyasa and GBC. Once there were two women in his room. He was speaking to them, and they were laughing up a storm. When they left I said, "Boy, a lot of joking was going on in here." You know, I was kind of criticizing him, and he said "but by that joking they will work happily for the next year." So just a straight character analysis-he loves talking to women. I don't hold it against him. Perhaps he took sannyasa prematurely, whatever, but he's a sannyasa anyway. So the general mood in Miami was that rather than the husband being the focal point of the wife-of the individual wives-Hrdayananda was the focal point. To a greater or lesser degrees, he would control the minds and the lives of the ladies.

SD: So in the case when both husband and wife were his disciples, that may not have caused so much of a conflict, but in the case of-.

AD: No. I would say that internally it's still a conflict because a man gets married because he wants a wife and he wants his wife to obey him.

SD: But it's not as much a conflict as when the husband is a disciple of Prabhupada and the wife is devoting herself to a Godbrother. Did that happen a lot also?

AD: Well it started happening in my case and I had to leave his zone to save my marriage. The devotees rented a very plush seaside apartment-literally-50 feet from the waves, in Tampa. It was very expensive. It was really a nice plush apartment with beautiful carpeting, furniture, what have you.

SD: What was this for? A preaching project?

AD: No. It was a writing project just so he could get away. He didn't have it for a long time maybe a month or so, but it was at a time when the Miami temple was struggling so hard, constantly fighting foreclosure. My wife took a natural liking to the philosophy book, which was in his hands and still is. So he needed help in tracking down professors, and so, in responding to her enthusiasm, he was firing her up. He invited the two of us to his Tampa place. Basically he wanted to speak to her-although he likes me-but basically he was getting her involved in the project and we were going to travel around and attract professors to his project. So this was summertime and he was in a very brief swimming suit. Minimum briefness for decency. And sometimes he would wear a straw cowboy hat. And he had a golden tan. So anyway he was lying down in a very, very plush living room, on a very plush couch in that one little brief bathing suit speaking to my wife who was seated on the plush rug. There was a servant walking in and out so it's not like they were alone in a room, but basically he was just talking along-lying down actually-in front of my wife, and flattering her, firing her up so to speak. Basically just like in a very-maybe not so subtle way-attracting her to him. You know a woman-when you flatter a woman-she loves you, and she becomes indebted. So that was the peak point that almost destroyed my marriage. He would talk her into going out on sankirtana. I knew she couldn't physically do it. She would go out in the Miami summer sun and come back with sun stroke and be laid up for a week or two. He fired her up to go out on sankirtana and I knew she shouldn't have.

So I went to him and I said look-we stayed on friendly terms (and I left on friendly terms cause I took it a lot on the cheek to maintain our friendship, and I still want to)-but I said she's not physically able to do this and if you fire her up on a false platform and she goes out, then she'll spend the next two weeks or more in bed. So I basically told him that if you want to engage her then please check with me. And he agreed. He finally agreed.

SD: He probably didn't consider her your wife but thought of her as his worshiper.

AD: Basically the way he treated her and everyone there was as his subject. And secondarily the husband was there just to kind of keep the wife in check so she would maybe not get too attracted to Hrdayananda but would obey him nicely. That's basically the role of the husband. To assist Hrdayananda in controlling the wife so she would do what he said. So as I said, I had to leave his zone.

SD: So his preaching was separating her from you?

AD: Oh. No question about it. It was destroying our marriage.

SD: So you just didn't feel anything with her anymore? She was just interested in him and wanted to work for him?

AD: Well-I just nipped it in the bud. I had to scream at her a lot. It really made things rocky, but it was very obvious to me, and I wasn't going to let it happen. I wasn't his disciple, whereas his disciples just have to swallow it. I know many of his disciples; I can't give any particular names, but I know many of the disciples don't like it.

SD: Is there a big divorce rate in his zone?

AD: There are not that many devotees to be able to calculate as far as I know. When I was there it wasn't growing. They were not making new devotees.

SD: Any more comment about the Brazilian girl?

AD: He was not innocent as far as her intentions. I heard it said that he mentioned she was prepared to wait seven lifetimes to get him. This was said in jest of course, but it indicated her mood; her motive was to get him. And I heard her say things like, "But Srila Acaryadeva, I love you." You know, it was supposedly said in the mood of a disciple expressing love for the guru. And he would say, "Well look, she's rendering better service than anyone else." So in the name of disciple-guru relationship, all kinds of subtle things were going on. The people who were most disturbed were the Godsisters of Hrdayananda who know how women work. It was painfully obvious to them that this woman was just laying a trap, and they were going crazy. When women see other women doing their thing on the big sannyasi-which will cause the whole thing to crumble, which will destroy the reputation of the Bhagavatams-they go crazy. And he would like really get down on these women. You just couldn't speak up, you couldn't be honest, because the situation is either you go along completely or get out.

There was one devotee there, Mahashakti, who was trying to set up a business. All right, so that's his inclination-let him set up a business. So right in Mahashakti's presence, during Bhagavatam class, Hrdayananda would talk so heavy against business, "What is this business?" Personally insulting him beyond belief. So eventually he left-this person left, that person left. Godbrothers could not stay there, because they weren't willing to play this game. And I personally know that some of the Prabhupada disciples who are there, who are an integral part of his translation, have just been dying to get out for years. But out of a sense of duty they stay. Gopiparandhana, who is actually the translator of the Bhagavatam-he gets a small mention since he's not a big shot-but he actually does all the translating.

SD: Hrdayananda just comments.

AD: He writes the purports and edits the translations.

SD: Don't the purports come from the commentaries of the acaryas?

AD: Yes. Gopi takes around five Sanskrit commentaries and translates them all. Then Hrdayananda synthesizes them. Gopi works very hard. I don't want to put thoughts into his brain, but I know that he and his wife have been very, very unhappy there for years. One thing about the Miami temple is that, to live in that building is like living in hell. I don't know, either the filth, or the noise- except when you go the eighth floor where the guru is. Then it's like you've gone to a heavenly planet. Everywhere else are roaches...

SD: So to change the subject. Prabhupada has clearly explained how there is gross, subtle, and spiritual manifestations. Hrdayananda's subtle sex seems like it should have been very obvious. Couldn't the devotees see that?

AD: Basically it's like everyone could see it, but there's kind of like a Maya-a mystique-which he casts over the whole scene. If you dared to think otherwise you were just vibed out of the place or thrown out.

SD: Were a lot of devotees outcast in that way?

AD: He's the kind of person where if you doubt him in the slightest, he takes very deep offense. He demands very high loyalty.

SD: Does he do like Kirtanananda and physically kick people out or have them beaten?

AD: Well, I think he's more principled. I think he's more of a Vaisnava than some of these others, at least from what I've heard of them. But he definitely uses a lot of very heavy mental power to get his way.

SD: Does he use four-letter words when he gets mad?

