KCD’s Monthly Podcast – March 2023

Podcast transcription:

“The Whole Thing Would Have Been Killed”

by Kailäsa Candra däsa

HARIÙ OÀ NAMAÙ

The majority of disciples, adherents, and even casual followers of Prabhupäda’s branch of Lord Caitanya’s Hare Kåñëa line believe, with no lack of evidence, that things have not gone well in the G.B.C. since he left the scene in late 1977. There must be reasons for that, and we shall focus on them and their root causes.

As most of you know, Prabhupäda created what he called a governing body commission for his movement in 1970. What led to that creation is a long story; there is no need, for the purpose of this podcast, to get into that creation history. There IS a need, however, to discuss just how that Commission played out—in terms of its misdeeds, in particular.

Did that G.B.C. manage his institution in the way he desired and ordered it to do even while he was present? If so, to what degree? Did it manage his institution the way he desired, expected, and ordered it to do after he departed? Or did that Commission and its leading men have another mentality—a takeover mentality—very soon after he left?

Consider this excerpt from a letter to one of Prabhupäda’s leading secretaries, dated 10-8-74:

“Now by the grace of Krishna, we have got sufficient properties all over the world, so there cannot be any diplomacy or conspiracy by any sane man. All these properties and opulences, whatever we have got, this will not go with me when I go away from this world. It will remain here. I am training some of my experienced disciples how to manage after my departure. So if instead of taking the training, if in my lifetime you people say ‘I am the Lord of all I survey,’ that is dangerous conspiracy.”

In 1972, one year after a major setback, Prabhupäda had this to say about his health in general and his heart condition in particular:

“I am old man. I came here at the age of seventy years; now I am seventy-six. So, my warning is already there. In nineteen hundred and seventy-one, I had a severe heart attack. You know, all. So, the mission of Caitanya Mahäprabhu is now in your hands.”
Arrival lecture at Los Angeles, dated 5-18-72

In whose hands? Obviously, it could only mean—at the very least, mostly mean—in the hands of that Governing Body Commission. This was verified during a room conversation, dated 11-5-77:

“The institution depends on the G.B.C..”

Please note: That statement was made less than a fortnight before he left physical manifestation. Besides the obvious fact that a spiritual master could not possibly himself manage an international institution with thousands of initiated disciples, here are two other excerpts from Prabhupäda’s many letters; these quotes verify that his movement’s standard for being maintained was up to the G.B.C.:

In a letter to a leading secretary, dated 9-13-70:

“I have invested the G.B.C. for maintaining the standard of our Kåñëa Consciousness Society, so keep the G.B.C. very vigilant.”

In a letter to one of his first initiates, dated 7-9-71:

“G.B.C. members are simply to see that things are going on. Other centers have got president, secretary, etc. and they are managing separately. That is the formula. So, how is it that the G.B.C. are the final authority? They are simply to examine that things are going on nicely, that is all.”

As most of you know, in all of our presentations, we liberally quote Prabhupäda directly, more often than not via excerpts from his letters.

A text without context is a pretext. In other words, we offer these excerpts always in the context of the theme being presented. In this month’s presentation, we are going to be focusing on, and commenting upon, many such letters; more than usual. If you don’t appreciate that, it is not our problem; it’s a you problem.

Let us begin in chronological order:

In a letter to the Bombay president, dated 8-12-71:

“G.B.C. does not mean to control a center. G.B.C. means to see that the activities of a center go on nicely. I do not know why Tamala is exercising his absolute authority. That is not the business of G.B.C.. The president, treasurer and secretary are responsible for managing the center. G.B.C. is to see that things are going nicely but not to exert absolute authority. That is not in the power of G.B.C.”

This excerpt indicates that control of the G.B.C., in terms of direct management, was limited. This Commission was primarily meant to supervise. Keeping the movement bona fide was its duty, but the G.B.C. had to stay in its lane in terms of direct management. Only the presidents directly managed the centers; the G.B.C. advised them. It was an overseer via each commissioner in his particular zone. The Commish was never all-powerful. If it did NOT stay in its lane, and thus it could, as a deviated entity, wreck havoc . . . which is exactly what it did.

