Author:  Sulocana das - 19.11 2019

(Sulocana das was murdered May 22nd, 1986, 1:00 a.m., Los Angeles, two days after this story was written.)


 - Number 5 - Letter of Radhanatha Dasa to his "guru," Satsvarupa.
 - Number 8 - Rohini Kumar Swami's paper on "Regular Gurus."
 - Number 10 - 1978 GBC Report on Women sexploitation techniques.
 - Number 12 - Mother Mahara's statement about abortion & illicit sex: The real New Vrindaban.
 - Number 18 - Interview on the subtle sex life of Hrydayananda.
 - Number 20 - The Real May & June "Appointment" Transcripts.
 - Number 22 - GBC Document rationalizes breaking marriages.
 - Number 25 - Interview about Women's sexploitation at New Vrindaban.
 - DAS Devotee Access Services - An Inside Information Service for Devotees Everywhere.
 - The Kingdom by Sulocana dasa




6494 Denbigh Ave.

Bumaby, B.C. Canada

October 18, 1984

Dear Srila Gurupada,

Please accept my humble and faulty obeisances. All glories to you and your tireless work. All glories to Srila Prabhupada.

I hope you will forgive this simple hand-written letter. I thought it prudent not to have an "outside" typist do the horrors for what will be evident as obvious reasons. Knowing the way news, and especially scandal, travels within the movement, at alarming speed and astounding exaggeration, I did not ask another devotee to transform my handiwork into a more formal state.

It has been a very long time since I last wrote to you. This was partly owing to the decision to remove me from my duties managing the "Sankirtan" effort here in Vancouver. You may remember, at this tune, I would write to you every month with the news and details of the devotee's scores. I am by no means a man of great output in terms of correspondence (meager would constitute a gross overstatement). The exception being those letters needed for utilitarian reasons in the prosecution of business and duty. The more prominent reason being an attempt to understand the relationship between dogma and reality as it relates to ISKCON and an examination of incidences and experiences which were prompted by an overall impression of misgiving.

This reassessment began by reviewing my relationship and, later, other's, with what is commonly referred to as the "temple authorities". This examination prompted a further investigation and subsequent skepticism of widely held beliefs regarding the interpretation of the philosophy.

One's own beliefs, especially when dealing with oneself, can be misleading, but, just the same, I believe I am not a malicious person, and, by experience, I can honestly say that I do not react to problematic situations in any great haste. I felt that a period of time was necessary for reflection and hopefully a conclusion. However, when dealing, be it lesser or to a greater extent, with many variables-some that are human-the situation becomes increasingly more complex. In some ways with an exponential relationship to time. In such situations, the solution becomes even more dependent on clear definitions between subjectivity and objectivity. This task is greater than my abilities, so I beg your indulgence-as Prabhupada said, "All actions are covered by fault."

Many questions have been considered in preparation of this letter. Am I being misled by Maya? Surely, I know that, regarding certain aspects of my behavior, I am. What exactly is illusion? Perhaps another's perspective on it, or on "the Truth" is yet another grander illusion. Are my opinions fueled by simple vindictiveness-to right wrongs real or imaginary? Paranoia? As my wife is so fond of telling all and sundry-have I become mentally defective? I think not. Or, as others have interpreted my behavior, am I simply envious? What is envy other than the ISKCON status quo conception, which usually simply means that the object of this label is perceived as some kind of threat-real of imaginary. I am sure that you may perceive my opinions as being rather pompous. For this I apologize.

I have, in my long and patchy association with members of ISKCON, met many people with similar experiences to mine, some with far worse, others with a history of horror stories. My experiences with ISKCON members and their dealings within the organization, and with people "outside" and the philosophical background to deportment, presents much to consider.

A senior devotee, and a great friend of mine, with whom I have discussed the "tenets of Krsna consciousness" and the unfortunately inseparable ISKCON politics, told me not to write this letter at all."Say as you please if you can take the consequences-but never put it down in writing." This statement itself highlights the system of needless intrigue in which the members feel themselves ensnared. Happily, I can say that, as for myself, I feel at least partially freed from this encumbrance to any kind of advancement-material or spiritual. Against his good advice and best intentions, I submit this letter-perhaps because of some egotism, though I hope this is minimal.

I dedicate this letter in the name of HONESTY. This, I am ashamed to say, I have only rediscovered since questioning the ISKCON status quo. I can no longer pretend that everything in the garden is "rosy", and I don't believe that, by doing so, honesty is served. Without honesty, can anything of substance be gained?

I believe that honesty exercised both personally and interpersonally can rectify practically any situation. However, I feel, that within ISKCON, honesty has lost its important place, and dishonesty and its running mates run rampant through the fabric of the society. It is pooh-poohed by the leaders as being merely a "subreligious principle" or a "mere material moral."

The temple system, it seems, cannot tolerate honesty as an interpersonal medium. Instead it offers reward for supporting the sometimes far-flung illusions of the leaders. A system only asking complete support and undivided loyalty to the whims of the temple presidents, vice presidents, and so on down the chain of command. Democracy, we are told, is evil. what we have in its place is not the Vedic material society of old-I feel that just may be an unreachable goal. Instead we have an authoritarian regime reminiscent of the Holy Roman Empire, countless banana republics, mid-century Germany, and other fundamental sects. Failure to play the game will lead, of course, to a short, sharp slap. Continuing insubordination will lead to being branded "fault-finder," "critical," "envious"-sneer, gnashing of teeth, hellfire, and damnation. I will return to this later.

Honesty in the area of collecting funds-that appears to be the main thrust of ISKCON-is the most obvious area of contention. Whereas before dishonest tactics were openly approved; it is now being treated as a matter of conscience for the individual. Although, on record, everyone will agree that such tactics are abhorrent, we resort to great lengths to encourage the devotees to collect increasingly larger sums of money. Of course, the amounts are measured by "Laxmi points" to try to avoid any materialistic implication in this regard. Older members instruct the newer in methods of how to achieve the desired result. The result not necessarily being spiritual experiences, but a large amount of cold, hard cash. This constant pressure through various mediums indirectly incites the devotees to resort to less than spiritual tactics in order to please the authorities. Even disregarding any use of blatantly dishonest measures, the very fact that the devotees are sent out to "sell" artifacts (some of these even questionable in their "taste") enmeshes the salesperson in the tactics of deceit in order to present a story acceptable to the "customer" in order to close a "sale".

Many will say, "Well, this is happening everywhere." Of course, but they don't call it spiritual training! Everyone is reluctant to examine how funds are being procured. If a devotee is caught in these practices, then, of course, he/she will be admonished, not because of the practice itself, but because of the punishment (i.e. loss of funds, legal fees, bad publicity, etc.). It's rather like the child, who is caught, feels sorry not because he has a realization of his antisocial behavior or that he is not really acting in his own best interests, but because he is made to suffer as a result. There seems to be a whole philosophy built upon "The end justifies the means." The local GBC once told me, when the temple president and Regional Secretary and myself were discussing highly criminal ways of gaining large sums of money, "Well, do it for Krsna-but don't tell me about it."

The collectors are further encouraged by slogans, some of which are:

"These are spiritual quotas."

"We can do anything in Krsna's service."

"Krsna is the most expert cheat."

"It belongs to Krsna anyway. 11

"We are rescuing Laxmi from Ravana" (Viva Liberation).

Another quote I hear often recited is that Prabhupada said that we should not do anything dishonest because we are not expert. This is interpreted to mean that we should not resort to crime because we are not very good-not because it is wrong and therefore a-spiritual. If we now consider ourselves expert-then it's OK.

The result of such irresponsible activity should be obvious especially since we can readily see the effects in the loss of credibility in the eyes of the public. Countless lawsuits, bad publicity, difficulty even giving books away. This type of activity also has a tendency to self-perpetuation. Very few intelligent and honest people are attracted to the tenets of Krsna consciousness, instead we attract the down-and-out, the criminal, the con trickster, etc.

Also the stability of individual devotees is undermined, especially any with sensitivity or empathy. Sometimes sooner or sometimes later. This tendency to relegate the virtue of honesty or truthfulness is symptomized in other ways, more insidious ways.

The black art of politics, one of the commonest tendencies of the materialistic conditions, is synonymous with the prosecution of diplomacy, duplicity, and the "half-truth". A destructive force to say the least. Most devotees would agree that they joined to avoid this. Instead, the ordinary devotee finds him/herself within a temple atmosphere tainted by political ambitions, paranoias, and protection of position.

At this juncture, I should also mention the good points of ISKCON. We all know that distributing literature, educating the general population about Krsna or God consciousness, is a very good thing. Giving free vegetarian food and educating about the attributes of vegetarianism is a very positive step to stemming the tide of uncivilized behavior and atheism. Krsna consciousness I am unequivocally in favor of, but ISKCON consciousness I feel is a different thing altogether, especially as the organization is becoming, despite the frantic activities of some purely motivated individuals, a small pond for a number of big fish to run. In fact, an objective assessment of the nature of these "spiritual sovereign states" is that it is becoming much like the other so-called "new religions" and is fast living up to its label as being a "cult."

The current political system in ISKCON, i.e., the absolute rule syndrome from GBC to temple presidents to departmental managers, etc., leads to much paranoia. The way the society views itself is that one who has managed to politic a way into a managerial position is being rewarded by Krsna for advancing m spiritual understanding. Therefore, more effort is spent chasing name, fame, and position, and subsequently protecting this "spiritual advancement" from others who aspire to this, than effort spent in developing exactly the opposite (underlined) qualities necessary for real (underlined) spiritual advancement. In my direct experiences with temple leaders officially, and also as "friends" (I will explain the quotation marks later), I have witnessed the trouble taken to nourish and protect these empires. The temple authority protective of his "divine right of kings" employs many methods to continue his tenure. This, of course, means "pushing" the money collectors to ensure that the temple is reflected favorably by his peers in terms of money collected, books distributed, and mega projects. Of course, there is at least some desire to unmotivated service, but, by the amount of posturing and politicking, there is a large amount of self-aggrandizement taking place. The absolute rule arrangement, coupled with a charismatic personality, a working knowledge of psychology, and a liberal smattering of ultra-right-wing political leanings, seems to make a successful temple president-one not afraid to destroy his enemies. As the Regional Secretary once told me, "Krsna has always helped me to defeat my enemies."

