On Removing the “ISKCON” Albatross

October, 2017

by Kailäsa Candra däsa

Part One of a Two-Part Series

“ . . . without hearing and following the instructions, the show of devotional service becomes an anachronism and, therefore, a sort of disturbance in the path of devotional service. Unless, therefore, devotional service is established on the principles of Çruti, Smriti, Puräëam, Païcharätra authorities, the make-show of devotional service should at once be rejected, and an unauthorized devotee should never be recognized as pure devotee.”
Çrémad-Bhägavatam (pre-1965), 1.2.12, purport

“Now has the G.B.C. become more than guru mahäräja? As if simply G.B.C. is meant for looking after pounds, shilling, pence. The G.B.C. does not look after spiritual life. That is a defect. All of our students will have to become guru, but they are not qualified. This is the difficulty.”
Letter to Älanäth, 11-10-75

It’s not what you thought
When you first began it.
You got what you want,
And you can hardly stand it,
Though, by now you know,
It’s not going to stop
’til you wise up.

Aimee Mann, theme song from the motion picture “Magnolia”

In our continuing effort to free you from the causal and astral shackles of the fabricated, so-called “ISKCON,” this two-part series will explore various occult influences which keep that cult’s momentum intact within your psychic being. This article also delves a bit deeper into how the institution similarly keeps its congregation in check and under its sway. Unlike both Neo-Mutt and Rittvik, “ISKCON” more or less philosophically tacks within the formal boundaries chalked out by the Vaiñëava scriptures, i.e., there are no major philosophical deviations evident in that particular apa-sampradäya.

However, when it comes to deviations in other areas–those based upon material emotions operating through worn astral cliché, mystique, superstition, mistaken knowledge, and/or shibboleth (either fanatical or sentimental)—the cult is shot through with defects. These need to be known. Many, if not most of them, can be a bit difficult to spot and comprehend. All of them work subtly and insidiously to effectively capture their victims, in no small part, because they utilize a witch’s brew of negative emotions.

For example, let us consider the defect that His Divine Grace Çréla Prabhupäda exposed in the quote from the 1975 letter (above). Joining an Eastern occult institution, one which features a guru (or many of them), automatically indicates—or, at least, it should indicate—joining for the sake of progress in spiritual life. If it is a bhakti cult, then that would entail becoming part of it for progress both in spiritual and devotional life.

As everyone knows, Çréla Prabhupäda created a governing body in mid-1970, although he had made statements previously indicating that he was considering doing so eventually. A governing body of a bhakti cult—or any cult or organized religion, for that matter—will automatically be invested with considerable power. If the guru has spiritual authority, then the governing body he establishes will also have at least some of that—but only while it remains in sync with his vision and his orders.

All emphases added for your edification and realization.

The price for that authority and power will be responsibility. As far as Prabhupäda’s international society was concerned, the responsibility of its commissioners, sannyäsés, and temple presidents was to ascertain that all the members were engaged in such a way that they were making tangible advancement in spiritual life. However, a mere two years (almost to the day) before Prabhupäda would prematurely depart physical manifestation, he states in the 1975 letter that his G.B.C. men were not looking after spiritual life. He calls that “the defect,” and what a mind-boggling defect it is!

He then goes on to unequivocally state for the record that none of his disciples (“students”) were qualified to be spiritual master. That would include any of them becoming gurus even like monitors in a university class under the watchful tutelage of the professor, i.e., it would include becoming regular gurus, following the regulations of vidhi-sädhana bhakti.

“They are not qualified” included the sannyäsés, which many of the members (not including your author) believed were already gurus. It included the temple presidents, some of whom were nasty, arrogant, and contemptuous overlords, wrongly believing that their positions in the hierarchy automatically meant that they were more advanced than the devotees they were ordering at will. Most importantly, it included all of the G.B.C. men, who, by that time, should have been madhyam-adhikärés and thus qualified to become regular gurus upon the departure of the Äcärya, which soon proved imminent.

By late 1975, Prabhupäda’s movement was already bifurcating, i.e., at that time, “ISKCON” was simultaneously functioning within and alongside ISKCON. One was waxing, and the other was waning in power. “ISKCON” was gaining ground (although it still could have been uprooted then), and it was introducing contamination into the cult, solidifying the defect that Prabhupäda revealed in the letter. The movement was going to hell in a hand-basket, but only some of its members, the real workers, were able to recognize that; only a very few were spotting the insidious takeover. From within, the movement was being transformed, and, as it turned out, eleven of the commissioners would exploit that situation in order to usher in the conversion of Prabhupäda’s movement just four months after he decided that it was time to leave them all to their own devices.