AD: No. He's quite gentlemanly in that regard. I've never heard him use four-letter words.

SD: Do you know of any specific instances where Hrdayananda actually destroyed a marriage?

AD: There is one instance of two disciples of Hrdayananda-he married them-the boy, Madhupandit, was American and the girl was Brazilian. Both basically good devotees. The boy had had some difficulty and left for a while, you know, he was sexually agitated. He finally came back and agreed to marry. He's a good steady sankirtana devotee, going out every day. So when they were married-basically Hrdayananda had this thing where he would hate the fact that somewhere in this temple there was a man and a woman-married of course-alone in a room. It would just drive him crazy.

SD: He told you that himself?

AD: It was just obvious. It was his mood. He instigated this whole campaign where men could not sleep in the same room as their wives, and practically they couldn't even be in the same room if the door was closed. The idea was to prevent illicit sex. First of all, I didn't know that there was illicit sex going on there. But what he did was produce this whole obsession with sex. That's when the illicit sex started. So I was talking about the young boy and girl. They got married and naturally they had sex. It's not the highest principle of marriage in Krsna consciousness, but they'd been abstaining for so long. So he got her pregnant. That's not a disturbance in society because they're married. But Hrdayananda got the girl fired up against the guy-he made the guy out to be her biggest enemy. He condemned the guy before the girl and for about a year she would not even speak to him. She figured the fact that she was pregnant by her husband was a curse. Usually when a woman gets pregnant by her husband in Vedic society, it's a great blessing. But because he got her pregnant, she hated him because of this whole mood in the temple against husband-wife relations.

SD: So what happened?

AD: We left, but I think they're finally speaking to each other-maybe they are even peacefully married. But I know for months and months the guy was suffering bitterly because his wife would not speak to him. She hated him.

SD: Was he mean to her or what?

AD: No. He's imperfect like everyone else but basically a good steady devotee. He got up every morning, went to mangala-aratik, chanted his rounds, spent all day at the airport doing sankirtana.

SD: He spent the whole day collecting money?

AD: He would bring in $100-$150-$200 a day.

Tam: Jayapataka Maharaja.

SP: You are also in India. (Long pause) You can note down these names.

Tam: Yes, I have them. (The list is read, and Srila Prabhupada adds two more names-Hrdayananda and Ramesvara.

SP: (Long pause) So without waiting for me, whoever you consider deserves. That will depend on discretion.

Tam: On discretion.

SP: Yes.

Tam: That's for first and second initiations?

SP: Hmmm.

NOTE: One very obvious question: If it were clear from the May tape that the new initiates would be the disciples of the ritviks, then why was none of this mentioned in this June tape? Why was Tamala still trying to get Prabhupada to say something else? The answer is obvious. They hadn't yet conceived their plot and dubbed the May tape. There is no mention in this tape of the ritviks becoming anything special after Srila Prabhupada's departure. As such there is no question of construing an appointment of gurus from these two transcripts. But since the May tape was tampered with, not only is it not valid evidence, but it is conclusive evidence as to the demoniac nature of the "gurus"-just the opposite of the divine nature they claimed the tape represented.

Another significant point is that Bhavananda and Hansadutta were not named in this June tape. Their names appeared on the letter issued to all centers that Prabhupada signed, but they were not named in this tape. No doubt some "good reasons" were given to Prabhupada later on to include them even though Bhavananda had only a year previously been caught by Pippilai dasa pants down, having sex with a Bengali boy in Mayapur. Just months previously, Prabhupada had said that Hansadutta was "praying daily that I die so that he can become guru." Prabhupada was aware of the character of all these ritviks. Ritvik has no special authority whatsoever. He simply gives initiation on the guru's behalf. Otherwise why would Prabhupada say, "whoever is nearest." The common argument, introduced by Sridhar Maharaja is that, "Well, it only makes sense that if Prabhupada made them ritviks, they must be the most advanced devotees." Sridhar may have even been the first to introduce that idea even though two years previously Sridhar had said that ritvik implied no special position.

Aside from all that, Tamala Krsna has directly confessed (on tape) in the Pyramid House Talks, Dec. 3, 1980 that, "Actually, Prabhupada never appointed any gurus. He didn't appoint eleven gurus. He appointed eleven ritviks. He never appointed them gurus. Myself and the other GBC have done the greatest disservice to this movement the last three years because we interpreted the appointment of ritviks as the appointment of gurus."

The "gurus" placed a great deal of importance on this tape to substantiate their claims, but the fact is that this tape, at least in its present condition, is the least authoritative explanation of guru. But Prabhupada, seeing past, present, and future, knew that this tape would be used to exploit the devotees. And so within this tape he planted one very important line that gives us the all-important clue as to what is the authoritative explanation on the subject of guru after his departure. He gave that clue by quoting "amara ajnaya guru hana." Nowhere does Srila Prabhupada say that a bona fide guru, a guru who actually sees Krsna face to face, can be appointed. The statement, "He's actually guru, but by my order," simply means that everyone is ordered to become guru by repeating what Prabhupada has taught us. It is not necessary to wait to see Krsna face to face to become guru and preach. Everyone should preach immediately by repeating what Prabhupada and Lord Caitanya have spoken. That is the meaning of "amara ajnaya guru hana" as explained below by Prabhupada. Everyone must preach from whatever level of realization he is on. But that kind of guru, and the actual liberated guru, are two different things. One is called diksa, and the other is called siksa. Anyone who repeats the message purely can become siksa-guru immediately. One's wife, one's mother, a prostitute, a beggar, a Godbrother, etc. Everyone is ordered to become guru in that sense. It is not possible to be ordered to become a pure devotee. The bona fide diksa-guru must be a pure devotee that is actually liberated. That is the conclusion of all of Srila Prabhupada's instructions on these two types of gurus. This May tape does not in any way contradict those instructions.

Srila Prabhupada's quoting the verse from Caitanya-caritamrta, "amara ajnaya guru hana" (Cc. Mad. 7.128) is so significant we are herein quoting the entire section from the Caitanya-caritamrta. We strongly suggest that the devotees read it carefully. It fully substantiates the conclusions in given in Chapter Nine.

"The brahmana (Kurma) begged Lord Caitanya Mahaprabhu, "My dear Lord, kindly show me favor and let me go with You. I can no longer tolerate the waves of misery caused by materialistic life. (Cc. Mad. 7.126)

"Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu replied, "Don't speak like that again. Better to remain at home and chant the holy name of Krsna always." (Cc. Mad. 7.127)

Purport by Prabhupada: "It is not advisable in this age of Kali to leave one's family suddenly, for people are not trained as proper brahmacaris and grhasthas. Therefore Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu advised the brahmana not to be too eager to give up family life. It would be better to remain with his family and try to become purified by chanting the Hare Krsna maha-mantra regularly under the direction of a spiritual master. This is the instruction of Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu. If this principle is followed by everyone, there is no need to accept sannyasa. In the next verse Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu advises everyone to become an ideal householder by offenselessly chanting the Hare Krsna mantra and teaching the same principle to everyone he meets."