By being appointed to this position of absolute control, the general members of the temple must ingratiate themselves somehow to further enhance their own spiritual/political careers. Even the simple devotee, uninterested in such heady goals, must behave in such a way as to please the president just to receive the subsistence necessary to continue in the temple. By not being incessantly "enthusiastic" with everything done by the authorities, which, in may cases, cannot but be described as whimsical, one can be perceived as a threat. In fact, this absolute control scheme can make many temple managers behave in such a heady manner that schemes are born with little in the form of intelligent planning-disregarding in-house and contracted professional advice with little thought for the consequences and effects upon the simple devotee. These consequences, in my own experience, have meant increased quotas for money to pay for some losing scheme that they previously paid money for people to advise them not to do it in the first place.

I've seen many instances of unfortunate individuals locking horns with the "authority". Nirantara was subjected to a campaign of character assassination because he was a better musician and aroused the envy of the Regional Secretary-eventothepointofpoignant,sarcasticremarksduringSrimadBhagavatamclass. The really sad part is that the person who provided some form of "dirt" to the authorities to provide a wedge to remove Nirantara was considered by him to be his best friend. Dhruva and Bhaktin Mary were other victims of the power politics-which you probably already know. In this case, spies were to report on anyone who had been in contact with the "gang-of-two." They were hurriedly rushed into the office and given a disgusting, raging tirade on the envious nature of these two. What is this-the Spanish Inquisition revisited? Much of the allegations that were made by Dhruva were backed up by other devotees who were also silenced.

Against another poor individual, I myself witnessed with my own eyes the Regional Secretary, Headmaster of the Gurukula, and the Farm President kick the crap out of him in full view of the public and the devotees.

We can all agree that this is outrageous behavior, but worse than that, these men verbalized their enjoyment of it, with great peels of encouragement from the devotees in general. I can remember closed conversations taking place where unnamed individuals were planning to kill him. This is spiritual life?

A friend of mine mentioned that, with this never-ending list of heinous activities, we cannot now consider this ISKCON but a Maya reflection of what ISKCON was designed to be. It is on the lips of many people that ISKCON is dying-perhaps there is nothing anyone can do to save it.

A tool that has been used in ISKCON management is the ancient principle of "divide and conquer". No devotee that I know has any friends within the movement. If one reveals one's mind in the spirit of honesty and friendship, one will quickly find the proverbial hilt protruding from one's shoulder blades. Devotees are tempted to "inform" on their Godbrother/sisters and are trapped in the tedious treadmill of politics and duplicity for the promised thirty pieces. Friend turns on friend, husband on wife, wife on husband. Everyone is watching for tell-tale signs-for mistakes, so that personal profiles can be maintained and points accumulated.

From the point of view of the ruling junta-"Information is power." Truth is subverted and upstarts quashed, criticism silenced. No devotee can trust any other-the status quo remains. Absolute power corrupts-absolutely!

This is all very reminiscent of the POW camps in Korea where the unfortunate captives were easily subdued by means of distrust of their fellow prisoners. Each soldier had no relationship with his fell inmate because of the suspicion carefully nurtured by his captives. Instead, he docilely turned to his captors for human relations.

Many of the leaders (most) use the platform of the Srimad Bhagavatam class to further their own political posturing. The verse is read; so too is Srila Prabhupada's purport. A short dissertation follows summing up and elaborating on points contained therein. In many cases, the lecture soon departs from the ground of scriptural reference in its intended context and becomes a platform for personal and peculiar foibles.

I have sat through classes extolling the virtues of just about every type of discrimination possible. Classes discriminating against women and blacks. Classes doing little in the way of presenting Vaisnava philosophy but concentrating on belittling other religious systems-Christianity in particular. Hate philosophy aimed at "fringies," democracy in general, East Indians. Sankirtan classes extolling the virtue of money collection as a complete meditation and demeaning the efforts of "non-money collecting individuals."

The Regional Secretary gives classes primarily about the foremost position of the temple hierarchy and how we will suffer should we think of balking at his absolute position of authority. I think I know his pitch by heart now.

The most worrying and insidious classes are those elaborating on the glories of the vamasrama system as a new wonderful spiritual fascist society. The headmaster of the gurukula can manifest ecstatic systems when giving Srimad Bhagavatam classes on the righteous ways of the disgusting John Birch Society.

During classes and in private, most of the temple leaders and most of the visiting leaders exude this ultraright-wing philosophy dreaming of a future where the ISKCON movement will rule the world. If they rule the world the same way they treat the devotees, ISKCON will make the Ayatollah look like Anne of Green Gables. In this context, ISKCON is a very dangerous organization, especially when one hears the preachers saying that, in the future, we will ask people if they believe in Krsna and, should they answer negatively, we will feel the righteous duty to kill them. If this is considered spiritual life-I am glad to be considered in Maya.

Is seems that somehow ISKCON either has attracted or has been instrumental in converting people with a great scarcity of love or respect for their fellow man. It appears to be a society with very (underlined) high ideals-I do not doubt that bhakti is the highest yoga-but the organization is based upon exploitation. Responsibility is a one-way street. The individual has immense responsibility to perform his duties, in many cases in very inclement circumstances. In return the society feels no concern, love, respect or responsibility for those lowly individuals who have freely given as they are able. I could write a book about individuals who have been given the royal shaft by the heartlessness of the ruling class, but it would be too depressing to relate it.

Another quirk of the status quo is the growing belief in temples I have lived or visited that absolute power also continues along familial lineage. A class of royal families is emerging from the misapplication of the philosophy. The next stage wig obviously be the construction of "spiritual" dynasties. The Regional Secretary very plainly told me that he is a great believer in nepotism. This idea very plainly stems from a combination of extreme material goals and the appeal of the more authoritarian precepts of vamasrama.

I remember a very clever essay printed in Back to Godhead discussing how large numbers of people can be allayed into accepting horrifying or, at least, odorous concepts by changing the language slightly and avoiding the issue. I was very impressed. Of course, this carries on in highly corrupt societies as he mentions, but why must ISKCON use this tasteless and frightening Orwellian subterfuge?

Platitudes abound, to field poignant questions and criticisms. The favorite is, of course, "Krsna's mercy, prabhu." There are numerous others used to excuse just about any abuse or indefensible position. I'm sure you've heard them all.

I find myself at odds with the gurukula system also. The only criterion for staffing seems to be the lack of willingness or lack of ability for collecting money. In many cases, children are kept in the care and are educated by people who have no proper training or appeal for the service. The result-the uneducated are teaching, or trying to, and the unsuited are forced to be responsible for a number of children in the asrama setting. There are a few people now who are a little qualified for these positions, but, on the whole, the (underlined) system is lacking.

As for the boy's asrama, I find Jaya Gaura completely unsuited, and unless he is removed, a very nasty incident is in the cards. On three separate occasions he has attacked one of the boys in his charge. Or, on one occasion, I witnessed his abuse of my son Ravi. Ravi was repeatedly shoved, struck, and kicked by this fully grown man in his rage. If it wasn't for my own control in dealing with the man, he perhaps may have been able to perpetrate any other acts of violence against children. The view of the headmaster and the temple? Quite predictable. Nothing was done, or said."Krsna's mercy," etc. This attitude highlights the managerial philosophy somewhat akin to the laissez-faire governmental policy in 18th and 19th century Europe. Let's pretend it didn't happen-let's pretend everything is going as planned. Nobody will criticize the management for fear of being seen as unadvanced. After all, the authorities have been very graphic in their presentation of what to them signifies spiritual advancement. One of these attributes is to never say anything is wrong. Nothing ever is wrong of course-just one's mind is faulty. The mind is one's worse enemy, etc.

During my tune helping with the management, I gained a great insight into the prevailing mood of the authorities. I was included in many policy meetings and party to some very dubious activities. I became involved with very cavalier attitudes, also. For a finance meeting, it would take three ladies working for several hours to provide a feast for the four of us involved in discussion of related topics. Meanwhile, the proletariat of the temple looked on.

After a time, I was involved with "public affairs". It soon became apparent that most of my time was spent in defending actions by devotees that I could not myself condone. When dealing with the media especially, most of the time was spent in telling half-truths. I became expert as a public liar. As you well know, I could hardly tell the truth regarding the reality of ISKCON affairs, and sometimes couldn't even tell people the truth regarding the philosophy.

I am very comfortable with my position living away from he temple property. I can live like a civilized person again instead of the hippie-type living conditions at the temple. I no longer have to worry about my things being stolen. Lack of respect for other people's property (devotees or others) is epidemic-in fact, it is expected (underlined) that everything will be stolen.

I no longer have to live with cockroaches infesting my living quarters. I never saw one until I lived at the temple. I don't worry so much about communicable diseases, one of which was a very dangerous and sometimes lethal parasite. How do we expect the philosophy of Krsna consciousness to expand when even the people we consider uncivilized are shocked at our living conditions, cleanliness, and overall behavior?