Mistaken Knowledge

“All of us may be éçvara. I am éçvara amongst my disciples. You may be éçvara amongst your family members, but none of us is Parameçvara. So, this mistaken knowledge is very much spread at the present moment. So our, this Kåñëa consciousness movement, is specially meant for removing this misconception of understanding God and the jévas.”
Platform Lecture on 1-19-77 in Bhubaneçvara

Ignorance is called avidyä in Sanskrit, and it works on all planes, although it originates in contaminated consciousness. Evil desires, in their primal form, also originate there. Avidyä works to pollute intelligence, the buddhi that is integral to the astral body of any conditioned soul. Although mistaken knowledge could be categorized within the precinct of deviant philosophy, it need not formally be so—at least, not in the way that “ISKCON” leaders use it. When they do so, they activate it in a particular circumstance for a particular effect, as a technique. On the whole, they never allow it to bleed into any kind of formal presentation in relation to the standard philosophy.

Let us present an example. Your author had many years of association with a so-called initiated disciple of one of the 1978 zonal äcäryas; indeed, this man was amongst the group of first initiates of that zonal in the late Seventies. He wavered a bit from his guru when the governing body chastised the charismatic fellow in the early Eighties and then, for all practical purposes, excommunicated him from the institution in May of 1983.

By the mid-Eighties, the inebriation of that so-called spiritual master became apparent to all who still associated with him; indeed, the so-called guru openly admitted his personal foibles. Yet, like some others, this disciple stayed on and remained loyal, though not fanatically so. He did so primarily for one reason: He bought into a particular application of mistaken knowledge advocated by the guru.

That “knowledge” was as follows: Even if a guru is deviated, you would still make appreciable spiritual advancement by serving him, because, by that service attitude and action, you would eventually come into contact with a bona fide guru.

It may not have been stated exactly like this, of course, but that was the gist of it. Sounds alluring, doesn’t it? Well, it sounded good to that right young disciple, and he stayed on for another six months until things degenerated in and around the great man to such an extent that any further connection became an absurdity. In those six months, that follower could have accomplished something tangible in his spiritual life had he not been swayed by mistaken knowledge, but it—and it alone—kept him in check.

Your author calls any such implementation of mistaken knowledge—and there can be many examples of it–by a special name: A Devastator! You are devastated if you fall victim to any such device. One simple devastator can do the trick. Mistaken knowledge is employed by bogus gurus, often working through the paradigm of their institution, only when they are confident that it will be effective. It was effective in the example just cited. The “ISKCON” movement is dependent upon its leaders keeping as many disciples as possible connected to both themselves and the cult, and devastators form an integral part of that strategy, although the insidious technique is not well-recognized.


This article will utilize terms that should be understood with clarity and in proper context. As such, your author will partially utilize definitions provided in the 1973 edition of Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary. Also provided in conjunction will be definitions according to the depth of our personal experience and realization.

Paradigm: A pattern containing rules accepted within a given culture;

Matrix: A mold within which something else originates and develops;

Anomaly: Deviation from the rule or from what is presumed as fact within a paradigm. Irregularity. Excess of what could otherwise be considered an acceptable variation;

Anachronism: A misplacement, often in the context of chronology, that is incongruous, unauthorized, and not fitting in well or acceptably;

Dogma: Man-made doctrines or opinions created by a religious hierarchy and accepted by the faithful in an organized religion;

Superstition: A belief furthering the ignorance it resulted from. A notion maintained despite reasonable and logical evidence to the contrary;

Mystique: A complex of beliefs and attitudes developing either around a person or a group entity (egregor) possessing special qualities. Often associated with myth;

Recondite: Hidden from sight, often intentionally; concealed; incomprehensible to anyone possessing only ordinary knowledge; little known or obscure;

Cliché: A trite phrase or expression. A hackneyed theme;

Shibboleth: A slogan. A catchword or saying, utilized by a particular group wherein its usage is generally accepted by the group’s members.

But Who Will Initiate Them?”

