Tinker Tailor Compromise Enabler

(“Why compromise? My Guru Mahäräja never made any compromise.”)

May, 2017

by Kailäsa Candra däsa

“Don’t make compromise. This principle must be observed. Then you’ll remain strong. As soon as you make compromise, then it is finished.”
Room Conversation, 7-2-74, Melbourne

“As soon as there is a little deficiency, we must repair it or it will create a big hole, and the ship will drown.”
Letter to Rüpänuga, 4-28-74

Devotee: The big animals also prey on the small animals.
Prabhupäda: Yes. Mutual praising society, that’s all. “I praise you, and you praise me. I say you are very big; you say I am very big.” That’s all. And compromise, “I don’t criticize you; you don’t criticize me.”
Morning Walk, 10-21-75, Johannesburg

Remaining baffled by time-worn “ISKCON” astral clichés, substituting for solutions to real problems, the bewildered devotee is unable to catch hold of real answers. The roots of those problems plaguing “ISKCON” (and its splinter groups) are hidden in plain sight. Solutions to them are still available, although, in most cases, they might be a bit hard to swallow. Nevertheless, first you must ask the right questions, and, in order to do that, recognize and confront the root issues.

That requires not only spiritual courage but also an attitude of no compromise. If you can summon up enough of that, then Paramatma will invite you to move to the next level and engage in sincere investigation of those issues. After such investigation, you will be able to grasp real answers and real solutions. At that time, a segue to sincere, serious, and determined preaching is required. That will provoke considerable resistance, both internally and externally. Nevertheless, it then becomes your duty to instigate rejection and defiance of the institutional delusion.

Knowledge and detachment are necessary in order to carry out that duty. By doing so, you also help others transcend the institutional pabulum and mistaken knowledge, i.e., you will assist others in transcending flawed clichés with compromise at their core. Renounce the slave mentality, experience increased freedom, and move up to the next octave of instigation.

All Emphases Added for Your Edification and Realization

By this time, the compromises of the “ISKCON” confabulation have been mostly swept under the rug. Still, their consequences are not manifested unintentionally or by chance development, i.e., willful amnesia can never be merely accidental and the consequences are unavoidable. The group’s leaders are employing mäyikä principles that are well-known by all cult manipulators, and the imitation, non-spiritual strength of the fabricated, so-called “ISKCON” confederation remains formidable if you unfortunately stumble into its wheelhouse.

Once caught inside the thing, the ability to ask the right questions is disabled. Of course, leaders require disciples, fanatics, dedicated followers, enforcers, and patrons. “ISKCON” is no exception to this rule. Anyone who stubbornly remains one of its enablers will never ask the right questions. He or she has no interest in investigating the root issues and will not have the courage to urge to action what needs to be done. However, if you are not too implicated in “ISKCON” and/or any of its splinter groups, now is as good a time as any to confront just who you are and what your influence may be aiding and abetting, wittingly or unwittingly.

When we finally develop diffidence through knowledge and detachment, and when we finally once again break through to higher intelligence, we shall see that virtually all the astral clichés pushed by “ISKCON” over the past four decades represent either lies or half truths. Such a hard realization should not be to produce despondency; instead, it is meant to produce transcendental joy and freedom from the Machiavellian, ecclesiological fever swamp.

Unmitigated joy and complete freedom is experienced only when we return to the spiritual world of form and rasa, but we can get a taste of it here. Prabhupäda’s movement of Kåñëa consciousness, the Hare Kåñëa movement, was meant to (and is still meant to) benedict all transcendentally evolved personalists with that taste. However, the coarse taste of çästric deviation, continuous contention, blind loyalty, compromise, and misguided worship–along with all kinds of hodge-podge avidyä–is an entirely different thing. Every devotee needs to stop enabling it.