It would seem that this inability or unwillingness to deal with problems, admit fault, and make corrections stems from the same paranoia that gives the society its self-righteous "us" and "them" outlook. Everyone on the outside, to a large extent, is seen as an enemy-envious, and out to destroy the society. Of course, if this attitude persists, more and more people will (underlined) take umbrage at this kind of behavior. We should be developing an open, giving, spiritual (underlined) mood, not viewing each individual as being worth a certain amount. This man might give me $20.00, this one $1,000.00. He can do this for me-she's not worth the time of day. This would definitely seem like material vision. Of course, devotees treat each other in much the same fashion-he's a $300.00/day man; she's a $500.00/day mother; he's in "Maya". For the nonmanagerial devotee, one's spiritual advancement is gauged according to how much money one can provide. As the temple president is so fond of saying, "money is (underlined) the honey."

One other main thrust that critics of the movement point out is that "cults" (ISKCON included) are against the family. ISKCON denies this charge vehemently, but the reality is that families are tolerated as long as family ties don't interfere with the temple's absolute control. If the husband and wife are "Sankirtan" devotees, then the temple management conspires to keep them apart-for monetary reasons, of course. Usually there is no family unity, as the children no longer live at home and are no longer under the control of the parents, and husband and wife are encouraged to betray their spouse. In my case, this is born out, as I am sure you can recall the trip my wife has been writing to you. Nice girl, but unfortunately a little simple. The temple has her innly under control. It is a very unfortunate position when the temple encourages a mother not to look after her children and family duties; when a husband cannot trust his wife.

The temple gives her increasing amounts of service so that, instead of teaching our deaf son, she is working all hours of the day and night. The temple was fully aware of the situation-what did they care! They only know how to manipulate trusting souls for their own benefit. She will probably realize it some day when they no longer see any value in her service, and she is cast aside.

However, not able to endure this situation for any longer, I re-enrolled Ravi at the special school. He is much happier now as opposed to doing nothing, but he is still very far behind as a result of this meddling by the temple. The situation is still completely unresolved as she gets up at 1:15 a.m. and, after the morning, is still loaded down with work. When she should be looking after the children, she is so tired she falls asleep either all morning or afternoon.

Gopal Krsna Maharaja (in whom I have no faith whatsoever) told my wife that there is "no question of giving up any service," and "Krsna will take care of the children."

In which case it would seem to make more sense for my wife, if she wants to live the completely monastic life, to go with you to your zone. If that's what she wants, and, at the moment it seems to be that family life is just a tedious barricade, then I would trust you to look after her more than this lot here.

I take family responsibility more seriously than the current ISKCON status quo and can handle things quite well-I have up to now anyway. I just wish I had taken matters into my own hands before now.

Regarding my recent trip to see you in Washington, I too was sorry not to spend some time with you. I was told that everything had been arranged (foolish me to believe such a thing!). I was to spend some time serving you. Instead, the local temple commander hunted me everywhere-apparently I was the most likely candidate for solo kitchen cut-up. Broccoli, and we still can't look each other steadily in the eye! When I saw you in the temple room the second morning, and we exchanged a few words briefly, I could understand that you were honestly glad to see me. At last somebody who is not interested in exploiting me in some fashion. Every morning I went to see Baladev. Each morning I was told that you were too busy (which I could fully appreciate). I was also told that on Tuesday you were leaving early in the morning for Baltimore-so that seemed to be that. Also there were other difficulties-minor in themselves, but collected together and given the answer that there was no chance of seeing you, made it rather silly to hang around. I was staying in the brahmacari asrama, and, between the late-nighters and the early-risers, I was not getting any sleep. I was also suffering the ill effects of hay fever, probably owing to the warmer more humid weather. Kitchen cut-up didn't help either. It seems by being told that I left in anger, you were the victim of a case of "story telling" or at least exaggeration. I would view information coming from the same source with a little more scrutiny in the future.

I am very sad to hear of your recent ill health. I hope that this will pass very quickly, because your energy, in my view, is absolutely necessary in saving pure Krsna consciousness from ensuing extinction. I hope I have not offended you by speaking candidly. Most people that I know, who for one reason or other, find themselves on the "outside" of ISKCON, told me that I was wasting my time to put the truth down on paper. Nobody wants to bear it-they all want to play "let's pretend". But it's too important for that. I want to be involved with a movement that I can stand up and say, "Yes, I support these people 100 percent." Nowadays, everything I hear makes the situation look worse. Now the temple presidents are making a power play. The more distance I put between the society and me-the less of this I will hear about.

My thanks for your patience and purity. My best regards.

Your fallen but not forgetful disciple,

Radhanath dasa



A Rational and Ethical View of Guru Since Prabhupada's Departure by Rohini Kumar Swami

On November 14th, 1977 in Vmdavana, India, His Divine Grace A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada returned to the spiritual world. For this world his passing away marked the end of one era and the beginning of another. At our center at 26th Second Ave., Srila Prabhupada, when asked who would be the next acarya after him stated, "There will not be any more acaryas." The word acarya is used in several senses. Its first and primary meaning is "one who teaches by example." Its other outstanding meaning is the spiritual master of a particular period, one who stands out among all others by his full comprehension of the scriptures, like Madhav, Jiva Goswami, Baladeva Vidyabhusana, Bhaktivinode Thakura, Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati and Srila Prabhupada, or else one who is completely absorbed in relishing the bliss of God consciousness at every moment, such as Madhavendra Puri, Narottama dasa Thakura, Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati and Srila Prabhupada. In other words, Srila Prabhupada exemplified both. The acarya does not talk effervescent and flowery words that sound beautiful but cannot quite be understood or explained. (This, as can be seen, is the usual manner of the typical bogus sahajiya and Mayavadi gurus in India.) The acarya is practical and down to earth. He does not have his head in the clouds as if in some imaginative lila. His mind is fixed on Krsna in the spiritual world, but he is also simultaneously aware of the exigencies of the world around him. Although he has all the vast wealth of Vedic knowledge at his disposal, he presents it always in a logical, comprehensive and clear way-he does not try to be abstruse, esoteric or talk above the heads of his listeners. Those who do so are either eccentric or simply trying to impress others with their "higher knowledge."

The acarya is always a diksa-guru, but even among many diksa-gurus at any given time there may not be such an outstanding acarya. Thus the lack of a great acarya at certain times does not mean that a sampradaya ceases to exist or becomes broken. Rather it is carried on by the regular diksa-gurus, and with tune another great acarya manifests himself. Thus it is seen in the Ramanuja sampradaya and in the Madhava sampradaya that there were times when there was not great acaryas, though their lines of disciplic succession have continued always by the many diksa-gurus. When Srila Prabhupada passed away in the fall of 1977 there was a void created in ISKCON. There was no acarya and there was no diksa-guru. At the next Mayapura festival the entire GBC body convened to decide how to continue our parampara. Obviously there had to be gurus to initiate the new devotees that were joining. Since Srila Prabhupada had appointed eleven ritviks to initiate on his behalf while he was still living, it was naturally assumed that these ritviks above everyone else held an unequalable mandate from Srila Prabhupada to be gurus. Since Srila Prabhupada had recommended that the devotees consult Sridhara Swami in Navadvipa if there was need for advice on basic Vaisnava procedures, several representatives from the GBC went to ask him how the eleven ritviks should go about assuming the position of guru. Sridhara advised that it begin in a very simple and humble fashion. I remember listening to the tape, how one of the GBCs was asking about pranama prayers for the new gurus, whether it was all right to use "nama om vishnu padaya" or not. Sridhara Maharaja simply said, "Om ajnana timirandhasya' is enough. Later the disciples can write a mantra according to how the guru reveals himself. The pranama prayer should be composed in Sanskrit that is both grammatically and metrically correct." But the GBC representatives instead continued to press on, "Oh, then it is all right to use 'nama om vishnu padaya." It was by the continual insistence of this particular GBC man that the use of nama om vishnu padaya became the standard prayer of all ISKCON gurus in imitation of Srila Prabhupada's pranama prayer, even though in almost all cases the particular guru's name is either too short or too long, thus rendering the standardized prayer metrically incorrect.

The problem, therefore, seems to be that since Srila Prabhupada was the only example of a guru and acarya that the devotees knew, they naturally presumed that whoever was to be a bona fide guru would have to exactly imitate him in every way. Failure to do this would render one suspect of not being up to the standard set by Srila Prabhupada. Of course, this external imitation of prayers, titles, big vyasasanas, lavish guru-pujas, living quarters, personal comforts, etc., does not automatically make one infallible like Srila Prabhupada. To imitate him does not make one as good as him, just as imitating Siva or Krsna does not make one equal to them. And just as the imitators of Siva cannot drink an ocean of poison, nor the imitators of Krsna lift Govardhana hill, the imitators of Srila Prabhupada have not been able to maintain ISKCON as Srila Prabhupada did, with the result that the majority of Srila Prabhupada's dear disciples have left his movement, while the movement itself has been shaken to its very foundation by feuds, rivalries, and schisms. Yet, it is not that there is anything wrong with ISKCON having diksa-gurus, but that there is something fundamentally wrong with the way we have pursued it.

The entire history of mankind is full of stories of how money, women, power, prestige, honor and worship have corrupted the best of men, even highly advanced spiritual persons. The great acarya is such a person that even in the midst of these dangerous situations he is not overcome by them. But unless one is such a great acarya on the level of the Goswamis, Narottama dasa, Baladeva, Bhaktivinoda, Bhaktisiddhanta and Srila Prabhupada, then one had better avoid these temptations as far as possible. The guru is a preacher. He delivers Srila Prabhupada's teachings and gives the holy name of Krsna. Not that he is the enjoyer of the assets and adulation of his disciples.