In a letter to a leading secretary, dated 8-14-71:

“Sometime there are complaints against the G.B.C., which is not very favorable. I set up the G.B.C. with hope that I shall get relief from administration of the mission, but on the contrary, I have become the center of receiving so many complaints. So it is not a relief for me . . .”

Prabhupäda wanted to concentrate on his translations and purports. The G.B.C., if it acted according to its directive from Prabhupäda, was meant to facilitate the devotees in general and the presidents in particular. It would oversee the mission in judging and advising the bhakti processes being implemented at the centers. The G.B.C. was meant to help resolve difficult situations and complaints that the presidents were unable to rectify. Herein, we find evidence that it was not meeting the standard very well even in the early days . . . and that would only get worse.

In a letter to a leading secretary, dated 8-20-71:

“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.”

Why would Prabhupäda specifically write to a G.B.C. man that he would approve most of the Commission’s resolutions unless he found one or some of them “grievously against our principles”? If the G.B.C. men composed an advanced body—which would mean that they were all advanced in spiritual life—then how could the Commish ever pass a resolution that was not just against the principles Prabhupäda gave his disciples, but “grievously” against them?

We shall see tangible and strongevidence of the answer to this question in forthcoming excerpts, which, by this time, will not shock you. After all, we have over forty decades of its actions to go by now; a lot of what has come down the pike from that governing body proves the answer.

In a letter to a leading secretary, dated 9-1-71:

“People have respect for our movement. Now it is time for G.B.C. members to be very, very careful, so that people may not point out any black spot in the behavior of our society.”

Beginning in the late Seventies, there would be many blemishes on the fabric of his movement created by the G.B.C. However, in the early Seventies, no one thought such would be the case. Please note: Up to 1972, Prabhupäda’s letters to the Commish were almost entirely favorable. It had engaged in an important and successful service to his cause immediately after its creation, and we have discussed that previously. Sure, there were some negative comments about it by him—and we have reproduced those just now to jog your memory—but it was not until 1972 that something went down which was really shocking.

Indeed, some call it a conspiracy. Whatever your conclusion about that 1972 incident may be—to be presented subsequently—certainly what went down in the Spring of 1978, a mere six years after the incident we are about to tackle now, qualifies as having a conspiracy underlying it.

In a letter to a leading secretary, dated 4-2-72:

“I have just now received one letter, which has described your G.B.C. meeting of nine men in New York, and I have cabled Rupanuga the following message: ‘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. So for the time being there shall be no such changes as you have arranged, until I study the matter thoroughly.”

Notice the warning:

“ . . . all that I have done will very quickly be lost.”

In a letter to another leading secretary, dated 4-4-72:

“But if you all, my right-hand men, are doing things without consulting me and making such big, big changes within our society without getting my opinion and the opinion of all the G.B.C. members, then what can I do? I am so much perplexed why you all had done this. I have appointed originally 12 G.B.C. members, and I have given them 12 zones for their administration and management, but simply by agreement you have changed everything, so what is this? I don’t know. You mentioned that you are taking great help from Atreya Rsi, but Atreya Rsi is not a member of G.B.C. nor has he any position in my scheme to manage the whole society.”

Big, big change is conducive to big, big deviation. That has been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt at this time, but it was first indicated in this long excerpt. That meeting in New York was not an example of Commish supervision; it was all about making a significant change to how the movement was to be run. Prabhupäda certainly needed to be consulted about any such initiative, but he was not.

Also, four other G.B.C. men were neither informed of the meeting nor invited to attend it. The proposal was a big change with negative ramifications and repercussions. The fact that neither Prabhupäda nor those four other commissioners were either informed or invited to this ad hoc meeting is strongly indicative of a conspiracy by those seven G.B.C. men and the extra participant, who almost certainly was Atreya Rsi.

