Descent Into G.B.C. Dystopia

June, 2019

(Make Your Ever-lovin’ Brother Happy.)

First of a Four-Part Series

by Kailäsa Candra däsa

“ . . . we have created these G.B.C. So, they should be very responsible men. Otherwise, they will be punished. They will be punished to become a çüdra. Although Yamaräja is a G.B.C., but he made a little mistake. He was punished to become a çüdra. So, those who are G.B.C.s, they should be very, very careful to administer the business of ISKCON. Otherwise, they will be punished. As the post is very great, similarly, the punishment is also very great.”
Platform Lecture, 6-4-74 in Geneva

“Then collect the opinions of each and every G.B.C. member, and, if the majority supports the idea, then it should be taken as a fact for being carried out in our society. The majority vote and my opinion should be taken. When the majority opinion is present, my opinion will be yes or no. In most cases, it will be yes unless it is grievously against our principles.”
Letter to Bhagavän, 8-20-71

Frank: (confronting Harmonica, tied to a post) So, you’re the one who makes appointments.
Harmonica: And you’re the one who doesn’t keep ’em.
Frank: (triple-slapping him) Whadda’ya want? Who are ya?
Harmonica: Dave Jenkins.
Frank: Dave Jenkin’s been dead a long time ago.
Harmonica: Calder Benson.
Frank: (triple-slapping him with greater anger) What’s your name? Benson’s dead, too.
Harmonica: You oughta know better than anyone. You killed him.
Frank: (repeatedly slapping him) Who are ya? Who are ya?
Harmonica: Jim Cooper, Chuck Youngblood.
Frank: More dead men.
Harmonica: They were all alive until they met you, Frank.
“Once Upon a Time in the West”

The history of organized religion in the last millennium has been very mixed—and that’s quite a generous view of it. Its negative effect on humanity has now driven much of the West to seek and implement secular replacements for it. It has done so on the hope against hope that such governments (and, in many cases, with an element of pseudo-worship blended into it) by the people for the people can lead to a better and more secure life.

Institutional religion has been and remains, almost always, directed by some kind of mother church or governing body; the only exception is when a pure devotee (or a wild card) guides the organization during its incipient stage of development. Obviously, such was the case in the mid-Sixties (up until the summer of 1970) for Çréla Prabhupäda’s branch of the Gaudiya Sampradaya, which he usually referred to by its acronym, ISKCON.

The gist of this four-part series is that the governing body he established at the beginning of the Seventies (in an experimental stage throughout), although it often pleased him in the first six or seven years of its existence, was just as often—if not more so—in a marginal position. Ultimately, all ontological entities—people, groups, kingdoms, nation-states, and religious institutions–are interrelated in one of two ways. Their interrelationship pivots upon whether or not the entity is approved of by the Supreme Personality of Godhead. In most cases in this age, it works against Him (even if disguised otherwise), meets with His disapproval, and is thus primarily interrelated with everything else that is also against Him.

The nub is that the Governing Body Commission of ISKCON, even while he was physically manifest, very often vacillated in its status (as to whether or not it was actually representing Prabhupäda and thus the Supreme). Within months after he left the scene, it flipped completely and became something the Godhead and guru-paramparä rejected.

As we shall also point out as this series ensues, His Divine Grace was well aware of this tendency by his “best men” to do their own thing with the governing body. As such, he was continually (directly or subtly) warning them about it. Sometimes these warnings were quite dire, and examples of that (such as the two quotes posted above) are plentiful. Notice how, in August of 1971, he directly indicated that his governing body was capable of legislating and implementing something that was grievously against the principles of the guru-paramparä. As of the spring of 1978, the die had been cast, and ISKCON was converted (and substantially degraded) into the fabricated, so-called “ISKCON” confederation, primarily as a result of G.B.C. malfeasance and major deviation.

The history of the unfortunates who were then (and soon thereafter) sucked into the vortex of the gods who failed cannot be described as merely mixed—it was horrendous! They believed in the eleven pretender mahäbhägavats, and they psychologically allowed themselves to become dependent upon repeated approval and reassurance received from those sahajiyäs, who they worshiped daily (and constantly in their minds).