We must face the facts: even a thousand gurus (of the present standard) cannot equal Srila Prabhupada or replace him. Since Srila Prabhupada was an uttama-adhikari or pure devotee and he had said so many times that a guru must be of such caliber, it was assumed that the gurus who succeeded Srila Prabhupada would have to somehow be uttama-adhikaris. Therefore, in a convened meeting the GBC unanimously conferred upon the new gurus the rubber stamp status of "pure devotee." But is it possible that by a vote of the GBC that someone who was previously just a regular madhyama-adhikari, at best, can instantly become an uttama-adhikari? It is the height of folly for someone to think himself an uttama-adhikari, for as soon as one does one cannot be one. Although All ISKCON members are pure devotees in the sense that they refrain from all sinful activities and regularly chant 16 rounds, none of us are uttama-adhikaris or pure devotees of the type exemplified by Srila Prabhupada and the other previous great acaryas. Simply receiving the title of guru does not make one an uttama-adhikari. What then should be the position of ISKCON gurus after Srila Prabhupada. In light of the numerous ways in which we presently fall short of the mark of uttama-adhikari, anyone who accepts the position of guru should be understood to be merely a vyavaharika-guru, or a conventional priest authorized to give initiation into the chanting of the holy name. Such gurus must also make their disciples understand their position. They should be honest enough to say "I did not create ISKCON. Srila Prabhupada did. And every project in ISKCON is simply the manifestation of his energy. It is not that because of what I have done ISKCON has become so great. Whether I became a devotee or not would not have mattered. Everything still would have been achieved because it is really Srila Prabhupada who did it all. I was only one of many instruments, and after all, instruments are always dispensable. I cannot do what Srila Prabhupada has done. All I can do is give you the same mantra that he gave me. I personally cannot save you. But if you chant this mantra and study Srila Prabhupada's teachings as preserved in his books, then despite my own imperfections and shortcomings, you will be able to go back to Godhead because Srila Prabhupada will take you back." In this way, if the vyavaharika-guru has some difficulties, as we have already seen in ISKCON, there will be no great cause of distress for the disciples and the society in general because everyone actually understands their relationship with each other and with the vyavaharika-gurus and of everyone with the great acarya, Srila Prabhupada.

The creation of eleven gurus in ISKCON has proven to be the most divisive and destructive event in the history of ISKCON. It has caused a polarization of ISKCON into areas of influence: "This is so and so's temple. He's the guru here. If you don't like it, get out!" Thus Srila Prabhupada's disciples were made to feel like foreigners in their own temples. No wonder the majority of them have left! With the installment of eleven gurus in different regions, ISKCON ceased to be one movement, as it had been under Srila Prabhupada, but instead became eleven little ISKCONs each with its own little guru as the absolute authority. It was therefore unavoidable that there would be rivalry, schism and excommunications. How should ISKCON have acted in order to avoid this polarizing effect that ultimately ends in disunity and schism? Well, if we examine how other Vaisnava sampradayas have dealt with the problem we might be able to learn something. TheRamanuja and Madhava sampradaya have both adopted the same formula. In their temples there is only one guru present, that is, their own respective founding acarya as either Ramanuja or Madhava. ALL the gurus who succeeded them have their own ashramas outside the temple and it is in those ashramas that the disciples offer respects to their gurus. In this way the temples remain the center of worship for everyone in the sampradaya, regardless of who the gurus are. Thus, although sectarian differences have sometimes arisen in these sampradayas, the temples have remained nonsectarian and the neutral ground where all could worship the Supreme Lord.

If anyone reads the Caitanya-caritamrta he will see the great love and trust that existed between the different gurus. They often sent their disciples to other gurus to be trained up in the philosophy. On the other hand, in our present ISKCON we have the gurus say, "Don't listen to anybody's tapes but mine. I don't want you going to any other temple because you will become confused, bewildered and will fall down, etc." Has everyone forgotten that it is only Srila Prabhupada who can save the fallen souls and is also saving us? Instead of pushing the successor gurus on the new disciples they should be giving them Srila Prabhupada, just as we were given him when we joined. what could be offensive in instituting such a program? By it we only gain to have a unified ISKCON that wig continue to be so indefinitely. Otherwise, ISKCON will eventually deteriorate into another mess like Christianity with schisms, crusades, and inquisitions, and does the world need another burden like that. Everyone should be aware of the real issue. It is not a matter of eleven gurus, or of one thousand, it is a matter of the present method. Sometimes it is seen that the limbs of a tree grow too large, with the result that they slump down, crack, or even break off. The only remedy for this is to trim the limbs back. This is exactly what must be done with ISKCON. We have to trim back the artificially over-blown position of diksa-gurus in ISKCON to a position that is safe and healthy for the survival of one unified ISKCON in the future. To do so I suggest the following proposals:

1) In all ISKCON temples, which are, after all, Srila Prabhupada's temples, there should only be a big vyasasana for Srila Prabhupada. There may be a modest, unimposing asana in the temple room for the vyavaharika-guru to speak from. In fact, this same asana may be used by all those who represent Srila Vyasadeva by preaching Krsna consciousness and following the four regulative principles.

2) Only Srila Prabhupada's pictures be in the temple room and on the altar.

3) Only Srila Prabhupada's name and pranama prayer should be chanted in the temple.

4) A suitable room or asrama be set up where the vyavaharika-guru and his disciples can have intimacy

together in the form of darsanas, vyasasanas, pictures, chanting of the guru's name and pranama prayer, guru-puja, etc.

5) During kirtan in the temple the title "gurudeva" can be chanted to indicate the particular guru or gurus at that temple and respects can be offered them by chanting om ajnana timirandhasya. Since this mantra is used to offer respect to all bona fide gurus within our disciplic succession, to use it for the vyavaharika-gurus is also perfect (if they are bona fide). In this way, no one will be made to feel that they are not allowed to offer proper respects to their guru, and at the same time, while chanting it no one will feel that they are being forced to offer respects to someone who is not their guru.

6) Although presently all vyavaharika-gurus are sannyasis, since it is permissible that even householders be diksa-gurus, when reciting the jaya dhvani at the end of kirtan one may offer them respects by saying: sad gurudeva ki jai! or some other simple arrangement. This is necessary because those vyavaharika-gurus who are householders cannot be addressed with the sannyasa titles in the usual formula as jaya om visnupada etc.

7) The vyavaharika-guru should always be explicit about his position as such and not pretend to be something which he is not, such as an uttama-adhikari, the one great acarya, etc. Of course, it may not be possible to institute all these principles immediately, but they must be eventually if ISKCON is to survive as one unified movement. If these principles are established, then no matter how many gurus there are, ISKCON will remain one movement united around Srila Prabhupada the acarya and founder of ISKCON, and will remain so for all future generations of devotees. All glories to Srila Prabhupada! All glories to ISKCON.

Rohini Kumar Swami

Note: The above was composed in Berkeley with the sole aim of removing the bogus worship of Hamsadutta from the temple proper. It was very successful. For personal and other reasons certain points were not emphasized at that time. Having discussed with Rohini Kumar Swami at some length on these points the following was concluded:

That the vyavaharika-guru must be, as Prabhupada says, "strictly following the principles himself." That means all the principles, not just the gross principles of no meat, sex (including homosex), drugs, and betting, but also no TV, movies, prajalpa, neglect of 16 rounds, ignorance of sastra, obnoxious behavior, stealing other men's wives, puffed up mentality, disrespect to Godbrothers, rock and roll "kirtana" bands, all association with women, if sannyasa, etc. Single women must wait for a husband to devote themselves to. In the meantime, they can find an advanced householder to take instruction from.



Excerpts from GBC commissioned document on exploitation

compiled by Jagannatha Suta Dasa

March 10th, 1978

It is not so much that there are many reports of the breaking of regulative principles on these parties, but that the breaking of principles is being justified as necessary to push on Lord Caitanya's sankirtana movement. The philosophy that's being preached on these parties (either outrightly or subtly through rhetoric or innuendo) can be briefly summarized as follows: Any service outside of book distribution and laxmi collection is Maya. If a women's party member wishes to leave the party and do another service (cooking, Deity worship, etc.) she is told that if she leaves the party she will be cut off from Srila Prabhupada and Lord Caitanya's movement. If the women's party member is feeling the desire to marry, she is taught that to take a husband is a complete fall-down-her service will be finished because she will wind up 'serving the husband's senses.' Hence, only her party leader can engage her in Srila Prabhupada's service since any service outside book distribution is Maya. Since the party leader takes care of her and engages her in service, the girls consider him to be their "eternal husband." (This thinking is encouraged by the party leader.) If a woman wants to leave the party leader (her "husband") she is told that she is unchaste-a victim of "prostitute" mentality.

The party leader usually believes, and often preaches, that if a woman has some sexual agitation and wants to leave the party, it is better for her to relieve her desires within the framework of the party than to leave and get a husband. Hence, the party leader is not at all averse to showing her physical affection if that is what she needs to stay on the party. The philosophy is that if she must have sex-better to have it with the party leader because that way her sankirtana service will continue and she will gradually get purified. If however, she leaves to get married, her service is finished and she must live with the guilt of leaving her "real husband" (the party leader).

This philosophy of "the end justifies the means" does not end with the party leader's willingness to give the girls anything they need to stay on the party. In her interview with me, Mother Danistha (who spent three years on Jiva dasa's party as party coordinator) explains that when Jiva found out his wife Manini was pregnant, he told her (and instructed Mother Danistha to preach to her), that she should "dance hard at aratik" and "ride in bumpy vans" to see if it was "Krishna's desire" that she have the child. If she had the child her sankirtana service (and thus her connection with Srila Prabhupada and Lord Caitanya) would be finished.

It is this fanatical perversion of our philosophy that I wish the GBC to be aware of: That anything-having sex with the mothers, beating them, taking drugs-can be justified as being necessary to push on Lord Caitanya's sankirtana movement.