"Instruct everyone to follow the orders of Lord Sri Krsna as they are given in Bhagavad-gita and Srimad Bhagavatam. In this way become a spiritual master and try to liberate everyone in the land." (Cc. Mad. 7.128)

Purport by Prabhupada: "This is the sublime mission of ISKCON. Many people come and inquire whether they have to give up family life to join the Society, but that is not our mission. One can remain comfortably in his residence. We simply request everyone to chant the maha-mantra.... If one is a little literate and can read Bhagavad-gita As It Is and Srimad-Bhagavatam, that is so much the better. These works are now available in an English translation and are done very authoritatively to appeal to all classes of men. Instead of living engrossed in material activities, people throughout the world should take advantage of this movement and chant the Hare Krsna maha-mantra at home with their families. One should also refrain from sinful activities-illicit sex, meat-eating, gambling and intoxication. Out of these four items, illicit sex is very sinful. Every person must get married. Every woman especially must get married. If the women outnumber the men, some men can accept more than one wife. In that way there will be no prostitution in society. If men can marry more than one wife, illicit sex life will be stopped.... The Krsna consciousness movement is trying to elevate human society to the perfection of life by pursuing the method described by Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu in His advice to the brahmana Kurma. That is, one should stay at home, chant the Hare Krsna mantra and preach the instructions of Krsna as they are given in Bhagavad-gita and Srimad Bhagavatam."

"Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu further advised the brahmana Kurma, "If you follow this instruction, your materialistic life at home will not obstruct your spiritual advancement. Indeed, if you follow these regulative principles, we will again meet here, or, rather, you will never lose My company." (Cc. Mad. 7.129)

Purport by Prabhupada: "This is an opportunity for everyone. If one simply follows the instructions of Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu, under the guidance of His representative, and chants the Hare Krsna mantra, teaching everyone as far as possible the same principle, the contamination of the materialistic way of life will not even touch him. It does not matter whether one lives in a holy place like Vrndavana, Navadwipa or Jagannatha Puri or in the midst of European cities where the materialistic way of life is very prominent. If a devotee follows the instructions of Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu, he lives in the company of the Lord. Wherever he lives, he converts that place into Vrndavana and Navadvipa. This means that materialism cannot touch him. This is the secret of success for one advancing in Krsna consciousness.

"At whosoever's house Sri Caitanya accepted His alms by taking prasada, He would convert the dwellers to His sankirtana movement and advise them just as He advised the brahmana named Kurma. (Cc. Mad. 7.130)

Purport by Prabhupada: "The cult of Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu is explained here very nicely. One who surrenders to Him and is ready to follow Him with heart and soul does not need to change his location. Nor is it necessary for one to change status. One may remain a householder, a medical practitioner, an engineer, or whatever. It doesn't matter. One only has to follow the instructions of Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu, chant the Hare Krsna maha-mantra and instruct relatives and friends in the teachings of Bhagavad-gita and Srimad-Bhagavatam. One has to learn humility and meekness at home following the instructions of Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu, and in that way one's life will be spiritually successful. One should not try to be an artificially advanced devotee thinking, 'I am a first-class devotee.' Such thinking should be avoided. It is best not to accept any disciples. One has to become purified at home by chanting the Hare Krsna maha-mantra and preaching the principles and be freed from the contamination of material life.... To protect his preachers, Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu has given much clear advice in these verses of Caitanya-caritamrta.

Need more than this be said on the status of ISKCON's self-appointed gurus? Comments, inquiries, and donations toward this book may be sent to Steve Bryant (Sulocana dasa), 2124 Kittredge #32, Berkeley, CA, 94704. Thank you.

Section 2-JURISDICTION

The GBC is stating that since there is no real system of dealing with such problems on the local level in ISKCON, the grievance committee is having to deal with it. What they are really saying is that since the GBC has never really studied or understood, or compiled anything on the relationship between husband, wife, and guru, either before or after Srila Prabhupada's departure, Sulocana dasa is now forcing the issue. There are some very obvious problems which arise when unqualified men pose as "gurus" and come in between husband and wife. But, since Sulocana dasa is the only one to date who has thoroughly studied the matter fully, and can speak authoritatively from Srila Prabhupada's books and letters, backing every point with sastra, the GBC did not respond to hardly any of Sulocana's challenges.

Section 3-GENERAL PRINCIPLES

The general principle of the GBC is that ISKCON's "gurus" are bona fide. Since all the statements made by the GBC are based on this absurd proposition, the entire document is invalid. Sulocana's upcoming book proves conclusively that these "gurus" were never appointed. Most devotees realize this by now anyway. So, as Prabhupada often explains, if you start an equation with one plus one equals three, then naturally all the rest of the equation is going to be off. This is all that really need be said about the philosophical arguments presented by the GBC on women, marriage, and guru. Still, we will go into some of the points just to show the foolishness of the official position of the "GBC".

PART ONE

WOMEN'S GURU-HER HUSBAND OR A "SANNYASI"?

Everyone should have a bona fide pure devotee guru, including women. That does not mean that everyone should take initiation in the same way. According to the Vedic system, the husband takes initiation from a bona fide guru, and the wife serves that same guru by serving her husband. Prabhupada says, "The man becomes a devotee of Krsna, and the wife becomes a devotee of her husband." They are thus both initiated since they are "two halves of the same body." There is absolutely no difference if the wife has formally taken initiation or not. She is automatically the disciple of the husband's guru. If the wife devotes herself to another man, who the husband disapproves of, then the relationship of the woman to both "husband" and "guru" is illicit. No bona fide guru would allow such a thing. A wife is never initiated separate from her husband. In Vedic culture she is not initiated at all. When Jadurani first approached Srila Prabhupada for initiation, Srila Prabhupada told her to go find herself a husband amongst the devotees in the temple. Later he gave concession to women for the sake of engaging them, since he could plainly see they were not going to accept the Vedic standard. That is the only reason Srila Prabhupada initiated women in a separate ceremony. Factually, any woman is automatically Prabhupada's disciple if she marries a Prabhupada disciple. Wherever a woman's heart is, that is where her husband and her guru are. A woman cannot have two husbands or two gurus. Prabhupada says that an ordinary woman cannot imitate Draupadi by thinking she can equally serve and devote herself to more than one man, what to speak of a "sannyasi". A woman can only have one guru, her husband, and through him she may devote herself to his guru, not separately.

CAN WOMEN BE INITIATED SEPARATE FROM THE HUSBAND?