A Hard Reality

“We don’t make any hodge-podge or any compromise. If you like, you can accept it, and if you are fortunate, you will accept and be happy, but this hodge-podge nonsense will never help you.”
Letter to Kris, 11-13-68

Dr. Patel: You are so very hard.
Prabhupäda: I must be hard!
Dr. Patel: Hard, harsh, and hard and harsh.
Prabhupäda: No, we must be harder and harder.
Dr. Patel: Hard and harsh!
Prabhupäda: I don’t make any compromise with these rascals. No words. No, no, I never made that. Even if I don’t get any disciples, I’ll be satisfied, but I can’t make any compromise like these rascals. I cannot make. Ekaç candras tamo hanti na ca tärä sahasrasaù. If I create one moon, that is sufficient. I don’t want many stars. That was my Guru Mahäräja’s principle, and that is my principle. What is the use of having number of fools and rascals?
Morning Walk, 3-23-74, Bombay

“. . . the Bäghbazar party and Mäyäpur party have unlawfully usurped the missionary institution of Çréla Prabhupäda, and whenever they will talk of a compromise, it means another complication.”
Letter to Näräyaëa Mahäräj, 11-30-69

In terms of how he dealt with his followers and disciples, His Divine Grace Çréla Prabhupäda was far more liberal than Çréla Bhaktisiddhänta Sarasvaté Gosvämé Prabhupäda. Nevertheless, it is a mistake to believe that he made compromises when implementing his glorious mission. He did not have either a compromising style or spirit; indeed, he was quite hard when it came to compromise. This fact remains readily discernible when listening to the recordings of his platform lectures. He was no stranger to expressing transcendental anger during purports to the verses being discussed, and anyone with even a glimmer of honest intuition knows this beyond a doubt.

Çréla Prabhupäda instituted some adjustments in his Western branch of the Gauòéya sampradäya. He was the first spiritual master in the line to extensively travel throughout the world. Whereas only the automobile had (on a few occasions) been used by Çréla Bhaktisiddhänta, Çréla A. C. Bhaktivedänta Swämi was the first guru to utilize the airplane and fly to his temples or preaching engagements. He also utilized other modern technology for the first time.

With but one inconsequential exception, previous preachers of Gauòéya Vaiñëavism proselytized only in India. Çréla Prabhupäda preached throughout the world. His Divine Grace A. C. Bhaktivedänta Swämi, in the sannyäsa order, also performed a handful of marriage ceremonies in the formative years, and that was unprecedented. He allowed his male and female disciples to worship together in the temple room. They also distributed books and collected alms together, although, in many or most cases, they did not do so. There was no compromise of Vaiñëava principles in any of this; these “innovations” were nothing more than time, place, and circumstances adjustments.

Also, if any of these adjustments proved counter-productive, he could reverse them. In the late-Seventies, he became disgusted with marriages and would no longer even sanction them. The key thing to realize is that Prabhupäda’s innovations were adjustments, not compromises. He never compromised the teachings. He never compromised the essence of the bhakti process.

Compromise in Kåñëa consciousness does not produce good results. Short-term, it may appear to produce them, but long-term, it is conducive only to complications and negligible results. When the governing body established by Çréla Bhaktisiddhänta underwent a major schism shortly after he left the scene, there was a splitting of institutional assets. By an 8-5 vote (Svämé B. R. Çrédhar siding with the majority), Ananta Väsudeva was made äcärya for the whole mission.

Kuïja Bihäré, who later became known as Svämé Tértha or Tértha Mahäräj, split along with his followers, and he took control of the Mäyäpur temple. Ananta Väsudeva already had control of the opulent Calcutta temple. Most of the Gouòéya Mutt party men sided with the Ananta Väsudeva faction because, after all, the governing body had voted him into that position. He was also a very advanced scholar, especially in terms of his memorization of Vaiñëava texts.

The Governing Body Commission of Çréla Bhaktisiddhänta Sarasväté Gosvämé Prabhupäda thus dissolved. This all transpired in 1937, and, in subsequent years, there were efforts to re-establish that governing body and/or to unify the Gouòéya Mutt, which also had another faction known as the Gouòéya Mission. It is not your author’s purpose here to delve deeply into any of this but to simply point out that such unification schemes often require compromise. His Divine Grace A. C. Bhaktivedänta Swämi Prabhupäda was against that, because he knew it well that any such compromise, even in an incipient stage, would only produce counter-productive complications unhelpful to advancing Lord Caitanya’s pure Kåñëa movement.

Just after the disappearance of Çréla Prabhupäda, an attempt by some “ISKCON” leaders—T.K.G. being the most prominent of them—was made to unify “ISKCON” and the Gouòéya Mutt. Compromise had to be entertained in this attempt, because, in 1976, His Divine Grace had, specifically and in very clear terms, enjoined his disciples to have nothing more to do with Gouòéya Mutt. His letters substantiating this are still part of the written record, and they are unequivocal. At least indirectly, the zonal äcärya debacle was one of the resultants of that unification scheme.