All of the above aforementioned claims are verified in the following reports. Please read each carefully (especially Mother Danistha's). I also request you to carefully study the section entitled the Positive Alternative. It includes a very insightful interview with Mother Sadhvi (number one big book distributor in Seattle yatra).

During Srila Prabhupada's last days on the planet, Ramesvara Maharaja informed His Divine Grace about the Laguna Beach drug scandal and the sensational headlines it was making. Ramesvara Maharaja told me that Srila Prabhupada said we should be so careful-we could ruin everything.

It is in the same spirit that I humbly appeal to the GBC to deal with the present situation so that we can

avoid any unnecessary embarrassment to Lord Caitanya's Sankirtana movement.

I hope this meets you all well and increasingly absorbed in Srila Prabhupada's loving service.

Your servant,

Jagannatha Suta dasa

General manager-BBT Press

Excerpts from Interview with Dhanistha Devi Dasi

Ex-member of Jiva dasa's party

Mother Dhanistha (MD): In the beginning on Jiva's party, he was very strict about his association with the women. Like he would stay in his room if we were changing clothes or nightgowns or if he was chanting japa. He'd just make sure that there was some space around him, you know, respectful space so that the devotees wouldn't become familiar. That was when we first started and a few girls, five or six. And then after he went to visit Dharmatma's party he was trying to learn, he and Manini and I went to Dharmatma's party in Pittsburgh. It was right at the beginning of the party, maybe a year and a half, almost two years ago. After he visited Dharmatma's party. The purpose was to find out how his women did so big. Like he has Mother Mahara, and so many devotees who were doing very nicely, always fired up. Dharmatma's main explanation of why they were doing so big was that they had a satisfying situation, like a relationship with him. The party leader taking a position of husband, friend, advisor, they could take shelter of him. So if they had any problems they could always feel that they could go to him and they'd have some shelter. Plus it kept their idea of having to get married, and find a husband or something, kept that suppressed so they could do sankirtana.

So Jiva, he just, he was always comparing Dharmatma's situation to his situation, how he could improve the mother's parties. So Dharmatma was saying then they feel secure and then they can carry on their service. And Jiva was always wanting to know what his relationship was with the women, how intimate he was with them, like that.

Jagannatha Suta US): Jiva was wanting to know Dharmatma's-.

MD: Yes, Dharmatma's relationship with the women. So Dharmatma told him that you cannot explain this to the other devotees, you know, that aren't in a party situation like this. They won't be able to understand the nature of women and they're not getting-like-we're being empowered to do this service by Lord Caitanya so that women can engage nicely in Krsna's service. Sometimes, he said, you're going to find-he'd (Dharmatma) been doing the party for awhile, two years, maybe longer-and he said you're going to find that they're going to need affection, personal association with you. So if you give them that, they'd be satisfied and peaceful. Because they are by nature so lusty that they can't, you know, ur-dess they have this affection, this personal association, their minds become disturbed. So jiva was, jiva was taking everything in as being absolute, because he could see the results of their sankirtana was very nice.

JS: How did you know this was going on, how did you know Dharmatma was telling him this?

MD: Jiva told me. He would tell me everything. So Jiva would ask him, "What do you give them that they need?" He said, "Well, I just give them anything that they need to go ahead and conduct their service...... And he would dress in front of them and things like that while Jiva was there. He'd be putting on his clothes and a devotee would come in to speak to him, he'd continue putting on his clothes, you know.

JS: A woman?

MD: Yes, one of the mothers. And jiva said it was just real natural, that there was no agitation. But it didn't ever seem possible to me. But he said this way, if they become that familiar then they feel safe because they feel that they have an obligation to remain chaste to someone who's like their husband. They feel some security there in that kind of intimate relationship. So when we came back-also he had never hit the women before, jiva, not to my knowledge. But after visiting Dharmatma, he'd found that Dharmatma would sometimes hit the women or slap them, something to, he said that in certain situations this is what they need in order to bring them back, you know, if they get too offensive or so rebellious against following instruction they should be hit or beaten or whatever. And it was emphasized that this was an important part of their program. So when jiva came back then he would, he just gradually started getting heavier with the women as far as, if they didn't follow instructions. I don't remember any specific incidents.

JS: If they were anything less than fully surrendered.

MD: Yes. Yes. Karuna basically I guess was a prime example. I just remember after she first came, after a couple of months or so in the movement, she was, she wouldn't follow some instruction, I don't know what it was, but he hit her really hard in the face and bloodied her nose. That happened a few times with her. It was just gradually going that way, the devotees, if they got really-just refused to obey an instruction-after a certain amount of time he would hit them. Some devotees he wouldn't at all. He'd relate differently with each individual devotee. And he said that he was trying to be instruction by Krsna what to do.

It was so they would have respect. He said there's two things he dislikes the most and that's disloyalty and disrespect. So if the devotees weren't cooperating he'd set an example and hit them. It wasn't really frequent, I mean once in a while but there were a few intense incidents over the past year or so. One time Mother Kusala was, I don't know the situation, she was in the kitchen and jiva was there. She just refused to obey an instruction and she was very offensive in her attitude. She didn't say anything but she was just refusing to follow an instruction for some reason. And he started to hit her but she blocked. It was just like a reflex, that she started to hit back or something. And that made Jiva very angry and so he hit her pretty hard in the face with his fist or the back of his hand maybe. But that's not-what happened is she hit up against the windowsill and it cut her arm very much, she had to get some stitches. It knocked her out a few minutes. That happened with her....

JS: What was it that you felt that you couldn't do some other service?

MD: Because any other service, other than sankirtana, if you were a sankirtana devotee, was just a falldown.

JS: Even if you want to do Deity worship that was considered a falldown?

MD: Yes. Because Sankirtana's the highest, preaching is the highest service. So Nada was really wanting to get married that time and she approached him and told him she was going to leave the party, she wanted to get married. So at first he was indifferent, you know, she didn't know how to react because she actually had no where else to go. Then he saw that she was still determined and so he became real angry and he just really beat her up. And, he broke her arm. Maybe two months before I left. But he told me that she tripped over a cord and Campak was there and she also told me that same thing.... So I was just preaching to her basic philosophy like that, and that's when she told me personally that Jiva had actually broken her arm.

Tusita said she would see him take ten pills of codeine, the mothers would feed it to him. She said she saw that. He would have the mothers go in and get codeine for him at the hospital at the emergency room. It was very easy to get with this prescription, Campak had a prescription for a large amount.

Satsvarupa would come and give classes, glorifying the party, you know. So with the stamp of approval of the GBCs and temple presidents and as a result I was just suppressing it because Jiva preaches the philosophy that we're so fallen that we'll never become purified without a gradual process taking place.



Conversation with Mother Mahara, Sept. 1984

Mother Mahara was the largest collector at New Vrindaban for many years. She must have donated over half a million dollars in that time and so naturally she was dearly loved and respected by all-until she discovered what follows.

Mother Mahara: I was bewildered a long time about New Vrindaban. When I left it I had a hard tune not going back. I wanted to go back, but the devotees would preach to me. And I'm glad I didn't go back, because I'm so much more sane now than I as before.

Sulocana dasa: I heard you'd made a statement that they don't let you learn anything there-just out on the pick.

MM: All you do...all I did was went out on the pick. No sadhana hardly at all.

SD: Is that true Dharmatma has sex with most of the women?

MM: Yep, a lot of them. He told one little girl to have an abortion that he had sex with.

SD: Really?

MM: Yep.

SD: Do you know that for a fact?

MM: I know it for a fact.

SD: Wow!

MM: Bhaktipada was right there.

SD: He approved it?

MM: Yeah. That's why I went to the GBC.

SD: What has the GBC done-anything?

MM: Yeah, well, they're separating the women now from Dharmatma. But I don't think all the women know even, about that. I don't care anymore. You know. I just feel that Prabhupada protected me and I feel I'm luckier than them because now I know. Srila Ramesvara is into book distribution but there is not much book distribution going on at New Vmdavana. But there's a lot of great devotees there-l love Kutila-she's great. I learned a lot from what I did, I performed a lot of austerities and Krsna's rewarding me now with all this nectar. I know more now about what Krsna consciousness is all about. I go on book distribution and preaching.

Sept. 6, 1985




Introductory note by the devotee being interviewed:

Ever since ISKCON has entered the present era of "appointed paramahansas," I have been deeply aggrieved that for the first time in my devotional career, I have had to participate in a he. In my opinion, this has hurt our beloved ISKCON to the core. I suppose one of the motives in this "guru conspiracy" has been to keep ISKCON cohesive. But the perpetrators have failed to realize that only Srila Prabhupada, ISKCON's founder/acarya, can keep ISKCON united. The mundane plan of materially motivated men can never be the foundation for a solid, honest spiritual movement.

Anyway, I have allowed myself to be interviewed not to accuse a beloved Godbrother of mine, but to expose a false, injurious system which has destroyed countless spiritual lives and is quickly sending ISKCON to its demise. If I mention any faults in my Godbrother, I humbly beg his pardon and openly admit that I have many more faults to a much greater degree. But I have put myself on the line in order to be counted among those who strongly oppose the present system and want to see it replaced with something in line with Srila Prabhupada's books.

Sulocana dasa (SD): How long did you live in the Miami temple.

Anonymous Devotee (AD): Close to a year.

SD: And you were working for Hrdayananda.

AD: Yes. I was managing the book production for a while.

SD: When did you get married?

AD: 1983.

SD: Your wife is a disciple of Prabhupada?

AD: Yes.

SD: Was she married before?

AD: No.

SD: Where were you serving before you went to Miami?

AD: Philadelphia. I worked on Back to Godhead for three years.

SD: So while you were living in Miami were you and your wife getting along?

AD: Yes, we were basically pretty compatible.