The GBC argument that Prabhupada initiated women separate from the husband is not a valid argument for the above reasons. But Prabhupada also initiated single women? He could do that for several reasons. (1) He knew they would be marrying one of his disciples, since his standard order was that all women were to be married. (2) Even if a woman was not going to marry, but finally decided to remain single as a nun, Prabhupada could also initiate nuns. Prabhupada could initiate anyone he wanted to, because he is an uttama-adhikari, completely pure devotee with no sex desire or ulterior motives in his heart. No one today can make that claim. (3) Because Prabhupada was such an elevated uttama-adhikari, he could adjust the standard religious principles for time and circumstance. Others, those not on that level, must follow his instructions, not imitate. Initiating women is just such an adjustment. It is true that time and circumstances are basically the same now (women's liberation) as in 1966, but there is one big difference. It is a very, very, very, big difference. These new "gurus" are light years from being uttama-adhikaris. If Prabhupada had wanted his neophyte disciples to imitate him after he departed, then why didn't he mention such a thing anywhere in his books or letters? Aren't we supposed to be following the instructions and not imitating? (4) Prabhupada initiated single women but he never initiated a man's wife if the man did not want to take initiation also-and visa versa. At least he stated in several letters that he did not want to do such a thing. He was requested to, but he didn't comply. That would have been coming between a husband and wife. Prabhupada was a pure devotee, so naturally he would never do such a thing.

The GBC's arguments simply reveal the well-known tendency of the "gurus" to imitate Srila Prabhupada, and not to follow his instructions.

KIRTANANANDA'S ONE AND ONLY ARGUMENT

Sometimes, but very rarely, if the woman was interested in Krsna consciousness, but the husband was an out-and-out demon, Prabhupada would recommend that she live separately from him in the temple. He never recommended that she remarry. Such instances are extremely rare-maybe only one or two letters. But in numerous letters Prabhupada encouraged the woman to tolerate her husband's weaknesses and be patient. He directly told one devotee to cook meat for her husband (consult Baumadeva, Detroit). What Kirtanananda did, in essence, by telling Sulocana's wife to leave him, was directly call Sulocana a demon, and call himself, equal to Srila Prabhupada. His one and only argument was, "Sarvabhauma Bhattacarya told his daughter to leave Amogha because Amogha was blaspheming Lord Caitanya. So you are also an offender, so I told your wife to leave you." Since Kirtanananda considers himself a pure devotee, he compared Sulocana's failure to worship Kirtanananda to Amogha's blaspheming Lord Caitanya. Sulocana certainly never claimed to be a pure devotee, but he does claim that he never for a moment thought offensively toward Prabhupada, Lord Caitanya, or Krsna. Kirtanananda cannot make that claim. He directly attacked Prabhupada, caning him a tyrant, among numerous other elephant offenses (all the letters concerning this gurvaparada by Kirtanananda are in the book).

WHY ISKCON'S "GURUS" CANNOT IMITATE PRABHUPADA

If there were a completely pure devotee on the planet right now, equal to Srila Prabhupada in every way, such a pure devotee could act as Prabhupada did and initiate both men and women, whether they were married or not, and not fall down. But in the absence of such an uttama-adhikari, we have to follow the instructions of the uttama-adhikari, not imitate him. Why does the GBC think Prabhupada wrote so many books anyway? To collect dust? Why does the GBC think that Prabhupada never even hinted in letter or book the concept of a woman having a guru independent of her husband? He never mentions it anywhere. He only refers to himself as a women's guru in a few places in all his writings. He almost always referred to the women as his daughters. He knew no one was qualified to imitate him in any way whatsoever. And he knew that no one would come along in his immediate aftermath on that level either. So he never mentioned it. He didn't want to encourage neophytes to imitate him after his departure. He only stressed to follow his instructions. The only example he encouraged them to imitate was the way he worked 24 hours a day in Krsna's service. The real uttama-adhikari's instructions are crystal clear. The wife should be devoted to her husband, and her husband should be sincere and devoted to guru and Krsna (innumerable references). And, to solidify that instruction, Prabhupada said (paraphrased): unless one is on the level of Haridasa Thakura, Narada Muni, or Srila Prabhupada, then no one can accept service from, or give shelter to a woman (ref. SB 7.7.14). This underlined phrase defines what initiation means.

GBC SAYS: "GURUS DON'T HAVE TO BE PURE-BUT HUSBANDS DO"

How the GBC could have the audacity to deny this instruction of Srila Prabhupada's is inconceivable. This is the way they word it:

"The point that Srila Prabhupada was special, a nitya-siddha, eternally liberated pure devotee and cannot be imitated by his disciples is certainly true; but this is not an appropriate argument in this case (they give no explanation why they make this claim). It is true that no one can claim the infallibility or purity of Srila Prabhupada, but such perfection or equality is not required to perform the duties of diksa-guru." (No further explanation.)

So, they say the diksa-guru does not have to be pure to give shelter to, or accept service from women. But what about the husband? What does the GBC say about the husband's requirements?

"A husband cannot claim the status of a pati-guru (husband-guru) or ideal grhastha without strictly following the four regulative principles and devotional principles, such as a minimum of sixteen rounds, the morning program, etc. The rules and regulations of the grhastha-ashrama are as strict for that ashrama as the rules and regulations for any other ashrama.... A husband who does not act as a bonafide grhastha (defined above) cannot expect his wife to continue to respect him or be obedient to him. Such an unfortunate wife is certainly justified in seeking protection from her spiritual authorities (temple president), including her guru."

We have in our possession a letter from the man who compiled this document, Rupanuga, written to Satsvarupa, which states that Jayapataka and Ramesvara both do not chant their rounds. But then these are minor things compared to the heavy offenses by all the "gurus". But, if an ordinary householder does not chant all his rounds, and perfectly follow all the principles, in other words, if he is not a pure devotee, his wife should neither serve or respect him. Instead, the GBC says she can leave him for the "protection" of her "guru". They say she has every right to grab his children, and run off to live with some popped-out temple president and a "sannyasi".

KIRTANANANDA'S TEN-THOUSAND "WIVES"

So, in essence, the GBC is saying: "A guru does not have to be pure to initiate hundreds of persons, including other men's wives, thereby splitting up marriages and creating 'varna sankara,' but the husband has to be a completely pure devotee, to have one devoted follower, his wife." This claim has no shastric backing whatsoever. It is a serious Vaisnava-aparadha to all those devotees who have had their families destroyed by this bogus philosophy. Can anyone imagine what would happen if all the women in the world, whose husband's were not following all the strict regulative principles perfectly, immediately grabbed the children and ran off to live with some bogus sannyasi posing as a guru. The proposal of the GBC is insanity but they are the ones in charge of the most important spiritual movement in the world. Just try and see the position. These men are not sannyasis or gurus or GBC, they are manipulators and exploiters living at the expense of hundreds of "wives". Some of them act exactly like pimps. In our book we go into elaborate detail on the wife swapping and illicit-sex going on in ISKCON.

WHEN CAN A WOMAN LEAVE A FALLEN HUSBAND?