 

Cable to two G.B.C. men and all ISKCON presidents, dated 4-7-72:

YOUR MATERIAL LEGAL FORMULA WILL NOT HELP US. ONLY OUR SPIRITUAL LIFE CAN HELP US. HAMSADUTA MUST RETURN GERMANY IMMEDIATELY AND DON’T LEAVE AGAIN. ATREYA RISHI HAS NO AUTHORITY FROM ME TO MANAGE ANYTHING. REMOVE HIM. I HAVE NO APPROVAL FOR ANY THESE PLANS. DON’T CHANGE ANYTHING. BHAKTIVEDANTA SWAMI

This was a telegram shot off by Prabhupäda from Sydney to two of his leading secretaries specifically, both of whom were members of that unauthorized, ad hoc meeting. Prabhupäda directly calls their proposal a “material formula.” This means that it had no spiritual sequence. Prabhupäda pins the tail on the donkey. He knew the chief ringleaders of the conspiracy. Prabhupäda orders Atreya to be removed from the concocted managerial scheme or any management position. Prabhupäda closes with the order: “Don’t change anything.”

A very hard-hitting telegram. And please note: Prabhupäda almost never communicated with any of his leaders via either telegram or telephone, so time was of the essence with him sending a cable. Also, the telegram is there in the historical record. That is helpful.

Letter to all ISKCON presidents, dated 4-8-72:

“’Atreya Rsi das was selected to be the Secretary for G.B.C. and receive all correspondence including monthly reports.’ I never appointed Atreya Rsi member of the G.B.C., and I do not know how he can be appointed Secretary to G.B.C. without my sanction. ‘He was also appointed to be on the Management Committee with Karandhara for the purpose of supervising ISKCON business and implementing the decisions reached by G.B.C..’ This has very much disturbed me.”

And further:

“Sriman Atreya Rsi das may be very expert, but without my say he has been given so much power and this has upset my brain.

I also understand that immediate actions are going to take place even prior to my permission, and that, also, ‘without divulging to the devotees(!)’

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 FOR THE TIME BEING ANY DECISION FROM THE G.B.C. MEN UNTIL MY FURTHER INSTRUCTION.”

On April 8, 1972, His Divine Grace A. C. Bhaktivedänta Swämi Prabhupäda suspended and dis-empowered the Governing Body Commission of ISKCON. It does not really matter for how long of a time it was gutted; what matters is that it clearly had its power and legitimacy taken away from it . . . and deservedly so.

Supervisory power was given back to the temple presidents, and this was clearly stated later in that letter. The conspiratorial meeting very much disturbed him, as unequivocally made clear. Prabhupäda comes down hard on Atreya near the letter’s beginning and rightfully so. Hansadutta had brought him to the meeting, but the scheme was actually Atreya’s. It was to centralize all the collections from all centers into a fund that he would manage and invest in order to create further profit . . . but only if those investments panned out, of course.

The scheme also entailed centralizing all of the centers in a given zone into a central place. This was acted upon by the commissioner of the U. S. central zone. Your host speaker was one of the devotees affected by that at the time. However, I had no knowledge of the scheme or how the closing of the well run Madison, Wisconsin center was unauthorized.

The actions according to the plan were to be implemented even previously to informing Prabhupäda of it. The plan was not to be divulged to any of the rest of the devotees who were not involved in formulating it. That penchant for secrecy—which Prabhupäda pointed out in this excerpt—continued for many years after this unauthorized effort.

The letter, which was sent to all temple presidents worldwide, culminates in all caps, emphasizing that the G.B.C. had been suspended and that all orders received from it were to be disregarded. This letter proved, beyond doubt, that the G.B.C. was never endowed with infallible judgment or absolute, unquestioned power. It proved then (and still proves now) that the G.B.C. is capable of taking action that is against the principles of its own charter, as well as Prabhupäda’s desire and vision.

Then, a mere six years after this 1972 deviation, it would once again proceed with but another unauthorized plan. That later deviation—the zonal imposition–would eventually turn out to be a deathblow for the movement. That it was a movement killer is now beyond question by all sane and serious devotees of the guru-paramparä.

TATTVAMASI

Letter to one of the conspirators of the ad hoc meeting, dated 4-11-72:

“The meeting of the G.B.C. appeared to be very unconstitutional, because all the men were not informed or invited. Syamasundara. was not invited, Sudama was not invited, Krishna das was not invited, Tamala Krishna was not invited, neither I was informed. Why? You cannot hold meeting of 8 persons without inviting the others. Seven may be a quorum, that’s all right, but you cannot convene without a general announcement to all the members and myself, giving a proposed agenda, like that, the topics to be discussed, why the meeting is being called, etc.”