SD: What is your relationship with Hrdayananda? Are you friendly with him?

AD: He and I have a long term friendship actually. During most of my Krsna conscious life I was working in his zone. I was always very close to him, like a close ally since we're good friends.

SD: So over the years, didn't you ever detect that he wasn't a pure devotee and shouldn't be worshipped like that?

AD: He's straight with me about his position. He has often intimated to me that it has been a struggle for him to maintain celibacy. Sometimes when he has preached very, very heavily against householder life, he would tell me that it was partly just to convince himself. To my knowledge-this is my opinion based upon my analysis of his character-l don't think that he has physically violated the principle of sannyasa. I trust him to that degree, although I know that he has had to struggle very, very hard.

SD: But he did have a young woman for a personal secretary that practically lived with him didn't he?

AD: Well, let's put it this way: He definitely showed signs that he had become attached to her. He got her married once, twice, thrice to different disciples. Finally on the third marriage I think she is in the care of her husband. I don't know the details of why the first two didn't work. This is probably the first time he's not involving her in his personal project. She is a little intelligent. She was a lawyer in Brazil and so she actually could render valuable help in his personal projects (like the philosophy book and so forth) so that meant a lot of personal contact. Of course, I haven't been there for a couple of years, but just based on what I hear, this is the first time that he's actually gotten her out from under him and she's not working on his project; she's apparently assisting her husband.

SD: So the rumors that she was massaging him are not necessarily true?

AD: I don't think so. I would say that his main difficulty was on the subtle platform. If I were to go before the Deity and say what I thought was going on, I'd say that I don't think there was any physical breaking of the principles but he was definitely becoming attached to her. The temple practically became a shambles over it. Because his disciples knew-but then they didn't know-so they blamed her or they blamed circumstances.

SD: What about the Godbrothers. Didn't they think that was kind of unusual?

AD: Definitely. When any householder Godbrothers went to him he would just say, "Well, it's just your wives. They're envious and they're influencing you. Don't be offensive like this." Finally what put a stop to it was when two respected Brahmacaris on his BBT staff, Dravida and Danevara, went to him and said, "This is bogus, it has got to stop." And so he basically came to terms with it and gave it up.

SD: He actually gave it up then?

AD: Yes. I think he came clean. He's been much happier since then.

SD: So Hrdayananda has always been a sort of passionate guy. His lectures are often full of graphic descriptions of sex life. So that obviously has been a problem in his mind.

AD: Yeah. His lectures in Miami were almost exclusively about vagina, husband and wife, and sex and sex, sex, sex.... Prabhupada would speak about these things occasionally but Hrdayananda was always speaking about them, so it was obvious to me anyway, as a Godbrother and as a friend of his, that he was struggling himself. So, no, I've never been under the illusion that he's a paramahamsa and he's never really tried to play paramahamsa with me, although he does demand a lot of respect.

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

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

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

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

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

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

SD: What was this for? A preaching project?

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

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

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

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

SD: So his preaching was separating her from you?

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

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

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

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

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

SD: Any more comment about the Brazilian girl?

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

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

SD: Hrdayananda just comments.

AD: He writes the purports and edits the translations.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

SD: He told you that himself?

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

SD: So what happened?

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

SD: Was he mean to her or what?

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

SD: He spent the whole day collecting money?

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

SD: And Hrdayananda still condemned him just for having sex with his wife? Did he do that to a lot of devotees?

AD: Well I wouldn't say it was an isolated case but I would say it was a very marked case. The whole mood was that people who had been married for 8-10 years and had two or three kids-all of a sudden they couldn't sleep in the same room with their wives. They practically couldn't associate with their wives.

SD: Was that because it was a temple and sex was not allowed?

AD: No. just like in the old New York building, there was a floor set aside for householder quarters where householders live. It was the same thing in Miami, but still he wouldn't allow husbands to sleep in the same room with their wives. Like when a mother says to her growing young boy: "Don't get into sex, sex is horrible, sex is this, sex is that." If anything, it caused devotees to think of sex more. They were all basically good devotees, so we were trying to figure out where all this illicit sex was going on.

When I first arrived in his zone, I was in Gainsville, and he unleashed all this heavy stuff. He'd say, "A man and a woman-when they are together in a room at night-there must be illicit sex, there must be." Almost like encouraging it. But basically what it was was a sannyasi interfering in the intimate affairs of even his Godbrother's and Godsister's marriages. I don't care if he's a GBC. That doesn't mean he is the lord of my marriage. He was stepping on territory where he had no right to tread.


Here is the demoniac tragedy. A woman's greatest joy is to have a baby and a faithful husband but here we find a "guru" cursing the baby and destroying the marriage because of his own sexual hang-up. From this interview it is obvious to me anyway that Hrdayananda is burning to have gross sex with all these women, but he can't because of his artificial pose. So the baby represents somebody else's sex pleasure that he feels actually belongs to himself. After all, he's the supreme enjoyer in his zone. Everything there is meant for his pleasure. Right? That's the obvious psychology. The bogus guru thinks, "If I can't enjoy sex with all these lovely women who are so much in love with me, then nobody else can either, including the husband. After all, who is this husband compared to me. He's just a dog." All these bogus sannyasis posing as gurus suffer from this syndrome to one degree or another. Thus they have created hundreds of broken marriages, unwanted and neglected children, and a lot of suffering. They think they will be able to chant Hare Krsna and be immediately freed from the reaction of all this destruction but that is their illusion. Each life they've destroyed, they will have to take birth to get paid back. Then after maybe hundreds or thousands of lifetimes of suffering, they may get another opportunity to learn to chant Hare Krsna offenselessly. But since they are offending Srila Prabhupada, there is no telling when they will see the light of day again.

The devotee who gave this interview is a very sincere and humble devotee who has always strictly followed the regulative principles. He really didn't want to offend Hrdayananda. for the higher purpose of purifying ISKCON he has decided that truth is more important than the friendship of such men. As Prabhupadasaidi.noneletter,"Ifthecriticismishonest,thereisnocauseforbecomingupset." So in this mood, Hrdayananda should wake up and admit his shortcomings and immediately begin the process of atonement. He should begin by taking a vow to scrub floors and toilets in a ISKCON temple for the rest of his natural life. A vow of silence would also be appreciated. Maybe then he will get a human birth in his next life.


These two tape transcripts are the "evidence" used by the bogus gurus to fool their Godbrothers into thinking that they had been appointed gurus. This first version of the "appointment" tape is the one that appeared in both Ramesvara's book (Appendix 2), and Jadurani's 1980 expose of the "gurus" caned The Bona Fide Spiritual Master and the Disciple. Therefore, this version is the only one to date that has been widely circulated. Since this version can easily be misinterpreted to sound like an appointment of "gurus," we can safely say that this transcript was made by the conspirators. We can only assume that Jadurani never had a copy of the actual tape. Because she quoted the bogus transcript in her book, most devotees reading it thought it to be a bona fide transcript.


Sat: Then our next question concerns initiations in the future, particularly at that time when you are no longer with us. We want to know how first and second initiation would be conducted.

SP: Yes. I shall recommend some of you, after this is settled up. I shall recommend some of you to act as officiating acarya.

Tam: Is that called ritvik-acarya?

SP: Ritvik. Yes.

Sat: Then what is the relationship of that person who gives the initiation and...?

SP: He's guru. He's guru.

Sat: But he does it on your behalf?

SP: Yes. That is formality. Because in my presence one should not become guru, so on my behalf. On my order, amara ajnaya guru haya, he is actually guru. But by my order.

Sat: So they may also be considered your disciples?

SP: Yes, they are or their disciples, but consider who...

Tam: No. he is asking that these ritvik-acaryas, they are officiating, giving diksa, the people who they give diksa to, whose disciples are they?

SP: They are his disciples.

Tam: They are his disciples?

SP: Who is initiating. His grand-disciple.

Sat: Then we have a question concerning...

SP: When I order you become guru, he becomes regular guru. That's all. He becomes disciple of my disciples. Just see.


This version we have compiled is perfectly accurate in all detail-pauses, unclear words, etc. If the GBC has a version that is more clear, and can be heard better, then let them come forward with it now. Otherwise, when we say a segment of words is indistinguishable, that means that not only ourselves but numerous other devotees also could not make out what was being said. We have an excellent copy of the tape and are using the best equipment available.

Sat: Then our next question concerns initiations in the future, particularly at that time when you are no longer with us. We want to know how first and second initiation would be conducted.

SP: Yes. I shall recommend some of you, after this is settled up (local business that they had been discussing), I shall recommend some of you to act as officiating acarya.

Note: Here Prabhupada establishes that the following conversation is going to be about officiating gurus before his departure, not about gurus "at that time when he is no longer with us."

Tam: Is that called ritvik-acarya?

SP: Ritvik. Yes.

Sat: Then what is the relationship of that person who gives the initiation and-

Note: This is a meaningless question, and so Prabhupada didn't even wait for him to finish it. He "who gives" is guru-Srila Prabhupada. Satsvarupa was no doubt thinking of he who "officiates" the initiation but his wording was off. The ritvik does not "give" the initiation; he officiates the initiation. Satsvarupa's question is not clear, and so the answer cannot be confirmed to support any conclusion.

SP: -He's guru- He's guru.

Note: The first "He's guru" broke into Satsvarupa's words, and so Prabhupada repeated it. That's the only reason. Srila Prabhupada is simply stating his own relationship to his disciple; the one "who gives" the initiation is guru. It is possible that he was referring to the ritvik as being guru, but in that case it would mean siksa-guru. In many places Prabhupada said that his senior disciples may be taken as siksa-guru of the neophytes if they repeated perfectly what they have heard. Guru simply means teacher in this sense.

Sat: But-he does it on your behalf?