Accordingly, these unfortunates were slapped around six days from Sunday. They became enslaved automatons. The lucky ones—if that concept can even be employed here—worked their way into becoming pampered sycophants. The fanatics, on the other hand, became even more fanatical; when the zonal äcärya scam failed, they were crushed. Some of them survived by switching over to become “ISKCON” fanatics, i.e., placing their gung-ho faith in the vitiated governing body as the perfect representative of the institution.

All of these chelas had their spiritual lives taken away from them. They only appear now to be what they actually are not and never were. They have been spiritually dead for a long time. They wanted to make their brothers, comrades, “gurus,” and all the other riff-raff happy, but then—at least many of them—were forced, by adverse circumstances, to realize what they had become–when they actually found themselves in the dirt.

G.B.C. God-Men and Their Organized Religion

The institution depends on the G.B.C..”
Room Conversation, 11-5-77 in Vrindävan, India

“I will give you direction. Don’t spoil it. We are in very good, prestigious position. That is sure. Don’t spoil it. So much hard labor. I started with very humble condition. Now it has come to this, such exalted position. You don’t spoil it. That is my request.”
Room Conversation, 4-10-77, in Bombay, India

The reality is that organized religion doesn’t seem to work.
It turns people into hateful lemmings, and it’s not really compassionate.
Elton John

It doesn’t work when it doesn’t act under the direction of a pure devotee. Instead, it becomes immediately spoiled. Çréla Prabhupäda arrived in the United States in the late summer of 1965 in order to establish his mission; it was meant to be a genuine branch of Lord Caitanya’s movement. He came here as, by his own admission, an old man in “a broken house.” Yet, he was vibrant and in relatively good health in the mid-Sixties.

Thereafter, noticeable deterioration took place; on occasion, the relapses were serious. This should have alerted all of his disciples that he would only be with us on the manifest plane (it turned out to be eleven years) for a very limited duration of time. Previous to that, he would also have to transfer the movement’s management. How could it be otherwise? That predictable and necessary step could not possibly have been undertaken without great risk. After all, most of his “best men” were formerly hippies, and the hippie religion, at root, was all about revolt and defiance of man-made authority, be it religious or secular.

This is not a good foundation upon which to build when it comes to forming a cohesive organizational structure. Nevertheless, the risk had to be taken. We must recognize that, when undertaken, it will lead to one of two outcomes: A great achievement (Providence triumphant) or a disastrous debacle (Fate triumphant). With the emergence of “ISKCON,” Fate proved to be the big winner!

In the beginning, Prabhupäda conducted almost all of the affairs, including initiation and Deity fire sacrifices, book creation and publishing, as well as financial, social, and religious management of the movement. His incipient temples were mostly managed by temple presidents, but he was also heavily involved even in that. As the movement expanded to almost every continent, this stage would necessarily segue. The issue is what went down after that passage, especially concerning the formation of the Governing Body Commission in the summer of 1970 and its (slightly delayed) dreadful aftermath.

He indicated the impending transfer previously. Seven years after his first initiations at his temple in New York City, Prabhupäda passed the baton to his leading secretaries on the governing body and, one notch below them, his temple presidents:

“As soon as I see that you G.B.C. members are managing everything very nicely I shall completely retire for writing my books . . .”
Letter to Karändhar, 10-16-71

“Yes, I should not travel so extensively anymore if I am to finish my work on the Bhägavatam. So, I am turning over all the management to the G.B.C. and the presidents.”
Letter to Cyävana, 3-6-73

Yet, in his making this arrangement, we should always focus on what was the purpose of anyone joining the Hare Kåñëa movement, both before and after the creation of the G.B.C. A conditioned soul does not join a Kåñëa organization for the purpose of becoming a Party Man. Management is the form. The form is subservient to the action while utilizing the form as a fulcrum for advancing in Kåñëa consciousness.

In other words, even when it is absolute, the form is inferior, which, in ISKCON, it was . . . for awhile. Prabhupäda wanted to create pure devotees with spiritual and devotional prowess, and, if they attained considerable mystic power in the process, so much the better. The form of the movement was meant to serve them, their character development, and their seva, not vice-versa. The stadium serves the players who perform in it.

With the partial and brief exception of the zonal äcärya era—and all the zonals were also commissioners–this is not how it played out in ISKCON, especially after its conversion into the fabricated, so-called “ISKCON” movement. Instead, everything eventually became myopically focused upon glorification of the G.B.C. in and of itself, along with counter-productive glorification and worship of the individual G.B.C. in a given zone. This syndrome sometimes also infected temple presidents. Non-G.B.C. temple presidents—some of them, anyway—followed in the footsteps of their G.B.C. These arrogant men used official charisma in order to arrange for their personal glorification by temple inmates.