The culmination of the attempt was a major and irreversible schism of bad feeling between “ISKCON” and the Mutt, especially when one of the eleven pretender mahäbhägavats crossed the river and joined Svämé B. R. Çrédhar’s mission in Navadvépa. The Mahä-maëòala movement (Neo-Mutt) was already existing by that time. That schism went down in the early Eighties, and its impact is remembered by almost every disciple even to this day.

The hard reality is that the fabricated, so-called “ISKCON” movement is going the way of the Gouòéya Mutt. The big guns will vehemently argue that such is not the case. They will insist that they have followed Prabhupäda’s order to remain unified in maintaining a strong governing body, whereas the Mutt did not do so. Granting that they have kept a particular version of the G.B.C. going, does all the deviation that the governing body has rubber-stamped since 1978 qualify as having followed the orders of the Founder-Äcärya? This is a rhetorical question, of course.

The Mutt voted in one äcärya, who, although far more qualified and learned than anyone in ISKCON, was nevertheless not eligible to be Çréla Bhaktisiddänta’s successor. The “ISKCON” G.B.C., on the other hand, rubber-stamped eleven pretender mahäbhägavats, who became “äcäryas of the zone” and were provided (as per the suggestion of Svämé B. R. Çrédhar) with eleven geographical carve-outs for personal fiefdoms. This deviation has not been entirely overcome. More importantly, the root issue connected to it has not even been confronted by the mis-leaders of the “ISKCON” movement; their whole scam would be dismantled if they ever did confront it.

The fabricated, so-called “ISKCON” confederation is a three-dollar fiat bill with no spiritual or devotional value, but, much worse than that, an imitation school that continuously works to cover and ruin Kåñëa consciousness whenever and wherever it appears in fledgling form. We should make no compromise at all with it.

Questions and Answers

Q: Prabhupäda’s statements concerning reform were often encouraging. Since äcäryas are considered reformers, how is it that “ISKCON” reform is counter-productive?

A: The question almost answers itself, because the real reformers are the Great Äcäryas. They can reform even mlecchas and yavanas by the power of their presence and vibration, along with their sharp words of instruction, correction, and direction. They can even reform the incorrigible, but those types usually fall back to their former ways once the spiritual master departs. His Divine Grace was sometimes encouraging when he spoke about reform. However, acting above an individual’s qualification, realization, and eligibility only produces evil results.

At this time, there are no Great Äcäryas. There was no Successor Äcärya to Prabhupäda, and there certainly were not eleven of them. We cannot reform the incorrigible, i.e., those pretending to sleep, those who continue to reap all kinds of sense gratificatory and opulence from the current deviation. “ISKCON” is loaded with those people, especially at the top.

As a matter of unfortunate fact, His Divine Grace could not even reform the Society’s leaders during the final years of his physical presence. In both our website articles and videos, we have presented numerous quotes from his letters which clearly indicate this. “ISKCON” is far beyond the point of reform. It was already coming off the rails before he departed, and then it shattered into mass deviation during the spring and summer of 1978.

“There are waterfalls flowing from the hills of the forest, but sometimes water does not flow from them. So, the waterfalls are not like ordinary rainfall. They are compared to great reformers, who speak or do not speak, as the time requires.”
Light of the Bhagavat, Verse 33

Q: Returning to a topic which you touched upon in the previous Q&A, can you explain something about the right-wing and left-wing factions within “ISKCON”?

A: The right-wing preaches against a mission drift that has become more than a bit apparent in “ISKCON.” They push a kind of conservative strategy. It is anti-bureaucratic and “guru” oriented. Although they are not against receiving Hindoo revenue, they are against any compromises in order to keep that money stream flowing. They are tribalist to some extent and can be obliquely compared to Protestants. Because they are soft on Gouòéya Mutt in general, they tend to favor working out some kind of unification arrangement with Neo-Mutt.

Most of them are against the books being re-edited and re-written. They preach against the many innovations that have been implemented over the decades in their movement. Although they often disagree with its resolutions, the right wing never directly defies the G.B.C. It appears to be losing the battle at this time, but, due to megapolitical developments outside any cult’s control, it is far too early to predict that the right-wing will wind up on the losing end.