Prabhupada makes very clear in SB 7.11.28 the qualifications for a woman to leave her husband. That is the authoritative purport for this problem. It must be very carefully studied. First and foremost, Prabhupada says that he has to be a nondevotee. If he is a devotee, then despite his weaknesses, "he is sinless (but not a guru)." So, the primary qualification for leaving a husband is not his flaws, but whether or not he has faith in Krsna. If he has faith in Krsna, he is a devotee. To justify leaving a husband, he has to be a "naradhamah", a nondevotee, the lowest of men, and addicted to all the four sinful activities. Only when the husband is such a nondevotee, she can leave him, but she cannot remarry. She can live separately. (In one letter Prabhupada conceded that: "If both husband and wife agree, she may divorce and remarry." Prabhupada gave that instruction in disgust.) The GBC refers to this text also, but they do not mention that a woman who leaves such a degraded husband should not remarry. And, or course, they are implying that Sulocana is such a degraded person without knowing anything about Sulocana. And, of course, Sulocana's wife "remarried" a Kirtanananda man almost immediately after Kirtanananda broke up their marriage. And the character of the man he "remarried" her to....

THE REAL QUESTION??

So the real question is: Where do you draw the line in defining a devotee? Kirtanananda claims Sulocana is a demon. Sulocana claims Kirtanananda Swami is a demon. How to judge? At what degree of contamination is one considered not to be a devotee? Is subtle contamination not important? Many persons who were at one point strictly following the regulative principles, and considered advanced, even sannyasis, are now eating meat and blaspheming Srila Prabhupada. So were they actually advanced devotees while they were following strictly? If they were, how could they have fallen down so far? Is sincerity the only qualification for a devotee? If so, how do you judge sincerity? Does sincerity come and go on a daily basis? How long does one have to be strictly following the regulative principles to be considered sincere and advanced? Does artificially performing austerities mean one is sincere, or does it mean he is heading for a fall? Should ISKCON hire psychics to analyze a man's sincerity? Could astrology help? Can regression under hypnosis reveal a man's motives? These are worthwhile considerations. Instead the GBC asks: "Can a imitation sannyasi 'guru' advise a man's were to leave him because he is not following all the regulative principles which are actually only meant for the brahmins?" Only a fool or a demon could propose such a thing.

SINCERITY-COMPARING SULOCANA TO KIRTANANANDA

Sulocana's wife decided to take initiation on the grounds that Sulocana was not qualified to deliver her. She says he was not following the regulative principles strictly and therefore she assumed he was not sincere. He was chanting average 12-13 rounds daily and periodically he would go through a spell of getting intoxicated once a week. He frequently ate chocolate. At that tune he was 29 years old and just starting a Krsna conscious picture pendant business. Because he was not perfectly following everything, his wife thought he was not sincere. She thought she should take initiation from someone whom she was told was sincere. Makes sense, right? Wrong. She did not stop to consider that she knew absolutely nothing about this man. She did not know that when Kirtanananda was 29 years old, or Sulocana's age at the time she took "initiation", he was a full-blown, active homosexual, or second-cock in gay lingo, since he was the female counterpart of Hayagriva. We were tempted to vividly describe what such persons do in the evenings, but we will spare the // sensitivity" of the "brahmins" reading this rebuttal. Then, when Kirtanananda Swami was 30, a year after taking "initiation", he stabbed Prabhupada square in the back in an attempt to steal Prabhupada's movement for himself. Had Jane known these documented hard facts about this man, she may have thought twice about his sincerity, despite what Kuladri was telling her about following some external principles. In India, any upper caste man automatically follows those principles, so that alone is hardly any ultimate qualification. When Satsvarupa was this age, 29, he was a new devotee and was having sex with his wife every single night. At least Sulocana regulated his usage of the "concession" to twice a month. So, by comparing Sulocana with these two "big, big gurus" at age 29, Sulocana is far more advanced than both of them put together, and who knows where they wig all be 30 years down the road? Sulocana never claimed to be a saint, but it certainly isn't Kirtanananda's position to judge him. No one else ever attacked Prabhupada the way Kirtanananda did. Prabhupada condemned Kirtanananda in more letters than all the other bogus gurus combined.

PART TWO

JUDGING A MAN

These are points that the GBC should be considering. Instead they make these asinine statements that a diksa-guru does not have to be free of sex desire to take hundreds of women disciples, but a husband has to be completely pure to deserve to keep the devotion of his one wife. The "gurus" base all their claim of divinity of Bhagavad-gita 9.30, quoted below. They are all riding on the thin thread of this verse in hopes that no one will ever think about it. They claim a monopoly on using this verse to justify their behavior, but if anyone else exhibits weaknesses, they can-not quote this verse. "They are simply demons to be discarded." The following is an in-depth analysis of that verse.

"Even if one commits the most abominable action, if he is engaged in devotional service he is to be considered saintly because he is properly situated in his determination." (BG 9.30)

Purport by Srila Prabhupada: "...Now in the conditioned state, sometimes devotional service and the conditional service in relation to the body will parallel one another. But then again, sometimes these activities become opposed to one another. As far as possible, a devotee is very cautious so that he does not do anything that could disrupt his wholesome condition.... No one should deride a devotee for some accidental falldown from the ideal path, for, as explained in the next verse, such occasional falldowns will be stopped in due course, as soon as a devotee is completely situated in Krsna consciousness.... The words 'sadhur eva, "he is saintly', are very emphatic. They are a warning to the nondevotees that because of an accidental falldown a devotee should not be derided; he should still be considered saintly even if he has accidentally fallen down. And the word 'mantavyah" is still more emphatic. If one does not follow this rule, and derides a devotee for his accidental falldown, then one is disobeying the order of the Supreme Lord.... On the other hand, one should not misunderstand that a devotee in transcendental devotional service can act in all kinds of abominable ways; this verse only refers to an accident due to the strong power of material connections.... As long as one is not strong enough to fight the illusory energy, there may be accidental falldowns. But when one is strong enough, he is no longer subjected to such falldowns, as previously explained. No one should take advantage of this verse and commit nonsense and think that he is still a devotee. If he does not improve in his character by devotional service, then it is to be understood that he is not a high devotee."

WHAT IS AN ACCIDENTAL FALLDOWN?

Note: The word accident must be defined in order to understand what Prabhupada is saying in this purport. Generally an accident is accepted as being something that suddenly happens and is beyond our control. In that sense, it would be impossible to accidentally have illicit sex or accidentally get intoxicated. In the next purport Prabhupada says: "either by accident or intention." Actually, there is no such thing as an accident since everything is controlled by the Lord, and all activities are either one's karma, or Krsna's special mercy on a devotee. So when Prabhupada says "accident" he means engaging in abominable activity by force of habit. Prabhupada uses that phrase, "force of habit," in numerous places to describe ones occasional indulgences in illicit activities. So, we feel safe injecting that phrase here in place of the word "accident," which is confusing to many devotees, including "gurus." They tend to abuse this verse to commit their abominable activities. Prabhupada did not make a mistake in his wording. The devotees simply fail to understand the real meaning. So it is important to clearly define it. The translation to this verse does not in any way imply an accident. Prabhupada uses the word accident to mean an act done without malicious intent and/or blatant disregard for authority. In other words, by force of habit. ISKCON's "gurus" say that, "if a devotee does something illicit more than once, then it cannot be an accident. So, if not an accident, the man must be a demon." With this argument they justify taking his wife and children away and getting her in bed with himself or one of his own men.