 

The ad hoc centralization scheme was both conspiratorial and unconstitutional. That all commissioners should, at bare minimum, have been notified of it–and invited to attend it–is common sense and basic. Four were not. One of those, of course, was the commissioner traveling with Prabhupäda, because he also was not notified of it.

As such, although the technicality of seven commissioners constituting a quorum was met, that was meaningless when there was no notification to the others. Most importantly, Prabhupäda was not informed of the proposal, which he would have nipped in the bud if presented its agenda. That alone made it conspiratorial beyond any doubt.

Another excerpt from that same letter of 4-11-72:

“I cannot understand why, instead of one G.B.C. man, a person outside the Commission was given so much power, and there was to be immediate action without divulging the matter to the devotees. 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.?”

The vaunted “best men” argument falls flat on its face via this important excerpt. Also, the argument that the group will automatically correct the error of any individual (or any individually powerful member) is toppled, because there were eight of them present . . . and not one of them was able to spot the defects in the procedure. Of course, that’s the benign interpretation, and Prabhupäda chose to let them off the hook in that way, so to speak. We shall not do so in this presentation, however.

Again, the penchant for secrecy is challenged by Prabhupäda. Still, it never went away, as evidenced by everything that was hidden in connection to the appointment that never was six years later. What was just referred to in 1978 is the banter (disguising a secret) that Prabhupäda appointed eleven dékñä-gurus, although he never did. He only appointed rittviks. The fact that he never did was hidden. It took until the second half of 1980 for it to be finally discovered that he never appointed or officially recognized any of his disciples to be a dékñä-guru.

Back to the 1972 excerpt. It closes with an ominous warning: “What will happen when I am not here: Shall everything be spoiled by G.B.C.?” Unless you are an “ISKCON” fanatic or crazy, you all know the answer to this question by now. EVERYTHING WAS SPOILED! And it was spoiled a mere four months after he departed physical manifestation.

Notice also that, in asking this (what turned out to be a rhetorical) question, Prabhupäda chose to use the verb “shall.” Your host speaker does not consider that to be accidental. How is “shall” generally used in contemporary English? It is generally used in legal locution, meaning that “this or that SHALL come to pass or SHALL be resolved or SHALL be known as the intent of this proposal.”

In other words, you could say that, in 1972, Prabhupäda was giving all of us a warning shot of what was coming down the pike in due course of time—a mere six years later. However, that would not be entirely accurate, because the temple presidents did not share this letter with the rank-and-file devotees. The excerpt, and all the others connected to it, allow us now, in retrospect, in order to put the pieces of the puzzle together at this time. That could not have been done in 1972, because the letter was kept confidential from the devotees at large, the real workers.

Prabhupäda gave the G.B.C. another chance in 1972. The suspension was brief. The individual G.B.C. members were chastened to some extent, obviously. As such, Prabhupäda attempted to deal with them, individually, as favorably as could be expected. About two months after he smashed that centralization scheme, Prabhupäda wrote a letter to one of the scheme’s two chief ringleaders. Here is an excerpt from that letter:

Letter to a leading secretary, dated 6-22-72:

“Now we have got so many students and so many temples, but I am fearful that if we expand too much in this way that we shall become weakened and gradually the whole thing will become lost. Just like milk. We may thin it more and more with water for cheating the customer, but in the end, it will cease to be any longer milk.”

This was prescient on Prabhupäda’s part, obviously, because that thinning of the milk is exactly what went down—or began to develop in a big way—less than a year and one-half later with all the deceptive practices connected to the plainclothes pick. The money increased. The movement increased in numbers, but the purity and power decreased.

The milk kept getting thinned out by the water of constant deception; in due course, it filtered out from the external world (where the pick was in full swing) to inside the temples themselves. The big collectors were glorified. The “Sankirtan Newsletter” measured monetary results as the standard for preaching advancement.

A covert element of feminism also entered the movement; it had, up to that point, been kept at bay. It entered, because the females out at the airports were invariably the biggest collectors every week, with few exceptions. They utilized the sexual energy intrinsic to the dry hump, and they brought in the biggest bucks. All the collectors were not only allowed to eat grains on ekädaçé but encouraged to do so.