In other words, the G.B.C. paradigm—quite quickly, in point of fact—turned against the actual mission of Prabhupäda’s movement, which was meant to be centered on developing all of the devotees as the chief means of accomplishment. It was meant to create self-realized and then God-realized spiritual masters—that’s masters, not slaves!

Instead, it got entangled in the ecclesiastical web of institutional religion, and a particular form of it that went from bad to worse in no time. Focusing on the G.B.C., we shall now begin analyzing that devolution here, but do not pin its downfall on Prabhupäda. He was doing what was necessary, i.e., he was taking a risk of necessity.

He was hopeful, but the plan didn’t pan out. That is not on him, because its success (in producing genuine spiritual masters) could never be guaranteed. Its success or failure was completely based upon whether or not his leading secretaries stuck close to him and thus made real advancement in Kåñëa conscious power and purity. They didn’t. Instead, they became obnoxious god-men propped up by an institutional religion of the very worst variety, and that’s why we have what we have now.

In India in the late Seventies, your author briefly came into contact with an American godbrother, a second echelon man. Thereupon ensued a passing conversation. In it, he referred to the new gurus, the zonal äcäryas as they were then called, as “the demigods.” I found that terminology interesting. From one perspective, they were perverted reflections of heavenly management of the universe (the demigods) on the earthly plane. However, that status was an illusion, as they were actually sahajiyäs, gods who failed.

Is and was the G.B.C. controlled by such men? Or are the men (and now two or three women) who are part of it actually controlled by the G.B.C. egregor? This could be a fertile subject for a future article. The answer is a bit paradoxical, because both inquiries and propositions are factual–but factual in very different ways.

Devotion Dies in Darkness

Telegram to All ISKCON Presidents, 4-7-72

“I also understand that immediate actions are going to take place even prior to my permission, and that, also, ‘without divulging to the devotees(!)‘’”
Letter to All ISKCON Presidents, 4-8-72

Every time I try to prove
I love you–1, 2, 3 red light
Baby, you ain’t right to stop me.
1, 2, 3 red light.
1910 Fruitgum Company, “1, 2, 3 Red Light”

The idea of some kind of G.B.C. had been percolating in the late Sixties, but the Commish wasn’t actually formed until the summer of 1970. It functioned as it was expected to for the first year and one-half. Then came the quixotic centralization scheme in the late winter and early spring in 1972, and it never fully recovered after that. Although that crisis appeared to be doused by His Divine Grace, the fire that it caused in the back forty at that time (the vast majority of devotees never knew about it until many years later) left some burning cinders.

In all likelihood, at least some of the eight commissioners who were at the center of the scheme afterwards harbored subconscious resentment against Prabhupäda. They thought they had executed a good plan in the right way, but the plan was not approved and their method of creating it was faulty. It did impact one zone in America in particular, and your author was serving there as an uninitiated bhakta at the time, i.e., the scheme had repercussions for a limited number of devotees.

The plan was intentionally undertaken in secret. That Prabhupäda notified all of his temple presidents about it (and suspended the Commission) proved that he did not want its misdeed to remain hidden—at least, not amongst the upper echelons. The Folio gives us a running account of how it went down.

The chief point to be gleaned from the episode is that the Governing Body Commission was showing a deviant tendency as early as 1972. It was legislating a scheme at that time which would have radically changed the movement for the worse—to the benefit of an elite handful—had not Prabhupäda intervened.

“’G.B.C. Meeting irregular. My strong disapproval, Make no changes. Inform others. Letter follows.’” So you can understand that I am very much perplexed why you have done these things without consulting me in the matter. If every time someone feels something they call for changing everything, then all that I have done will very quickly be lost.”
Letter to Hansadutta, 4-2-72

“Do not centralize anything. Each temple must remain independent and self-sufficient. That was my plan from the very beginning, why you are thinking otherwise? Once before you wanted to do something centralizing with your G.B.C. meeting, and, if I did not interfere, the whole thing would have been killed. Do not think in this way of big corporation, big credits, centralization—these are all nonsense proposals.”
Letter to Karändhar, 12-22-72

That everything would be lost shortly was thus predictable, because he could no longer be directly consulted after he departed. Worse that that, G.B.C. deviations could no longer be checked by him. Over eight months after the 1972 incident had apparently(?) been stopped, Prabhupäda reminded one of his leading secretaries—and he was part of the eight—that, without the interference provided by His Divine Grace, their centralization scheme would have murdered the Hare Kåñëa movement. He gave this warning in the context of another scheme, another change, that was percolating at the time.