JUDGING A MAN'S SINCERITY

So this is a critical verse and purport and must be studied at great length. It is a subtle thing, something the gurus know little about. It means judging between one who remorsefully engages in base activities due to his past habits, and one who sinfully does so because he just plain doesn't care about any authority. That is the all important question. Determining the sincerity of one's heart is the essence of judging a devotee and that can be very misleading if one is not extremely perceptive. There are a class of sahajiyas today who claim that it is not good to judge others. That is simply foolishness. One absolutely has to make such judgments daily if he wants to avoid bad, and accept good association.

ILLICIT SEX

This is the most common problem devotees face. Say for example one spends his whole life, from puberty onwards, in gross illicit sex, but then later he meets a pure devotee like Srila Prabhupada and he wants to give up this bad habit. But due to the strong influence of material energy he cannot do so very easily. Still, he tries to regulate his sex life and makes strict vows to gradually decrease it. Such a person, who honestly and responsibly lives with his wife, and does not look at or pollute other women, can be considered sincere even though he may be having sex with his wife too often to be considered a disciple or a brahmin. The sex to him is like a material conditioned necessity or habit just like sleeping and eating. He cannot abruptly give it up, but he does not like being under its control either, and so he tries to gradually reduce it. Such a person may be considered sincere or even saintly as long as he is sincerely trying to serve Krsna. He is certainly not a pure devotee, yet, and he should not be treated as though he were. He may be respected, but only from a distance by those who want to advance quickly (NOI).

But then you take someone else who comes to Krsna consciousness for ulterior motives and has sex, gross or subtle, with one woman after another, even other men's wives. Such a person should not be considered saintly or sincere, but on the contrary, he should be publicly condemned so that sane persons can avoid his contaminated association. One perfect example of this is Sruti Kirti. He polluted at least half-a-dozen married women that we know of personally, destroying their marriages. Because he had this extremely demoniac tendency, he should not have been considered saintly just because he chanted Hare Krsna. But, out of ignorance he was considered saintly and so nobody wanted to publicly expose him. Thus he was able to pollute one women after another. He should have been publicly condemned after the first one. Instead, Ramesvara continued to support this debauch right up through the sixth married woman he polluted. He even took Prabhupada's money and sent Sruti Kirti to India so the last husband who swore to kill him would not be able to. This is not an isolated incident. It is going on everywhere with the full blessing of the "gurus".

INTOXICATION, SPORTS, MOVIES, ETC.

The same principle goes for these habits. It may be unbearably difficult for a devotee to abstain from them, but if he honestly recognizes his fallen condition, and strives to reduce them, then eventually he will be able to give them up altogether. He should be sane and regulate his usage, gradually reducing. If he is sincere he will eventually be able to give it up as he continues to chant Hare Krsna in the mood: "Krsna, I am so weak and fallen, please help me to overcome these weaknesses so I can eventually be fully engaged in Your service." Again we have a fine line between praying like this and committing sins on the strength of chanting the holy name, which is an offense. If one is determined to give up bad habits, and he makes a regular program to do so, then he may be considered sincere and should be encouraged by everyone, including his wife. But he must prove his sincerity by strictly endeavoring to reduce the habit. That is the meaning of this verse. If anyone disagrees, state your position, and we will debate.

HOW THE VARNAS AND ASHRAMAS MUST BE TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION

A man may pray like that, but only to convince himself and others that he is really sincere. How else may one judge? One way is by seeing the amount of trouble and austerity one accepts for Krsna. There are different austerities for the different varnas and ashramas. If one is a sannyasi, but he engages in eating very opulent foods three tunes a day, sleeps on a soft bed, freely associates with women, has little knowledge of sastra, but still lives off the money of others, then such a sannyasi can readily be recognized as bogus. So ultimately it boils down to how submissive one is to the instructions of guru, sastra, and sadhu, which apply to ones own vama and asrarna. If one is acting according to sastra then he can be considered sincere. But sastra has to be clearly defined for the different classes before we can judge. A householder doing business and accepting all sorts of sense gratification and sex with his wife may well be more sincere that a "sannyasi" who merely talks to women. Ramananda Raya would massage and dress beautiful women, and he was the topmost devotee of Lord Caitanya, who Himself set the example by stating that He couldn't even look at a wooden form of a woman without being agitated. Chota Haridasa, because he was in the renounced order, was excommunicated for simply talking to a woman once in private. Thus he committed suicide. So one's position in the varnas and ashramas is a primary consideration in determining one's sincerity.

For ksatriyas, vaisyas, and sudras, such things as sports are not so degraded, but if a man claiming to be a brahmin indulges in them, we can understand differently. Everything has to be taken into consideration in determining the quality of one's association.

WHAT MUST NOW BE DONE?

It requires real brahmins to judge such things and advise devotees properly. Since there are few if any real brahmins in our society today, it is absolutely essential to thoroughly learn, and then stick as closely as possible to Prabhupada's instructions, not imitate him. That means fully indexing, categorizing, and scrutinizingly studying all the angles of interpretation in the association of serious devotee. That would have been a noble objective for the GBC to arrange right after Srila Prabhupada's disappearance. Instead, they spent all their time holding mock debates and scheming how to fool the devotees into thinking they were bona fide gurus, and this, within days of Prabhupada's departure. So, until some serious devotees undertake this project of clarifying Prabhupada's teaching on these subjects, we will still be largely in the dark in determining how to act and how not to act? Who is a devotee and who is not a devotee? Who is a guru, and who is a demon?

THE LEADERS: HOW TO JUDGE THEIR BEHAVIOR

Generally most of the devotees are straightforward and basically sincere. They most likely will have some bad habits, having been brought up in the West, but they are genuinely attracted to becoming devotees of Krsna. But then there are others who are more interested in their personal glorification. How to tell the one from the other? One very good method of determining the sincerity of a devotee is to analyze his behavior in terms of how much pain he is causing others. A real devotee is humble and does not cause pain to others unnecessarily. Simple devotees may indulge in illicit sex and intoxication but basically they are only slowing down their own progress in devotional service by such behavior. Most devotees will not intentionally hurt others. But if a person is claiming to be a big leader, is demanding respect from others, is exploiting and discouraging others, then that person can safely be labeled a demon in the guise of a devotee. On the other hand, a leader may be seen periodically doing some nonsense, but if he is humble and doesn't demand that others worship him as a saint, then that devotee is to be considered saintly since he is humble and therefore becoming purified. It's a question of heart. Usually, one's heart can be determined by studying the outward behavior in relation to shastric evidence and a little common sense.