Note: Here Satsvarupa introduces the delusion. In his mind he interpreted the answer as meaning the ritvik is the initiating guru.

SP: Yes. That is formality. Because in my presence one should not become guru. So on my behalf. On my order, "amara ajnaya guru haya." (3 sec. pause) He's actually guru, but by my order.

Note: This is the most important answer. In fact it is so significant that at the end of this Appendix we quote the entire section in Caitanya-caritamrta where this quote comes from. Srila Prabhupada is being questioned as to what will be the system of guru after his departure. To this line of questioning Prabhupada quotes a verse from the Caitanya-caritamrta. that elaborately explains how me is "actually a guru." Prabhupada is not going to recite the whole section for Satsvarupa right then and there. Satsvarupa knows how to read and so Prabhupada simply gave him the key words. Thus all Satsvarupa had to do was look it up. Prabhupada's intentions for guru after his departure are very clear. Anyone who can read can see who Prabhupada was appointing guru.

Sat: So they may also be considered your disciples?

Note: Here Satsvarupa further reveals the delusion he is in. He has now fully convinced himself that the new devotees are actually his own disciples.

SP:...(words)...they're disciples, but consider. (2 sec. pause) Who.

Note: Any interpretation of this partial statement is simply mental speculation. It is significant however that Prabhupada made this response in a tone of chastisement, as though he wanted Satsvarupa to give up his delusion. Tamala could see the confusion and so he interjected:

Tam: No. He is asking that these ritvik-acaryas... (Prabhupada: Hmmm)...they are officiating, giving diksa,...(hmmm)...the people who they give diksa to...(hmmm)...whose disciple are they?

Note: We have to give Tamala credit here for picking up that Satsvarupa is in delusion. Satsvarupa's questions were not at all in line with Prabhupada's answers and so Tamala wants to make it perfectly clear. Tamale's wording is very concise. It is also significant that three times during this question Prabhupada said, "Hmmm". Prabhupada was speaking very clearly at this time, and so there is no reason for any of this tape to be ambiguous-unless it was tampered with.

SP: They are (d)-his-disciples.

Note: just before the word "his" there is an unmistakable dip in sound. There can be no doubt that the word "his" was dubbed in; most likely in place of the word "my." Why would Prabhupada say "his" disciples to a clear question like Tamala's? Even if there were no dip, we would know that it was dubbed simply on the philosophical basis, but with the dip, there is no doubt. Who did the dubbing??

Tam: They are his disciples.

Note: This response confirms the dub. From the original bogus transcript, everyone thought Tamala was repeating what Prabhupada said. But that was an easy trick they thought they could get away with. This was not spoken as a question to Prabhupada as the bogus transcript led one to believe. This was immediately and softly spoken on the side to Satsvarupa simply confirming that the new devotees were Prabhupada's disciples. Had Prabhupada actually said "his disciples," then Tamala would have said to Satsvarupa, "They are our disciples." One word dubs are relatively easy but even then they couldn't make it perfect. Tamala is talking to Satsvarupa, so, when he says, "his disciples," Prabhupada is "his".

SP: Who is initiating. (3 sec. pause) His grand-disciple.

Sat: Yes. (5 sec. pause) Then we have a question conc-.

Note: Please keep in mind, Tamala had just told Satsvarupa that the new devotees were Prabhupada's disciples. That was very clear at this time. So even though these last words cannot be interpreted (cuts may have been made), Satsvarupa had heard all he wanted to and so is going on to the next question. Some tampering may have been done on all these sentences. Why would Satsvarupa have gone onto the next point? This last statement could not have made sense to him. Further questions would have been necessary. At least we could expect that Tamala would have been in there clarifying the statement further if there was even the slightest hint that he was going to be a guru. The whole conversation has very unnatural sound to it and so we know it was heavily tampered with. But as yet we have not found out who did it. But we win.

SP: When I order you become guru, he becomes regular guru. That's all.

Note: The GBC tried to interpret the following June tape as that "order" mentioned here as though Prabhupada had all of a sudden changed the whole philosophy and decided that pure devotees can be appointed after all. It is significant that Prabhupada uses the term "regular guru." As of yet we have not found an exact definition for that term from the books. It can be taken as a guru under regulations or as an ordinary guru which would mean siksa-guru. It can't possibly mean a diksa-guru since diksa-gurus are not appointed or ordered.

It is significant that all these answers are to Tamale's question-the first clear question. But the answers in this chopped up tape do not confirm any conclusion and so more in needed. So even though Prabhupada said, "that's all", they needed to add the following sentence to clinch the appointment theory.

SP: (7 sec. delay) He becomes...(inaudible word(s))...disciple of my disciple. (Click) just see.

Note: This fine is an obvious dub. Not only does the background noise drop out, but the speed and tone of Prabhupada's voice dramatically changes also. The "just see" is again in a radically different tone and volume from the previous words. This tape was the only "evidence" the "gurus" ever had to support their claim to divinity. This can be proven, and when it is, the conspirators will be facing serious charges in court.

Sat: Next we have a question about the GBC. (end tape)

Note: There are some very significant points to bring out about this tape. One is that Prabhupada's health and speech were not bad at this time and it would have been no problem to ask more specific questions to seek proper clarification. There are so many good reasons why it is obvious that this tape was tampered with. One is, if it was not tampered with, why was it not available to everyone? It was extremely well guarded. This would have been just the opposite if it actually said what they claimed. But because they were unable to make a good dubbing job, they kept it super-confidential. It is available however from DAS if anyone doubts the validity of this transcript. When Sridhar Maharaja told Jayapataka that a ritvik guru does not make one an initiating guru later, Jayapataka told Sridhar Maharaja, referring to this tape: "Prabhupada has given explicit desires." Sridhar Maharaja believed him, and from the conversation that immediately ensued, the entire bogus guru manifesto was compiled.


Tam: Srila Prabhupada, we are receiving a number of letters now. People are wanting to get initiated. So, up until now, since you were becoming ill, we asked them to wait.

SP: The local senior sannyasis can.

Tam: That's what we were doing formerly. The local GBC sannyasis were chanting on their beads and they were writing to Your Divine Grace. And you were giving a spiritual name. So should that process be resumed or should we...(There is an interlude where Tamala discusses the spiritual master taking the disciple's karma). That's why we've been asking everybody to wait. I just want to know if we should continue to wait some more time.

SP: No. Senior sannyasis.

Tam: So they should continue to...

SP: You can bring me a list of sannyasis, I will mark. You can do, Kirtanananda can do...(word?) Satsvarupa can do. So (pause) these three can do.

Tam: So supposing someone is in America. Should they simply write directly to Kirtanananda or Satsvarupa.

SP: Nearby. Jayatirtha can do.

Tam: Jayatirtha.

SP: (word?)...Bhagavan can do.

Tam: Bhagavan.

SP: And he can do also (pause). Harikesh.

Tam: Harikesh Maharaja.

SP: Five, six men divide. Who is nearest.

Tam: Who is nearest. So persons wouldn't have to write to Your Divine Grace. They could write directly to that person.

SP: (hmmm)

Tam: Actually, they are initiating the person on Your Divine Grace's behalf.

SP: Hmmm.

Tam: Those persons who are initiated are still your-.

SP: Second initiation. We shall think. Second.

Tam: This is for first initiation. Okay. And for second initiation, for the time being we should-.

SP: Again have to wait. Second initiation, that should be...

Tam: Some devotees are writing you now for second initiation. And I'm writing them to wait a while, because you are not well. So can I continue to tell them that?

SP: They can do second initiation.

Tam: By writing you?

SP: No. These men.

Tam: These men. They can also do second initiation. So there's no need for devotees to write to you for first and second initiation. They can write to the man nearest them. But all these persons are still your disciples. Anybody who would give initiation is doing so on your behalf.

SP: Yes.

Tam: You know that book I'm maintaining of all your disciples' names? Should I continue that?

SP: Hmmm.

Tam: So if someone gives initiation, like Harikesh Maharaja, he should send the person's name to us here, and I'll enter it in the book. (Long pause) Is there someone else in India that you want to do this.

SP: India I am here we shall see. In India-Jayapataka.

Tam: Jayapataka Maharaja.

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

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

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

Tam: On discretion.

SP: Yes.

Tam: That's for first and second initiations?

SP: Hmmm.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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





compiled by Sulocana dasa
































The person Rupanuga refers to in his document as "Jamuna," is actually Jane, Sulocana's wife. The name "Jamuna," was given by Kirtanananda without Sulocana's awareness or approval. This is a direct breach of human decency what to speak of Vaisnava behavior. It therefore represents an offense to Srila Prabhupada since the man exhibiting such heinous behavior, Kirtanananda, is claiming to be Prabhupada's representative.

Jane was sent to New Vrindaban with one child from a previous affair and Sulocana's first son in her womb. Sulocana did not even know that she was pregnant when Jane took her "initiation". Sulocana found out Jane was pregnant at the same time he found out that she had decided to devote her life to another man. They had been married one year at the time.

Jane was lured into taking "initiation" by telling her, in effect, "It's not necessary to have your husband's approval. You are your own spirit soul. Sulocana is not a pure devotee. 'Bhaktipada' is a pure devotee. If you want to go back to Godhead, you have to take initiation from a pure devotee." This is of course the standard ISKCON fine which they attempt to substantiate in their document.

Jane divorced Sulocana and immediately "remarried" a man whose character is so degraded that he had been grabbing other women's breasts, including the wife of Sri Galim, the headmaster of the Gurukula. He had been severely beaten by Bhagavatananda for attempting to seduce his wife. His name is Raghunatha. He had been attempting to get a "wife" for many years but most women laughed at him, seeing his desperate condition. He is also well-known to be one of New Vrindaban's dopers. Jane had been secretly associating with this person for some time. Kirtanananda told Sulocana, "I never said that" (encourage a woman to remarry").