“Immediately he becomes brähmaëa, if he’s actually initiated. If you are falsely initiated, he remains a çüdra, and you remain a rascal. That’s all.”
Platform Lecture in Calcutta on 3-7-72

“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.”
Caitanya-caritämåta, Ädi Lélä, 1.35, purport

Somebody has to cheat them.”
“ISKCON” Governing Body Commissioner
Seven Mothers Restaurant in Berkeley, September, 1981

The initiation fetish has been there from the gate in “ISKCON”; it has two or three worn astral clichés connected to it, as could only be expected. One of them comes in the form of what appears to be a rhetorical question: That constitutes our sub-header here, viz., “But who will initiate them?” How that trite saying is meant to work—and how it most definitely did work (and continues to work)—is through conveying the idea that Çréla Prabhupäda must have made an arrangement for his movement to continue initiating after he departed . . . and thus he did so. Both “ISKCON” and Rittvik push that idea (although they do so in opposing ways), but we require to see through such self-serving delusions. In order to do so, we must be willing to dig more deeply into the Vedic and Vaiñëava teachings.

Actually, Prabhupäda made no such arrangement. He did not name a Successor Äcärya. He did not—at least, not officially–recognize any of his disciples to even have reached the platform of regular guru; that only seems astounding if you do not know the bhakti science. And, just as importantly, he did not create an anti-Vedic, anti-Vaiñëava Rittvik alternative. He did not do any of these things. His leading secretaries wanted to take the movement from him and mismanage it in their own way, so he gave them enough rope by which they could hang themselves in doing so, and that’s exactly what they did.

All my disciples will take the legacy.” That summed up what he was hoping for and what he wanted for his legacy. That’s what he left us. All will not, of course, because not all of his initiated disciples will continue following the discipline. Nevertheless, it is open to every single one of them. Two years before he departed, he clearly stated that none of his disciples was qualified to be guru, a glaring defect. That defect was just as operative two years later, and, just as importantly, it remains operative today.

The world is now flooded with bogus Vaiñëava äcäryas, most of them institutional gurus. And, as must be the case, it is also flooded with falsely initiated (post-1977) newcomers. Neither a cliché nor a social etiquette can ever justify anything like this to transpire, but many shibboleths have been used for that purpose. But who will initiate them? Only a bona fide guru can do so, provided the disciple is also bona fide. If and/or when this criteria is not met, then we are plagued with the cheap guru/cheap disciple syndrome, which is a kind of hell on earth. Actually, that maleficence has accelerated at least two-fold with the introduction of the Rittvik concoction in 1989.

In the early autumn of 1981, your author, accompanied by a most influential female disciple of Çréla Prabhupäda (one of his very first initiates), engaged in a cordial meeting with an “ISKCON” commissioner at an eatery in Berkeley. The restaurant was run by devotees, and, as is always the case with these enterprises—be it called Seven Mothers or Govinda’s—the preps were delicious. At any rate, there was another witness to our exchanges, an extremely wealthy devotee, who was also an initiated disciple of Çréla Prabhupäda.

Soon enough, a friendly conversation turned serious. Myself and the afore-mentioned female devotee challenged the zonal äcärya set-up in “ISKCON,” and neither of us were inclined to accept shallow explanations justifying it. The so-called “appointment tape” had recently been exposed for just what it wasn’t, and my companion was the individual who, single-handedly, was responsible for getting it pried out of the vaults, where it had been moth-balled for over two years. The recondite rationalizations (all illusory) that were used relative to it–but not contained in it–were thus shattered. The big lie was exposed, and “ISKCON” was reeling. Devotees were catching on, but the empire would strike back soon enough.

In 1981, the momentum was briefly with THE TRUTH for a number of reasons. One of those was the fact that the eleven pretender mahäbhägavat monopoly was crimping all of the other ambitious “ISKCON” leaders. As it so happened, that monopoly would soon be broken in 1983, and the commish we were talking to on that balmy, autumn afternoon in California would be one of three beneficiaries of the coming change. This was not distinctly known at the time, of course, but it was in the air.

At any rate, he was not able to move us, so he unexpectedly pulled out an astral cliché from near the bottom of the “ISKCON” deck, viz., “Somebody has to cheat them.” Such a conception has shocking ramifications, but that does not mean it is entirely false. After all, this is Kali-yuga. His stunning statement graphically pointed out the inevitable result (of the fact) that there were many fools in Western society at large who were prime targets for competing anti-Vedic cults, one of which was now “ISKCON.”