The left-wing is socialist (ultimately, communist), and its leaders are sophisticated in their conduct, dealings, and presentations; that is also evident in their written works. They are catholic and progressive in outlook and process. The left-wing sees no problem in acquiescing to almost all of the desires of the Hindoo community, in no small part because it comprises most of the congregation now. The left-wing is liberal (read, permissive) and enthusiastically approves all the changes made to Prabhupäda’s books, considering them upgrades.

It believes that the movement should harmoniously devolve along with Western society dips further and further into post-modernism. The left-wing is highly bureaucratic and pro-G.B.C. It considers “ISKCON” gurus to be mostly functionaries, place-holders, or rent-äcäryas. It is internationally oriented. It appears to be winning the fight against the right-wing, but, due to future megapolitical developments outside of “ISKCON” control, it is far too early to predict that the sectarian progressives will wind up in the winner’s circle.

Both constitute the two wings of the “ISKCON” bird of prey.

Q: What about the other potential schism that you mentioned in the last Q&A?

A: It centers around the question of, and sometimes the struggle between, what may be called the guru faction and the bureaucratic faction. Where lies the final authority? Since there is no genuine spiritual authority in “ISKCON,” this conflict is an in-house tempest in a teapot. Nevertheless, both camps believe that it is a genuine struggle.

The guru faction sticks to the Vedic injunction that the guru is responsible for his disciple, i.e., the disciple must obey him and fulfill his commands, at any time and place, because the contract of import is between the initiating guru and the disciple who has received initiation. The bureaucratic faction—temple oriented, obviously—contends that this is not how Prabhupäda’s movement functioned while he was here. He initiated disciples, but he did not take them; they almost always continued to serve under the temple president who recommended them for initiation.

During the zonal era, the non-guru G.B.C. was more or less ignored, and the temple president lost his luster and power to command. The trend is now moving back toward the bureaucratic. During the heady days of the zonals, it had radically, and almost completely, moved to the guru faction. From one perspective, it is now re-adjusting. Contention remains, because, if a charismatic sahajiya swings into town with contradictory orders, to whom do disciples owe their ultimate allegiance and obedience?

Q: Is there any relationship between these two potential sources of schism?

A: The right-wing is mostly in sync with the guru faction, and the left-wing is completely aligned with the bureaucratic faction. There is enough distinction between them that, technically speaking, there are dual fissures that could each precipitate a potential big split. However, if some rupture does transpire, the resultant will not be two separate schisms; due to consolidation as the split develops, there will only be one. Although unlikely, it would be a great benediction to all the true devotees of the Lord if such a schism actually did go down.

CONtinuous CONflict and CONtradiction

“This fighting spirit will destroy everything, but what can I do? You American and European boys are trained up in this fighting attitude.”
Letter to Bali Mardan, 9-18-72

“We are taught to address others as prabhu. Prabhu means master, and the leader of the masters is called Prabhupäda. So, if the prabhus have surrendered to the Prabhupäda, why there shall be such mentality of occupying the superior position? This is contradictory.”
Letter to Upendra, 5-10-70

“The only news is the history we don’t know.”
Harry Truman

The history of “ISKCON” can be summed up as a cult tragedy that played out (and continues playing out) in the form of a never-ending power struggle between deviant personalities within a movement that degenerates more and more every year. There is also a sub-plot within this melodrama. The endemic fighting has to continue, because, once the “ISKCON” governing body opened Pandora’s Box in the spring of 1978 by imposing the zonal-äcärya debacle–a clear contradiction to, and blatant deviation from, the orders of the Founder-Äcärya–there could never be unity amongst the disciples of His Divine Grace (1966-77).

Yet, the record of this in-house politics, ruining what Prabhupäda struggled to create, is today being intentionally distorted. It is inexorably being forgotten via willful amnesia. Although the memory of it is slipping away, remember that there was considerable competition—some of it (but not all of it) benign–within the ISKCON movement even while it was still bona fide; it is not that ISKCON was transformed and converted into “ISKCON” overnight. The rubber-stamping of eleven sahajiyäs as uttama-adhikärés only demarcated the initial death blow.

Everyone was supposed to take the legacy. All of Prabhupäda’s disciples were supposed to be given full facility to become trained up—by their own initiative with help from empathetic and spiritually skilled godbrothers–as advanced spiritual masters. However, that subliminal pulse of ISKCON was–covertly, gradually, and almost imperceptibly–replaced in the early to mid-Seventies, i.e., the paradigm of the movement was transformed.