Other concoctions for (allegedly) attracting vikarmés to join the movement emerged from the ocean of nescience. One of these was the “Road Show.” Another one was an incipient plan for a “Yoga Village.” All of this was in the immediate wake—actually, in the same year–of the centralization conspiracy and Prabhupäda’s warning about boiling the milk—meaning not putting emphasis on numbers, but instead on purity. Here’s what Prabhupäda had to say about those two concoctions:

Letter to a leading secretary, dated 11-5-72:

“So far the Road Show and this Yoga Village are concerned, these things should be stopped. Simply perform our kirtana. If we divert our attention in this way, the whole thing will gradually deteriorate. He is going far away. All these things are nonsense inventions. Such inventing spirit will ruin our this movement.”

Inventions included the plainclothes pick, which Prabhupäda was against before it even got off the ground. In effect, he forbade it. It was to be very limited. He allowed for devotees to dress nicely in respectable suits, but only with the shaved head, tiläka, flag, and neck beads on display.

In a letter to a leading secretary, dated 2-13-73:

“ . . . the devotees can dress up in respectable clothes like ladies and gentlemen in order to distribute my literatures under special circumstances, but even this program should not become widespread.”

This order was overridden. The plainclothes pick, initiated in late 1973, exploded almost everywhere in America the following year. One of the two chief ringleaders of the 1972 centralization scheme was the main commissioner who went ahead to implement the plainclothes pick anyway . . . and yes, he is the one who received the letter wherein Prabhupäda ordered that it was not be done.

He also received an important letter at the end of 1972 from Prabhupäda, reminding that man just how devastating the centralization scheme would have been if Prabhupäda had not nipped it just in time:

Letter to the Commissioner of Southern California, dated 12-22-72:

“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.”

Was the centralization scheme a conspiracy? Prabhupäda indicated that it was two years after the fact. Already presented once before in this presentation, let us repeat this excerpt, dated 10-4-74:

“Now by the grace of Krishna, we have got sufficient properties all over the world, so there cannot be any diplomacy or conspiracy by any sane man. All these properties and opulences, whatever we have got, this will not go with me when I go away from this world. It will remain here. I am training some of my experienced disciples how to manage after my departure. So if instead of taking the training, if in my lifetime you people say ‘I am the Lord of all I survey,’ that is dangerous conspiracy.”

The centralization scheme would have terminated the authenticity of the movement if Prabhupäda had not interfered. He suspended the G.B.C. as a result of it. It would have centralized finances and diminished the number of preaching centers. However, in and of itself, it would not have polluted the devotees in terms of their sädhana practices, their kértan in the streets, basic duties or sevas. There were no changes in consideration of these essentials, none of any consequence, as a result of the centralization. Yet, Prabhupäda considered it very serious, and, as per the late 1972 excerpt, said it would have killed his movement.

How does that compare to what went down in the Spring of 1978? The G.B.C. zones were re-drawn and replaced with guru zones. As such, the G.B.C.s who were not gurus lost influence over the temple presidents, who naturally gravitated to the gurus. In point of fact, almost all of them surrendered to the guru of their zone. The only holdout was in Raman Reti, India, but hardly anyone knew of that.

The temple worship was negatively impacted, as those new gurus were lavishly worshiped on opulent “vyäsasäns” in front of open Deities. In some temples, their worship replaced the guru-püja of Prabhupäda. They were also worshiped by their own godbrothers and godsisters, what to speak of newcomers, who naturally were enamored by them in the zonal temple that they happened to first visit.

In 1978, the altars were desecrated with pictures of sahajiyäs next to the real Äcäryas, who had been on those altars from the very beginning. As could only be expected, the articles used to collect out on the pick degenerated quickly and badly. Books and magazines gradually—make that not so gradually—were replaced by records, candles, scarves, candy canes, and various trinkets in order to pick the bone and bring it on home. The mode of passion took over the movement.

Comparatively speaking, the centralization scheme of 1972 was a firecracker compared to the bomb that went off throughout the movement a mere six years later. The rank and file never knew that Prabhupäda said “regular guru, that’s all.” The gurus did not act at all like regular gurus or madhyam-adhikärés. Instead, they all imitated uttama-adhikäré, in effect, imitating the Founder-Äcärya. Would Prabhupada have merely suspended the G.B.C. for allowing all of this to go down?