Not that the commissioner was necessarily implying that his movement was bogus, although he would soon enough come to that conclusion, even to the point of criticizing Prabhupäda on national television. He was instead indicating that people who were unqualified to take to any transcendental path should best be cheated by his bhakti group, and that conception is what was underlying the cliché he employed.

Nevertheless, whatever his intention or belief was, the so-called realization behind it was similar to the more often employed: “But who will initiate them?” Numbers mean nothing! We do not spread Çréla Prabhupäda’s branch of the disciplic succession—not in a genuine way—by racking up falsely initiated people. Such improperly initiated men and women will eventually become so-called gurus themselves, and the “ISKCON” anachronism will then be an even greater obstacle to spiritual and devotional progress then it is now.

Concerning Negative Emotions

“The präkåta-sahajiyäs sometimes criticize pure devotees by calling them philosophers, learned scholars, knowers of the truth, or minute observers, but not devotees. On the other hand, they depict themselves as the most advanced, transcendentally blissful devotees, deeply absorbed in devotional service and mad to taste transcendental mellows. . . Not actually knowing the transcendental nature of love of God, they accept their material emotions to be indicative of advancement. In this way, they pollute the process of devotional service.”
Caitanya-caritämåta, Antya-Lélä 20.28, purport

His Divine Grace used “material emotions” when referring to negative emotions. Most Western occultists refer to them as negative emotions. They can, materially speaking, appear to be positive (such as those connected to human love) but, either way, they are not at all spiritual. Indeed, they impede the development of genuine spiritual and devotional emotions. Either term can be employed, as long as it refers to the same thing. Negative emotions originate on the causal plane, and they trickle down to the astral of the conditioned soul; they are the feelings of the astral mind.

As indicated in the quote from Antya-Lélä (above), negative emotions often disguise themselves. That syndrome becomes evident, in due course, in relation to deviated devotional cults such as the fabricated, so-called “ISKCON” confederation. However, we must have a more clear understanding how negative emotions are used by the manipulative mis-leaders of that cult. Just as importantly, we must know which negative emotions are the weapons of choice for those enjoyers and overlords.

Rather than wasting all kinds of font space in describing them, let us instead proceed right to the heart of the matter: Their negative emotions of choice are doubt, fear, and guilt. Doubt is a component of intelligence, so, technically speaking, doubt cannot be considered an emotion. However, when you take to any spiritual, yogic, or devotional path, doubt, when it is a product of sin (negative doubt, the kind provoked by the institutional gurus of “ISKCON”) will immediately produce fear within the mental quantum. As such, we are grouping it here with negative emotion of fear but clarifying our decision to do so.

The blinders of astral cliché, mystique, mistaken knowledge, and shibboleth (either fanatical or sentimental) cannot be effective—cannot be powerful for very long, that is—unless negative doubt is first successfully provoked within the chela by a bogus guru or similar mis-leader. It is often done through bad logic, which is rampant in “ISKCON.” Negative emotions operate through the above-mentioned blinders. When the unfortunate is infused with them, he or she becomes easy to control, and, if that individual is acting within the fabricated, so-called “ISKCON” confederation, he or she will certainly be controlled. It then becomes almost impossible for that unfortunate to recognize the all-pervasive influences of anomaly, anachronism, and defect for what they are, because he or she cannot recognize any such recondite principalities at all clearly.

Fear is always there, because every conditioned soul is subject to torture or death at any moment, i.e., the end is always near. Doubt, which opens the way for fear, is always present for those who do not understand the transcendental philosophy in the right way. Since there are many activities and statements in our life that we regret, the tendency to become victimized by guilt is also there. The mis-leaders of “ISKCON” understand these subtle psychologies well, and they utilize Machiavellian skills to exploit them.

As everyone knows (from practical experience), those rascals are adepts at expressing outrage over so-called Vaiñëava aparädha, especially when no such offense even exists. It gets better. If some unfortunate happens to stumble upon an important fact or truth or historical event that he or she did not know about—perhaps by reading one of your author’s treatises—and then he or she speaks up about it, the hammer comes down!