And, a year after that, in full disguise (both generally and specifically), we witnessed the launch of the High Pains Grifter scam, which radically changed the movement . . . and not for the long-term better. He never approved it—not in the way it was carried out.

“You cannot hold meeting of eight persons without inviting the others. Seven may be a quorum, that’s alright, but you cannot convene without a general announcement to all the members and myself, giving a proposed agenda. . . And I am surprised that none of the G.B.C. members detected the defects in the procedure. It was detected only when it came to me. What will happen when I am not here: Shall everything be spoiled by G.B.C.?
Letter to Hansadutta, 4-11-72

Three days before this, Prabhupäda took drastic action:

“I do not follow exactly what is the motive of the so-called G.B.C. meeting, therefore I have sent the telegram which you will find attached herewith, and I have received the replies as well. Under these circumstances, I AUTHORIZE YOU TO DISREGARD. . . ANY DECISION FROM THE G.B.C. MEN UNTIL MY FURTHER INSTRUCTION. . . I shall be very glad to know the names of your assistants such as Secretary, Treasurer and Accountant. Finally, I beg to repeat that ALL G.B.C. ORDERS ARE SUSPENDED HEREWITH BY ME UNTIL FURTHER NOTICE.

Now, ask yourself these relevant questions: What would Prabhupäda have done when the G.B.C., in 1978, authorized the zonal äcärya imposition? A mere six years earlier, he suspended the Commission for holding an unauthorized meeting and voting for a centralization scheme that had no connection with exponentially heavier topics, such as gurus and initiating newcomers. A flawed resolution was produced then, no doubt, but does it even compare to what went down in the spring of 1978? Would Prabhupäda have taken even more drastic action against the latter scheme?

Would he have merely suspended the governing body? Or would he have immediately condemned and dismantled it? Especially now, when the whole zonal scheme has been exposed and has finally come to light, the answer should be self-evident.

Unincorporated & Subordinate . . . Allegedly

“The purpose of the Governing Body Commission is to act as the instrument for the execution of the Will of His Divine Grace. And further,

1. The G.B.C. oversees all operations and management of ISKCON, as it receives direction from Çréla Prabhupäda and His Divine Grace has the final approval in all matters.”
Direction of Management, Particulars of the Governing Body Commission

“I made the G.B.C. to give me relief, but, if you do like this, then where is the relief? It is anxiety for me. This is the difficulty, that as soon as one gets power, he becomes whimsical and spoils everything. What can I do?”
Letter to Hansadutta, 9-12-74

You tell me that I don’t,
Then I say I won’t,
But then I might.
Grand Funk Railroad,
“Sin’s a Good Man’s Brother”

His Divine Grace Çréla Prabhupäda created his governing body as an unincorporated entity. In that way, if some kind of frivolous (or serious) lawsuit were filed against it, an unfavorable legal judgment against the Commission would be almost impossible to transfer to any of the incorporated ISKCON centers, which were incorporated (at least, in the U.S.) individually in each State as separate entities with their own By-Laws. However, after his departure, the G.B.C. itself became an incorporated entity by the decision of the G.B.C. itself. It has made many such unilateral, unauthorized, and deviated decisions.

In the summer of 1970, the G.B.C. was formed via a charter signed by Prabhupäda and a few of the leading secretaries who were named as commissioners in it. That charter was the equivalent of its initial By-Laws. There were a number of Particulars in the document, but the first one, posted above, was the most important.

It affirms, positively and conclusively, that Prabhupäda has the final say in all matters to be decided by the governing body. Mostly, the temple presidents made the day-to-day decisions at their temples; that was the way it had always been, and that’s how Prabhupäda wanted it to continue. However, concerning decisions of international or movement-wide importance, Prabhupäda wanted to transfer those decisions to the G.B.C..