They said they were appointed by Prabhupada. This was a major prevarication, because, although Prabhupäda indicated that he would name some gurus in early 1977, he never did. He changed his mind. He had every right to do so, because no one was qualified to be guru even at the preliminary level.

However, in the lead-up to and implementation of the Äcäryas of the Zone hoax, the appointment of rittviks in mid-1977 was merged into the illusion of an appointment of eleven gurus. Everybody bought into this, because that was the propaganda everywhere in the movement. It was intentional. It was disgusting. It was an abomination.

It was most definitely a conspiracy, and it was a successful one that remained implicitly acceptedworldwide for a full two years. In that time frame, the “new gurus” loaded almost all the temples and preaching centers with their own improperly initiated disciples.

Referring to the zonal imposition just short of a decade later, Professor Blueblood commented on it:

“And the worst of this was committed by men, Prabhupäda entrusted with responsible positions. . . Internal weaknesses and shortcomings turned the eleven years of Prabhupäda’s personal supervision into a concatenation of crises.”

The Absolute Truth never varies, but institutions allegedly representing it can deviate, sometimes in their teachings, but more often in their processes. Philosophical pursuit of the Absolute Truth entails contemplating and understanding what is to be known from the tattva and siddhänta given through the guru-paramparä. This pursuit is not in the category of philosophical dogma.

However, when genuine institutions deviate from what their Founder-Äcärya presented to them, that deviation and its implementation in the cult DOES constitute both philosophical and procedural dogma. These anomalies have been constantly occurring—none of them by accident—since the disappearance from manifest physical presence of His Divine Grace in late 1977. These anomalies have run rampant and expanded since that time.

That Pandora’s Box of deviation was lifted up a bit while he was still physically present. However, it popped wide open in the last week of March, 1978. That onslaught of contamination has led to the creation of hierarchies both in the movement he founded, as well as in the splinter groups which have spun off from it. All of these cults (and their sub-cults) falsely advertise that they can connect you to the Absolute Truth via initiation into them, but this is nothing more than an advertisementwith no basis of legitimacy.

None of this went down by accident. It was planned, although those plans did not work out well for the conspirators in the long run. Kåñëa consciousness came into contact with the lower modes of the Western world, and glaring anomalies, although avoidable, are nevertheless thepredictable result. Totalitarian systems concocted from anomalies were the result, as each of the deviant groups (and sub-groups) claim to represent the Absolute but none of them do.

This results in a kind of imitation sanätana-dharma, and the worst offender in this connection is, of course, the fabricated, so-called “ISKCON” confederation. This was the governing body that opened Pandora’s Box in the late Seventies. It did so by institutionalizing eleven contaminated leaders as being pure devotees on the highest level of Kåñëa conscious realization.

They were considered to be Äcäryas. The institution’s governing body—with all eleven of those men part of it—bestowed upon them exclusive zones throughout the world. Each became their domains and playgrounds from which they drew, through facilities provided mostly by metropolitan centers, newcomers.

Virtually none of those new people had anything even remotely resembling knowledge of Kåñëa consciousness when they entered the temples in those zones. There are basics in Kåñëa consciousness. There is basic tattva and siddhänta. The tattva and siddhänta of what is a guru in the personalist school is required before anyone should submit to accept some kind of initiation from anyone.

The colossal hoax known as the fabricated, so-called “ISKCON” confederation is a pseudo-spiritual scam. There is a basic process in bhakti, but that process can be warped. The guru in that process, when he is genuine, meets required standards and is not in deviation from bhakti in any way.

When the process is warped, however, the gurus representing it will be perverted reflections of äcäryas. This was the case in the late Spring of 1978 in “ISKCON.” Nothing that those zonal äcäryas concocted was sanctioned by the Founder-Äcärya of the institution, but he was no longer physically present to stop them.

You have every right to call it a conspiracy. You have every right to consider that it has killed Prabhupäda’s branch of Lord Caitanya’s Hare Kåñëa movement. You also have every right to leave it and not fall for the allurement of all that constant banter about reform. You also have every right to pitch in and help to expose it . . . if you are brave enough, realized enough, and powerful enough to do so.

SAD EVA SAUMYA