The mis-leader first states, with feigned outrage, that the allegation is false (when, in point of fact, it is anything but), and then he evokes doubt. He makes the chela doubt the veracity of the report, using character assassination in order to assist the emergence of bewilderment. Once the chela doubts the fact, the truth, or the accurate history, then immediately fear emerges, and it is fanned by the overlord. That fear, of course, will generally be in the form of the chela having supposedly made offense. Sometimes, the technique even goes to the point of alleging that Prabhupäda has been offended.

Then guilt enters, and what sadistic glee the mis-leader will feel! Not only has he wiped out the fact, the truth, and/or the genuine history from the mental quantum of his victim, but he–the bogus guru or so-called president or sannyäsé–has also simultaneously locked avidyä into the unfortunate by embellishing it with negative emotions!

That is how they enable the binders and blinders of their astral clichés, mystique, mistaken knowledge, and shibboleths to remain sacrosanct within the precincts of their institution. It is all based upon religious dogma. Do you see how ruthless their methodology is? Have you not yourself experienced it at one time or another? It is how bogus cults are empowered to operate: Their leaders, who are only apparent sadhus (although actually situated in the lower modes), trigger fear through doubt regularly.

Those leaders are usually more passionate than they are sadistic. If various glorification tropes or similar praises already bamboozle some (briefly) awakened devotee, such pleasantries will first be evoked and made to suffice. They make the unfortunate forget what turns out to be (for him or her) an evanescent discovery of a disturbing fact or truth. He or she thus slips back into the waking sleep approved by the cult. The power of distraction is known by cult manipulators, and they use that knowledge to advantage.

However, in more severe cases, doubt need not only be triggered by bad logic. There are primarily three other occult methods of intimidation, and these are authority, mystery, and secret. The power of projecting persona—the power of the self-image or self-concept–is known to the vikarmic world; America became heavily aware of it in the Fifties. It is also well known by the disciples of Machiavelli in “ISKCON.” By adopting or feigning an air or attitude of supposed authority, the so-called guru or sannyäsé can reach a point where he is able to trigger doubt in the susceptible simply upon contact.

This principle also applies to the deviated governing body, which can and does radiate its illusory authority and mysterious link to the Absolute Truth, combining that projection with secret knowledge it supposedly knows—and you do not. It is all part of the pitiless intrigue that Maya perfectly arranges in order to destroy the Kåñëa conscious movement from within. Thus far, the Supreme Servitor Regulatrix has been highly successful.

As far as secrecy is concerned, one of the eleven pretender mahäbhägavats has taken that to the extreme, as evidenced on his website. Therein, the reader will find that the former “ISKCON” guru (now discredited) preaches that what Prabhupäda really wants—what actually pleases him—cannot be readily discerned. Allegedly, it cannot be known from his commentaries and purports, his platform lectures, his room conversations, his morning walks, or from his letters. It can only be known from what he privately (read, secretly) revealed to a select few of his most intimate disciples. Not too difficult to pick up the self-serving element in this, but the occult allurement of secrecy is so strong that there are any number of this man’s followers who have fallen for that shibboleth.

The G.B.C. Mystique

“If we divert our attention in this way, the whole thing will gradually deteriorate. . . All these things are nonsense inventions. Such inventing spirit will ruin our this movement.”
Letter to Sudäma, 11-5-72

The standard “ISKCON” cliché is that, even when it is wrong, the G.B.C. still turns out to be right. We must question this ludicrous idea. The G.B.C. invented many things. It invented the eleven pretender mahäbhägavats (all of whom were G.B.C. men). It invented the “äcäryas of the zone” as a status for each of them. It allowed, if not encouraged, each of them to concoct so-called praëäma mantras for themselves. It allowed, if not encouraged, most of them to adopt various “pada” names, in obvious imitation of Prabhupäda. Arguably, the worst invention was the “Äcärya Board,” wherein the G.B.C. abdicated its assigned power and authority, allowing for the creation of an entity within it that was not under its jurisdiction of control and that was allegedly superior to it.

Were these inventions part of Lord Caitanya’s divine plan for His Kåñëa consciousness movement? Were these things at all authorized by his pure representative, His Divine Grace A. C. Bhaktivedänta Swämi? Arguably, and even more importantly, were these inventions—when we have enough insight to see them for just what they were—conduits for accomplishing anything spiritually or devotionally progressive?