It was converted into a hierarchical stratification only beneficial to the ruling elite, all too common in the Western world throughout its mleccha history. Such pigeon-holing into artificial, non-Vedic classes (institutional and concocted) is fundamentally impersonal. It is a complete contradiction; indeed, it is the major contradiction of “ISKCON.” It is counter-productive to the actual process and purpose of the Hare Kåñëa movement. Most importantly, it is highly offensive to all the prabhus who received the bhakti-latä-béja, brähminical dékñä, and divine inspiration to serve and strengthen Prabhupäda’s branch of the Caitanya tree. By becoming qualified to do so, they were all meant for initiating new people into the protective precinct of the guru-paramparä.

The fighting attitude intrinsic to Westerners (and Americans, in particular) changed direction when this stratification was almost complete, viz., instead of fighting the decadent and degrading influence of Western culture, the devotees began to fight one another. Most of this in-fighting was for power, profit, adoration, distinction, and securing top gun on the totem pole.

It remains the continuous warfare it has always been.

However, not all of it meets with disapproval from the Founder-Äcärya. That is the sub-plot. His Divine Grace still has a handful of disciples, intent and determined, who are struggling hard against daunting odds (and against an all-pervading, post-modern apathy) to expose “ISKCON,” to check its momentum anywhere and everywhere, and to terminate its dreadful influence.

Have Compromise, Will Enable

“We cannot compromise to satisfy others.”
Letter to Madhudvéña, 11-30-73

“There are sentiments, like Cowper said, ‘England, I love you with all thy fault.’ That is another thing. That is a compromise.”
Room Conversation, 9-5-71 in London

“His disciples lead him in, and he just does the rest.”
The Who
“Pinball Wizard”

A root issue is the legitimacy of initiations, viz., initiations post-Prabhupäda (post-samädhi). When Çréla Prabhupäda left the scene in late 1977, he had, less than six months earlier, left instructions culminating in “regular guru, that’s all.” During the intervening time-frame, he never—at least, never officially—approved and ordered anyone to be even a regular guru.

He did not recognize a Successor Äcärya. His appointment of eleven rittviks in July of that year did not empower them to become dékñä-gurus upon his departure. There is no Vedic or Vaiñëava injunction which states that a rittvik, an assistant to the äcärya in the matter of conducting ceremonies, is automatically transformed into a full-blown, initiating spiritual master himself when the äcärya departs physical manifestation.

The intoxicating post-1977 aftermath, which was quite horrific, confirmed that none of those eleven men were qualified to be guru at any level or in any capacity. The root issue thus centers upon this question: How can a bogus guru conduct a genuine bhakti initiation, i.e., how can he transmit the bhakti-latä-béja? It is a raw-nerve issue. You need to confront it. The issue of the new people and their initiations, those who accepted “ISKCON” initiation post-samädhi (beginning in the last week of 1977 at Moundsville, West Virginia) is unavoidably contentious.

How can a bogus guru initiate anyone? This question is justly raised. A bona fide çikñä-guru, even at the intermediate level, can be empowered to transmit the bhakti-latä-béja via Vaiñëava initiation, linking a bhakta or bhaktin to the paramparä. In our line, such a guru must be ordered by Prabhupäda in order to act as äcärya and initiate. The bogus guru is never ordered or empowered to do so.

Any spiritual or ethical compromise related to Kåñëa consciousness is categorized as anartha, which has nothing to do with the intermediate stage of devotional service. Any compromise with the Äcärya’s orders, with the çästra, and/or with the bhakti process—any such deviation made by a so-called guru–immediately renders him bogus. Even at the intermediate stage, a spiritual master must be a very perfect man; he cannot be entangled in anartha. Such compromises include any and all institutional compromises, as they are also anarthas.

A bogus guru, an institutional guru, thus acts above his qualification, realization, and eligibility. He initiates disciples, but his power to initiate is restricted. He cannot transmit the bhakti-latä-béja to any of them, because he has chosen his disservice only on his own volition and only for the purpose of increasing his power and enjoyment. He is nothing more than a sahajiyä. The institution allows him to do it, and he is thus also an institutional guru. The whole joint mess immediately creates its own momentum, which is not at all approved by the guru-paramparä.