And then he was to have the final say. In other words, the G.B.C. was always supposed to remain subordinate to him. He gave them perks and a chance to perform some important service. He gave the presidents a similar chance, one rung lower. In reference to when Prabhupäda was still personally manifest, how many current commissioners are still on the board? Only one. There has been almost complete turnover, and that turnover certainly includes the presidents. However, the greatest turnover has been in the movement itself.

“He’s giving chance to everyone, that’s all. Otherwise thousands of presidents and thousands of G.B.C. may come and go, His work will go on. Kåñëa is complete Himself. He doesn’t require anyone’s help. That is Kåñëa.”
Room Conversation, 9-26-76 in Vrindavan, India

Lord Caitanya’s work must certainly go on, but it is not being prosecuted today by any of the splinter groups and sahajiyä cults, which includes “ISKCON.” Even during his lifetime, there are examples (we have detailed one here) where the G.B.C. was not subordinate to Prabhupäda—until he sternly corrected it and its members.

“You are also one of the members of the G.B.C.,
so you can think over very deeply how to save the situation.
It is a fact, however, that
the great sinister movement is within our Society.”
Letter to Hansadutta, 9-2-70

The great sinister movement was none other than Gouòéya Mutt, although many speculators propose other foolish substitutes. Check out the history in this connection—particularly, around the date of this letter and what poisoned the four deviant sannyäsés—and there can be no doubt that Prabhupäda was referring to Gouòéya Mutt.

So, the G.B.C. was supposed to remain subordinate to Prabhupäda and his desire (order) to save the situation back in 1970. Give credit where credit is due, they did so . . . back then. But what did they do in 1978? They went to one of the sources of great sinister movement, imbibed much bad advice, fully bought into it, and implemented the zonal äcärya scam, thus destroying Çréla Prabhupäda’s Hare Kåñëa movement.

At that time, the great sinister movement entered ISKCON in a big way, and thus a branch of Lord Caitanya’s tree of Kåñëa consciousness, a branch meant to save the world from barbarism (which is certainly at the gates now), was rendered not only compromised. It was also converted into a powerful adjunct of the great sinister movement itself.

To believe that this was nothing more than the result of eleven sincere but ambitious young men (who were a little too assertive) is putting lipstick on a pig. Just as importantly, always remember that all of those “new gurus” were commissioners themselves. Despite romping and stomping in their playgrounds for a few years, they were all institutional gurus. They were all dependent upon G.B.C. imprimatur.

And the G.B.C. was fully responsible for the whole debacle! It remains responsible for the degradation and depravity that goes on in “ISKCON” today, because the zonal äcärya scam opened Pandora’s Box to facilitate all it. First, various commissioners (including some of the future zonals) and their cohorts lapped up the sweet poison dished out by the great sinister movement at Navadvipa. After that, pandemonium was gradually breaking out in the movement, although few actually realized it at the time. In other words, those eleven men—once good devotees—soon all became sahajiyäs of the very worst sort, and the G.B.C. was at least partially responsible for them moving over to the dark side.

Bad Guys Got a Dragon

“And I am surprised that none of the G.B.C. members detected the defects in the procedure. It was detected only when it came to me.
What will happen when I am not here,
shall everything be spoiled by G.B.C.?
Letter to Hansadutta, 4-11-72

“We have worked very hard and established a great institution, but if we think for our personal benefit then it will become ruined. This is my only concern.”
Letter to Cyavana, 11-1-74

Any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed
into law if it acquires the political power to do it.”
Robert A. Heinlein, “Concerning Stories Never Written”

The G.B.C. dystopia is unpleasant. That is now obvious to all genuine occultists—especially those in the devotional line. However, what is not as obvious is that this dystopia can get FAR, FAR WORSE!

The fabricated, so-called “ISKCON” confederation, in and of itself, appears not to be all that dangerous now. It has become watered-down by Hindoo revenue dependency, institutional gurus (and their many fall-downs), all kinds of anti-Vaiñëava compromises, and a paucity of truly charismatic leaders, those who do not merely rely upon official or institutional charisma.

However, “ISKCON” has a dragon. In terms of power, it is still chained, but that could change. It is not yet full-grown, but it breathes fire whenever it deems fit to do so. That dragon is the vitiated Governing Body Commission.