Then, there is this cliché (in the form of a rhetorical question), viz., “How can twenty-four advanced devotees all be wrong?” This ignores the principle of the idols of the marketplace. When conditioned souls congregate, they often go all in on whatever is the newly-accepted “realization,” especially when it appears to be some kind of sure-fire innovation which will lift their movement up to the next octave. In the spring of 1978, the G.B.C. accepted very bad advice from Swämi B. R. Çrédhar and then implemented it, even authorizing a position paper wherein he was referred to as a “higher authority.”

How could that be? Prabhupäda called him simply “the best of the lot.” That is not indicative of someone who had more authority than the appointees to the governing body that was supposed to represent of His Divine Grace. An elder godbrother of Prabhupäda, one who never joined his ISKCON movement, cannot be considered a higher authority—at least, not for his branch of the sampradäya. The G.B.C. was supposed to be that higher authority itself, and much, much better than anyone called the best of the lot.

Alas, with some bad apples already in the barrel, the G.B.C. went off the cliff like twenty-four lemmings. Those bad apples foresaw, quite clearly, how they could pull off what one of them, a mere two and one-half years later, called “the greatest disservice” to his godbrothers in the Kåñëa consciousness movement. Indeed, it was just that and worse!

This is Kali-yuga. The G.B.C. facilitated the empowerment of “ISKCON,” an unauthorized paradigm created after the disappearance of the Founder-Äcärya. However, neither the G.B.C. nor “ISKCON” is the matrix of the pseudo-Vaiñëavism that continues to dishonor him. The matrix for all such kaitava-dharmas continues to be under the jurisdiction of the personality of Kali. A corrupt governing body, such as the deviated G.B.C., could never come into existence in any other age, and the compromises and transformations of the “ISKCON” institution, supposedly a Caitanya bhakti movement, first requires a source mold, a matrix. That is provided by the personality of Kali in his age of deception, corruption, hypocrisy and quarrel, as it is the source code for all bogus Vaiñëava cults in Kali-yuga.

Yet, the G.B.C. mystique still hovers over everyone connected to the fabricated, so-called “ISKCON” confederation. The G.B.C. must and will prevail—so the cliché goes. The Party Men are all in! After all, it was granted ultimate authority in Prabhupäda’s Final Will . . . errr, make that ultimate managing authority.

The movement has been ruined. The general situation regarding its conversion into the current replacement paradigm facilitates continued deterioration, despite brief spasms of apparent spiritual life every now and then. The inventing spirit—the spirit of constant change for the so-called improvement of the institution—is not in sync with the Vedic and Vaiñëava paradigm; indeed, the Western spirit of never-ending invention is opposed to the directions given directly by God through bhagavad-äveça Çréla Veda Vyäsadeva:

“Gradually the Krishna consciousness idea will evaporate: Another change, another change, every day another change! Stop all this! Simply have kértana, nothing else. Don’t manufacture ideas.”
Letter to Sudäma, 11-5-72

Despite the anachronism that “ISKCON” now is (and always has been), it fits in well for the Hindoo hodgepodge, which uses it for its own ends. Those changes to the books, changes to the process, changes to the pre-1973 straightforward collection methods—and so many other changes—are all designed to accomplish a diabolical end. That insidious design has, most unfortunately, been quite effective thus far.

It is designed to evoke doubt about the authority and legitimacy of the real process and the sacred commentaries that were constantly available to, and utilized by, every devotee back in the day when the G.B.C. and ISKCON were still bona fide. This works to the advantage of the deviated institution, particularly while the G.B.C. mystique remains powerful. People lose faith in their own intelligence, in the books, and in the (former) authorized process. Thus, they fall for the theatrical production of the “ISKCON” institution as the only äçrama or shelter now available—when it is anything but.


Proceed to Part Two

1 comment

1 Steven Plount { 10.03.17 at 07:54 }

A great read and Service for both Prabhupada and sincere devotees who have never fallen for that “………Another change, another change, every day another change! “ idiocy.
Now I know why I was not allowed to become a part of Iskcon when i was in SF when Prabhupada was there and why only now i am his disciple .. very strange… we cant understand the gigantic proportion of the Lords creation.. very much at all … best to keeep it very simple…. lord Chaitanya would want it Ike that … simple.

Leave a Comment