IT'S A GRADUAL PROCESS; JUDGING A MAN'S PAST

Purification is a gradual process. The very word purification implies gradual. One must be improving in his condition. It is not expected that everyone will be instantly cleansed or they can be labeled a demon. If one strictly regulates his sense gratification, then he will gradually improve. We know of no one today who is qualified to judge a man's soul simply at a glance. In any court of law, if a man is up for a crime, the judge will be lenient or severe depending on whether that person is a one time offender, or a habitual criminal. He has to investigate the man's past to determine this. Only then can he see if the man is improving or not. The same principle goes for devotees, but on a much deeper level. Judging a devotee is many times more difficult than judging a criminal. An illiterate, insignificant devotee, simply cleaning the toilets in 1985, may become a great powerful preacher 50 years down the road, if he remains humble. On the other hand, we have already seen some of ISKCON's "big" leaders, because they were not at all humble, eating meat, having illicit sex, getting intoxicated and even blaspheming Srila Prabhupada after just a few years. Therefore, judging a man's character is a serious thing and must be done very, very carefully before making accusations. A man's past must be taken into consideration.

JUDGING KIRTANANANDA: CASE CLOSED

Sulocana did not make public accusations against Kirtanananda until he had thoroughly studied Kirtanananda Swami from all angles, past and present. He interviewed other victims, past and present. He took the opinions of numerous devotees who knew Kirtanananda Swami from the very beginning. He studied Kirtanananda's own words. He read all the letters written by Srila Prabhupada about Kirtanananda Swami. Then he made it known to numerous devotees, both GBC, and otherwise of the patterns in Kirtanananda's behavior. No one was able to properly respond to the allegations. During this time that Sulocana was "patient", his were was turned into a prostitute. At that point any other man would have gone to New Vrindaban and blown Kirtanananda's brains out. But only then, several months later, when the evidence had become overwhelming, and the GBC continued muddling did Sulocana come right out, and with full confidence, publicly declare to the world in writing, that Kirtanananda is a out-and-out "raksasa" (demon). And, sure enough, Kirtanananda's failure to respond in any way to Sulocana's challenge, proved Sulocana right. Case closed.

SHASTRIC QUOTES ON THE CHARACTER OF KIRTANANANDA

"Then he has to purify his existence. There are so many rules and regulations to be followed in the renounced order of life. Most important of all, a sannyasi is strictly forbidden to have any intimate relationship with a woman. He is even forbidden to talk with a woman in a secluded place.... One has to follow the rules and regulations of a particular status of life in order to purify his existence. For a sannyasi, intimate relations with women and possession of wealth for sense gratification are strictly forbidden...not even enjoying them, but just looking toward them with such a propensity is so condemned that he had better commit suicide before experiencing such illicit desires." (BG 16, 1-3)

"In this verse, the royal road to hell is described. The demoniac want to make a show of religion and advancement in spiritual science, although they do not follow the principles. They are always arrogant or proud in possessing some type of education or so much wealth. They desire to be worshipped by others, and demand respectability, although they do not command respect. Over trifles they become very angry and speak harshly, not gently. They do not know what should be done and what should not be done. They do everything whimsically, according to their own desire, and they do not recognize any authority. These demoniac qualities are taken on by them from the beginning of their bodies in the womb so their mothers, and as they grow they manifest all these inauspicious qualities." (BG 16.4)

"Those who do not follow the scriptural injunctions are supposed to be demons. Therefore it is stated here that the demons do not know the scriptural rules, nor do they have any inclination to follow them. Most of them do not know them, and even if some of them know, they have not the tendency to follow them." (BG 16.7)

"The process of speaking in spiritual circles is to say something upheld by the scriptures. One should at once quote from scriptural authority to back up what he is saying. At the same time, such talk should be very pleasurable to the ear. (BG 17.14) (Kirtanananda is yet to defend his actions by sastra. He has had a year now to try and do so.)

CONCLUSION

The day for women to take a separate initiation is over, unless they want to become nuns. Then they can take spiritual instruction from a householder siksa-guru if his wife can agree to it. In essence that means the woman becomes a second wife, but in a non-sexual way. Such a relationship is hardly likely in many young Westernized women. Since this movement is young, the practical application of this principle will not be seen for many years. Therefore Prabhupada frequently said that "all the women should be married." He never encouraged a brahmacarini asrama." The letters to the real Mother Jamuna Dasi make that very clear. He simply had to put the women someplace until they got married. If the GBC wants to debate on this subject, they will have to study it. To encourage them, we are enclosing a printout-at our expense-of all of Srila Prabhupada's instructions on marriage from the letters. We will be expecting a more scholarly response soon. The chapter in our book entitled, ISKCON WOMEN: PROTECTED OR EXPLOITED, goes into all these points in much more detail.

SD: The guy was a mobster and sex-freak, and all of a sudden he's a guru in ISKCON with his own little harem. How long did this go on?

Jj: A couple of years. You should find some of those mothers who were on his party. They can tell you some stories. I know there's two of them down in LA. I heard rumors that if the women didn't get their quotas they should go out and pull a few tricks.

SD: Yeah. That's not surprising. Kusala told me Jiva would encourage them to steal anything they could get their hands on.

Jj: When Hamsadutta got here, you know he wanted to stop this women's party, and Caru, who was the temple president at that time said: "You can't do that. These women are collecting a million dollars a year, and distributing all these books." Srila Hamsadutta said, "Well then, if it's all right, then whey don't you send your wife out with Jiva and let her get screwed a few times and see how you like it?" Then Caru shut up.

COMMENT

It should not be thought that the leaders in ISKCON were/are not aware of these kinds of activities. They are all fully aware of what's going on, but the greed for profit, adoration, and distinction far overshadows their desire to encourage moral behavior amongst the general devotees as well as themselves.

DAS Devotee Access Services

AN INSIDE INFORMATION SERVICE FOR DEVOTEES EVERYWHERE

Dec. 12, 1985

Dear Vaisnavas and aspiring Vaisnavas:

Please accept my humble obeisances. All glories to the pure devotee who gave all of us the seed of Krsna consciousness, Srila Prabhupada.

For those of you who have expressed difficulty reading my heavy-handed writing style, I would like to quote from a letter Prabhupada wrote to Karandhara if that may help:

"No compromise-Rama Krishna, Avatars, yogis, everyone was enemy to Guru Maharaja-he never compromised. Some Godbrothers complained that his was chopping technique and it would not be successful. But we have seen that those who criticized, they fell down. For my part, I have taken up the policy of my Guru Maharaja-no compromise. All these so-called scholars, scientists, philosophers, who do not accept Krsna (or Prabhupada) are nothing more than rascals, fools, lowest of mankind, etc. So you go on with your work, it is very encouraging to me." (7/27/73)

Today I was presented with a book put out by Dheera Krsna entitled, The Guardian of Devotion. I took this as a response to our challenges even though he hardly touched upon any of the serious points we had brought up. Dheera didn't touch upon our point that Sridhar Maharaja preaches an impersonal origin of the soul, which we proved by extensively quoting from both Sridhar Maharaja's book Search for Krishna and Prabhupada's books. We have no choice but to assume that Dheera has nothing to say. Having no answer means he has lost the debate.