In the first stage, the bogus guru has the audacity to accept worship from his own godbrothers and godsisters, but he simply uses them as stepping stones. Unless they show some love for, and dedication to, him (with enthusiasm), they are soon neglected. The bogus guru accepts uttama-adhikäré worship from his newly-initiated disciples, who then populate the institution’s temples with so-called godbrothers and godsisters, all of whom are just as bogus as he is.

All of these people are initiated with the “ISKCON” béja, and, in most cases, also with the bogus guru’s own peculiar béja. As could only be expected, there is soon massive attrition. In due course, the remaining disciples of the “new gurus” are able to function as pretenders in their own right. They get amped-up by following a semblance of the bhakti process, centering around a morning program and Deity worship—in the beginning.

They distribute books, many of which have been re-written and changed. They rake in “laxmi” on the pick, often through deceptive methods. This quasi-tapasya gives them a kind of strength, and they buttress each others’ confidence while accruing it. In due course, some of them are even considered advanced devotees, but none of them can ever climb to the top of the mountain:

“One who is not properly initiated may present himself as a great devotee, but, in fact, he is sure to encounter many stumbling blocks on his path of progress toward spiritual realization, with the result that he must continue his term of material existence without relief. Such a helpless person is compared to a ship without a rudder, for such a ship can never reach its destination.”
Caitanya-caritämåta, Ädi-lélä, 1.35, purport.

They are all certain to be baffled, even the most brash and over-confident of them. Why would any transcendentalist—personalist or impersonalist—condone such cult fanaticism? Why would any initiated disciple of Çréla Prabhupäda (1966-77) compromise and thus enable, in any way, such an egregious deviation? In order to continue their nefarious activities, all of these “ISKCON” gurus have become dependent upon their disciples.

Ditto for Neo-Mutt wild-cards, along with the fools who have hitched their wagon to the Rittvik charade. The rascals who conduct so-called rittvik initiations today also need disciples—initiated with the Rittvik béja—in order to keep up the pretense that their concocted initiation ceremonies have any value whatsoever, which they most definitely do not. Reform proposals, even if instituted, cannot reverse any of these deviations.

Such reform can only accomplish one thing: It can and will further empower the putrefaction, spoilage, ruination, and rot, which is and has been the “ISKCON” process for the past forty years. As you may have noticed in recent decades, reform initiatives have gained virtually no traction whatsoever. That is both expected and fitting, because reform can only be effective on a superficial plane. The adherents of reform sometimes take a peace-loving tact, and those who sail that way are against the chopping technique, the drawing of hard lines. They make propaganda against preachers who employ it. They are described as follows:

“Be ye hot or be ye cold,
But if ye be lukewarm,
I shall spew thee from mine mouth.”
Iesus Kristos, New Testament

“ISKCON” enablers are the usual suspects: The third-echelon fanatics, the Party Men, the kick-me chelas, the collectors, the enforcers (hatchet men), and all the dedicated loyalists on the periphery. The Hindoo hodge-podge, now the cult’s chief revenue source (with that congregation receiving many benefits in the process), is a direct enabler. All of the people in all of these categories build up their own defense mechanisms, assist the cult in damage control, and have biases for, and vested interests in, the “ISKCON” movement. You cannot preach to any of them, as their ears are truly sealed.

There are also indirect enablers, such as the rittviks. Despite apparent antagonism, they nevertheless serve “ISKCON” with Rittvik philosophy and process, which the confederation uses as a foil. The milquetoast “ISKCON As It Is” faction, a somewhat recent reform initiative, is an indirect enabler. The daily online rag, which recognizes some of the “ISKCON” gurus as being bona fide, is also an indirect enabler. The professional authors and Southeast Asian studies professors, those who write about “ISKCON” (and its “growing pains”) in terms of it still being a genuine school of Gauòéya Vaiñëavism, are amongst the most insidious enablers, albeit indirect.

Knowledge and detachment are important indicators of spiritual advancement, which must always have renunciation of material life as its basis. If you continue to nurse favorable sentiments toward any of these enablers, it is indicative of a built-in tendency toward compromise. That is not conducive to the development of knowledge and detachment. Applying Cowper’s Cliché to an institutional delusion is not a good sign. It will not serve to create a house which the whole world can live in; such misplaced sentiment can never accomplish that. If we want every room of that house to have at least one Prabhupäda mürti in it, then call out the instigator within yourself and make it happen.

OM TAT SAT