In the future, if “ISKCON” becomes internationally accredited, recognized, and, most importantly, regnant, its dragon, the power node of the cult, will become much, much more powerful. Dread it now, but act at this time to make sure that it cannot transpire. Make no mistake: It can still be prevented.

If “ISKCON” is able to successfully worm its way into the power loop of what the emerging Interfaith Initiative wants to create, look out! Once all hell breaks loose internationally on the mundane plane, “ISKCON” could become the most powerful element of whatever religious concoction were to emerge.

Indeed, it would be favored to do so for reasons we shall explore, eventually analyzing this dreadful potential threadbare. When everything craters—and know it for a fact that it will—the secular powers are going to adapt and improvise in order to overcome. They will incorporate a one-world religion during the travail as integral to that improvisation, and everyone knows that dragons flourish in hellish situations.

To Be Continued


1 Torben Nielsen { 06.01.19 at 18:47 }

How do we know that Sridhar Maharaj (speaking of ‘great sinister movement’) was not just inflating/goating these 11 puffed-up guru-wannabees (Narada Muni style) to ‘speed up’ events that was anyway not able to be salvaged, given the circumstances already taken to a point of no return? Should he have doubted/dismissed/rejected Jayapataka Maharaja´s (and leading godbrothers) words that they were appointed by Srila Prabhupada? And could he have done that and if so what would have been the consequences?

2 Kailasa Candra das { 06.02.19 at 08:55 }

He was also told that the basis of the new gurus was that they had first been appointed as rittviks, to which Swami B.R. Sridhar replied: “Rittvik-acharya, then it becomes as good as acharya (diksha-guru).” As far as his quickening an inevitability is concerned, how can you know? The zonal imposition was not at the point of no return until the GBC voted the system into existence, and it was then implemented in April, but Swami B.R. Sridhar was first consulted, a number of times, BEFORE that vote. Simultaneously, the GBC also allowed the Acharya Board to be an approved ontological entity, and this had also been advised by the Navadvipa mahant previous to the GBC resolutions of 1978. If he had the pure preservation of Prabhupada’s movement at heart, he would not have given all the bad advice that already compromised ISKCON leaders had sought in order to have their scam “authorized by higher authority.” Anyone who rationalizes that bad advice on the speculation that he was merely quickening the so-called inevitable is skating on thin ice. Judge by the results. Judge what a person says and/or does, not by his so-called motive.

3 Mick { 06.25.19 at 00:34 }

I’m sick of this sentimentalism surrounding Sridhara Maharaja, as typified by the above comments of Torben.

Read below: Srila Prabhupada catgeorically states that Srila Maharaja is an offender.

On whose authority did Sridhara Maharaja come to meddle in the affairs of Srila Prabhupada’s institution, in particular the completely apasiddhantic ‘selecting of acaryas?’ No one’s but his own mental speculation.

Sridhara Maharaja had done this offense before with Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarsvati Thakura’s institution. Now, in 1978, it was time do it again, once the true acarya had left.

‘So Sridhara Maharaja and his two associate gentlemen unauthorizedly selected one acarya and later it proved a failure.”

BUT SRIDHARA MAHARAJA IS RESPONSIBLE FOR DISOBEYING THIS ORDER OF GURU MAHARAJA, AND HE AND OTHERS WHO ARE ALREADY DEAD UNNECESSARILY THOUGHT THAT THERE MUST BE ONE ACHARYA. If Guru Maharaja could have seen someone who was qualified at that time to be acharya he would have mentioned. Because on the night before he passed away he talked of so many things, but never mentioned an acharya.”

(Letter to Rupanuga, 28/4/74)

Whenever Srila Prabhupada expressed any ‘positive sentiments’ towards Sridhara Maharja it was simply to try and save him from the offenses he had committed at the feet of his own guru. The fact that as soon as Srila Prabhupada left, he tried to pull the same stunt as he did previously, showed that he never genuinely took advantage of the mercy of Srila Prabhupada at any point.

4 Mark Goodwin { 06.28.19 at 14:06 }

“We find that some old devotees are trying to cry with crocodile tears, and that will not do. They have aided and abetted regicide, Prabhupada was a victim of their regicide and they are complicit. They can be forgiven when they can raise the dead. Until then, they need to reform the GBC. Sriman Kailasa Candra dasa and the Vaishnava Foundation know precisely what to do.”
Bhadravardhana dasa

Leave a Comment