I beg to remind Dheera and his followers that I wrote only Part One of four parts, to the Sridhara Maharaja chapter of my book, The Guru Business. (Available $10.) 1 did not touch upon the bad advice he gave ISKCON's GBC when they approached him in 1978 for approval to play guru. Two famous quotes by Sridhar Maharaja at that time were: "It will be to deceive the disciple (telling them you're a pure devotee)" or, "There is no big mantra or little mantra for guru. Guru is one. (So go ahead and pose as uttamas.)" A few years later when that bogus advice exploded in a series of falldowns, violence and dissension, Sridhara Maharaja said to Dheera, "They will dig their own graves (and bury Prabhupada along with them.)" Then he summed it all up very clearly by saying to Yashomatinandan, "I am a form breaker," and, "I don't agree with Swami Maharaja (Prabhupada) in everything." The effect of Sridhar Maharaja's bad advice on ISKCON did not surprise us since Prabhupada had already warned: "They (specifically Sridhara Maharaja) cannot help us in our movement but they are very competent to harm our natural progress." (Letter to Rupanuga.) As such, the fact that Dheera could not answer the section on the impersonal tendency leaves little doubt in our minds that he will not be able to respond to these heavy charges, i.e., that Sridhara Maharaja unduly interfered with the divine mission of Srila Prabhupada.

Personally, because I have full faith in Srila Prabhupada, I never had to read further than the one quote written to Rupanuga wherein Prabhupada said, "Sridhara Maharaja is responsible for disobeying this order of Guru Maharaja." Dheera simply refuses to address this and other serious statements made by Prabhupada. No one is denying that at one tune Sridhar Maharaja was sincere, advanced, friends with Prabhupada, etc., and that Prabhupada liked him and even confided in him, but when an offense is committed to a pure devotee, or his mission (the Gaudiya Math) which is non-different, one loses all importance in Krsna consciousness and immediately fails down to mundane mental speculation. (Narayana Maharaja said, "Don't you know this man (Sridhara Maharaja) is a breaker of institutions?") As far as "high realizations" go, I'm sure Jayatirtha also has some very high realizations which make him and his followers "faint" all the time. And Srila Prabhupada said about Jayatirtha just before leaving this world, "You are my only tirtha (shelter)."

We are not interested in those kinds of "high realizations." We are interested in solid, direct, and concise rebuttals to our philosophical points. Words spoken by Prabhupada in the mood of flattery, encouragement, Vaisnava etiquette, respect for seniors, humility, gratitude, friendship, etc., are not valid arguments to counter all of the negative statements Prabhupada made about Sridhar Maharaja just before leaving this world. Flattering and encouraging speech was always used by Prabhupada even when talking to the most disgusting human beings imaginable, so what to speak of what Prabhupada was capable of saying to a senior Godbrother, and in that Godbrother's presence. The words Prabhupada spoke about Sridhara Maharaja to his disciples when Sridhara was not there is the actual fact. And even then, Prabhupada was very cautious. If Prabhupada put in writing that Sridhar Maharaja is responsible for disobeying an order of his guru, that's it. Case closed. If Dheera wants to defend Sridhar Maharaja, then he has to confront these points, and not simply invoke the sentiments of those with no knowledge of Prabhupada's style of encouragement, his tactfulness, and humility and compassion. All these factors have to be taken into consideration when analyzing something Prabhupada says about an individual. To say that Prabhupada was whimsical when he wrote the letter to Rupanuga is very offensive. Prabhupada always was very careful about what went into writing.

So if Dheera still wants to defend Sridhar Maharaja on the basis of flattering statements, then first he has to explain why Sridhar Maharaja says the jiva soul originates in the Brahmajyoti, whereas Prabhupada says the jiva's original home is with Krsna. Why did Prabhupada write to Visvakarma in August of 1975, "I have now issued orders that All of my disciples should avoid all of my Godbrothers." And why did Prabhupada tell Gargamuni right after Sridhar Maharaja left the room once, "He is simply envious." These are solid facts that we require solid rebuttals to if Dheera wants to be a preacher and try and establish Sridhar Maharaja as being equal to Prabhupada. Actually, even though he denies it, Dheera and his clan are trying to establish Sridhar Maharaja as superior to Prabhupada. His statements clearly reveal this fact. For this reason it is extremely dangerous to read or even cite the words of Dheera or Akshayananda just as it is suicidal to read the Lilamrta, which was designed by ISKCON's bogus gurus to minimize Srila Prabhupada, "To make Prabhupada more acceptable to the general public" was their excuse.

At the present moment, the battle to remove the bogus gurus in ISKCON has reached a point where I have no time to finish the chapter on Sridhara Maharaja. I know many of you are anxious to start circulating the full expose since it is so painful to see our beloved spiritual master being minimized and shoved into the background like this but the priority at this time is exposing the ISKCON "gurus". I have every intention of finishing the chapter on Sridhara Maharaja at first opportunity. The source material for that chapter is so voluminous that it will take a solid week to sort through and compile. Until then, it is my humble request that if any of you still have doubts as to the real situation with Sridhara Maharaja, then please just put yourself on hold for a few more months. Very soon, maybe even within weeks, the ISKCON "gurus" will be fully exposed and removed from power. Once this offensive situation is gone, everyone will be able to breathe again and we can begin to rebuild ISKCON. At that time, if there is still a threat coming from the Sridhara Maharaja camp, we will compile the fun story.

The situation between myself and Keith Ham-asura (Kirtanananda) has reached the point where any day now it can ignite into a full-scale media battle which will bring the entire ISKCON situation into the public eye (enclosed is the latest front-page article). We consider the Sridhara Maharaja issue to be insignificant when compared to the preaching that must be done at this time to re-establish ISKCON as the pure society Srila Prabhupada wanted it to be. It is not our intention to allow ISKCON to dissolve into another tiny, obscure, dead body, like the Gaudiya Math, just because the "form breaker" prefers it that way. He successfully destroyed the institution of his Guru Maharaja but we will not allow him to destroy our mission as well. The only tool left to save ISKCON form the hands of these form breakers and imitationists is the media which is why I am giving full attention to them now. Enclosed is my introduction to reporters and a concise explanation as to what has happened in ISKCON since the departure of Srila Prabhupada. It is only a matter of time before the story breaks wide open. With the violent threats Ramesvara is throwing around these days, I wouldn't be surprised if he doesn't ignite the media fire that will purge ISKCON once and for all.