Jane is not actually remarried. In several letters, and the books as well, Prabhupada refers to a woman who does what Jane did as "a prostitute" or "an enemy" or "keeping a paramour." He refers to men that do what Kirtanananda did as "wife stealers" or "Ravanas."

Jane was given a divorce and full custody of Sulocana's sons with the use of the temple's money and lawyer. The judge made the decision without thinking to ask if Sulocana had been notified of the hearing, which he hadn't. There is hard and undeniable proof of this. Jane's plea was "cruel and inhuman treatment." Sulocana never hit his wife once or even looked at another woman. She has admitted to telling this he in order to get the divorce, since even mundane courts do not allow a divorce without any grounds. Also there is positive testimony, both from a local attorney and Jane herself, that she was given this decision because the local judge, Mr. Warmuth, "is very favorable to Keith Ham" (Kirtanananda).

Another fact not mentioned is that, by this time, Sulocana had two baby boys of his own, one three, and the other one-year old, both of whom he loves very much and has not seen now for one year. Both these boys were forcibly taken from Sulocana by six of Kirtanananda's men. They illegally entered Sulocana's motor home to do this.

Also not mentioned is the fact that Kirtanananda was deliberately discouraging Sulocana from staying at New Vmdavana by denying him the service he was promised-managing the guest house. There are innumerable witnesses who will testify to this fact, including Narada Muni, who was in charge of the Indian program at the tune. He was very disturbed about this since Kirtanananda's grounds for doing so were absolutely unjustified.

Some other important facts are these quotes by Kirtanananda to Sulocana: "If you want your wife back, you will have to surrender to me" and "Don't forget, I have an eternal relationship with your wife, yours is only temporary," also, (You are not welcome here because) "Sulocana, you're just not my man" and "I heard you are leaving. Don't try and take your wife! I told her I'd 'protect' her."

Also not mentioned are the fact that Kirtanananda made no attempt whatsoever to counsel either the wife or husband to try to keep the family together. This is in itself proof of Kirtanananda's real intentions. As acknowledged by the GBC on page 5; divorce can only be recommended as a last resort. Kirtanananda made it the first.

These are just a few of the facts not mentioned in the GBC paper, all of which were known to the GBC. More of the story is contained in the preface to the upcoming book presently being compiled by Sulocana dasa.


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


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



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


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

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


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


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


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

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

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

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

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


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


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


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


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



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

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

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


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


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


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

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


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


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

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


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


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


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


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


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

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

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

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


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


Those of you reading this who have not seen a copy of the GBC paper should know that the official GBC decision confirms Sulocana's accusations-that Kirtanananda had no right to interfere in Sulocana's marriage. The GBC makes some insane statements that Sulocana was "offensive" in calling Kirtanananda names, and that he should apologize, but at the same tune they acknowledge that Kirtanananda's act was "injudicious" and that he should now rectify his blunder. Needless to say, it is not necessary to apologize to a man who steals your wife and sons, especially when his "mistakes" prove him to be far from a pure devotee. We are assuming that the compiler of the document, Rupanuga, had to say that to make it look like he was still on the side of the "gurus". The GBC decision is that Kirtanananda must acknowledge his "mistake" and arrange for Sulocana's sons to be returned to him. This is a direct order from the GBC to Kirtanananda. There is only one way for Kirtanananda to do this:

1) He must humble himself before Jane and admit he made a major blunder. He must convince her that he polluted her real marriage and she must accept this wholeheartedly.

2) He must convince Jane's paramour, Raghunatha, that he had no right to marry him to Jane and that he now must forget her and go back to masturbating.

3) He must send her back to live in California where Sulocana can be with his sons. She does not have to five with Sulocana or serve him but she must return Sulocana's sons. If she refuses to leave Kirtanananda, then she must return the sons alone. Sulocana will accept her back after some time has elapsed if he is convinced that she was only another one of Kirtanananda's victim, and not herself demonic.

4) Kirtanananda Swami must pay a $5,000 token damage fee to Sulocana to help set Jane up in a house since Sulocana's business went down the drain during this struggle.

5) Kirtanananda must circulate a letter throughout ISKCON stating that Sulocana had every right to make the accusations he did, and that anyone who may have wanted to kill or malign Sulocana should give up that idea wholeheartedly.

If these bare minimum conditions are not met in full by Kirtanananda before Sulocana's book is finished, then the book Sulocana is compiling will be sent to every major media in the world. Sulocana guarantees that this book contains enough filth on the new "gurus" to bum their little kingdoms to ashes-the fire starting at New Vrindaban.

Comments and inquiries may be sent to Steve Bryant, 2124 Kittredge #32, Berkeley, CA, 94704. Post date: July 19th, 1985. This version was re-edited on July 29th.



JULY 26TH, 1985

Sulocana dasa (SD): So this devotee, Varsha dasa, is an old friend of yours.

Jj: Yes.

SD: He also took initiation from Hamsadutta.

Jj: Yes.

SD: Was he already married at the time he took initiation?

Jj: No. What happened was, his wife was really into Hamsadutta, she was like a Hamsadutta groupie. She was always running over to his house, practically drove him nuts, so he got her married off to Varsha with the hopes that she'd quit bugging him. Anyway, after Hamsadutta fell down she finally lost her faith in him. Then the New Vrindaban mothers came here, and she got into their trip and so they ended up both going out there. Now they have a kid.

Sd: She got pregnant here in Berkeley.

Jj: Yeah.

SD: Is she also a Hamsadutta disciple?

Jj: No. She's a disciple of Srila Prabhupada.

SD: So why did they go to New Vrindaban?

Jj: Because Hamsadutta moved out there for awhile. She's a Hamsadutta groupie so she had to follow him everywhere, but after awhile, her faith got transferred to "Bhaktipada".

SD: So after Hamsadutta fell down her mind went to Kirtanananda. Were they sankirtana devotees here in Berkeley?

Jj: She was. He was on and off.

SD: So after Hamsadutta left New Vrindaban, they just decided to stay there?

Jj: Yeah, they gave her a position. Any Hamsadutta disciple that ever went out there, they gave a position.

SD: What position did they give her?

Jj: Like head of the girl's gurukula or assistant, something like that.

SD: Why didn't they just send her out on the pick?

Jj: She has a baby to take care of.

SD: What was his wife's name?

Jj: Her name is Sudharma. Anyway when Varaha was out here he was telling me how great everything was at New Vmdavana. He was chanting the glories of New Vrindaban. I just thought: "God, I've got to set this poor guy straight. This guy's really brainwashed." He was passing fliers around, putting them on the bulletin board, trying to get people to go out there.

SD: This was after you'd read my expose on Kirtanananda Swami?

Jj: Yeah. So I said, "Hey, let's go on sankirtana." I got him out there and started talking to him. It's an hour's drive, and he started telling me about the glories of New Vrindaban, how they're pushing vamasramadharma out there, how successful it is, this and that, and I said, "Bullshit. They're stealing wives, they're controlling all the men out there through their wives. They're getting these women to worship 'Bhaktipada' and that's how they control the men. Either you do what Bhaktipada says or they'll marry your wife off to somebody." So then he started thinking. He goes, "Yeah, you're right" he says."Actually, I got this feeling there are a couple of Prabhupada men out there always talking to my wife. I got this feeling that if I didn't go along with their program, you know, go on sankirtana, and act surrendered to Bhaktipada, even though I'm not into him..." that's what he said, "that they would try to get her married off to somebody else. He'd just finished telling me how great everything was, but then when I got him to think-like he'd never even thought-l got him to really think about it, and he said, "Yeah, you're really right." He started telling me an incident of how he and Chakravarti were going to go to India and their wives were going to come a couple of weeks later, so, while they were out here, they got a phone call from their wives. He told me specifically what Chakravarti's wife said. He said she told him he had better come back right away, that "Bhaktipada's been talking to me, and he wants me to marry somebody else."

SD: He said Kirtanananda personally told her to leave her husband and remarry.

Jj: Yeah.

SD: Varaha's wife also?

Jj: No, but he just knew that he had better get back here too. She didn't say anything, but he just picked up on it. You know, if somebody is going to work out there, digging ditches, whatever, they've got to get him married off. So, if your wife's there, and you're not there, and they know you're not really going to be an asset to the community, well, they're going to marry your wife off. It's all like peer pressure. They got all these women hopping around going "Jaya Bhaktipada" and your wife, along with all these women, are very much influenced by peer pressure. More than men are. To a great extent, they just get into it. It's all peer pressure. Peer pressure is extremely heavy. My wife was influenced by it. I just know how it is. That's why I'm not into "Bhaktipada" coming here, bringing his mothers' parties, cause that means I'll have to deal with that. Even though my wife understands philosophically that it's off the wall, I just don't want to have to worry about her getting into it.

SD: That's a good realization you have.

Jj: Another thing he told me was how once he wanted to take his wife shopping with him. He knew somebody would get upset about it but he did it anyway. On the way out in the parking lot, one of the little gurukula girls begged to go with them. His wife was in charge of them, so they took her along, and when they came back, there was like the President, and some of the big men there waiting for him in the parking lot. They gave him real heavy sauce and wouldn't let him see his wife for a week or two.

SD: They wouldn't let him see his own wife?

Jj: Yeah, and he said anytime now, if he goes to associate with his wife, they always have some mother tagging along watching.

SD: Why?

Jj: To report to Bhaktipada.

SD: You were saying earlier that they also won't let you see your kids.

Jj: Yeah, he said, "If you miss mangala-artik more than two or three times in one week, then you can't see your kids that week." In other words, their training the kids up even to reject the parents. They even use that on them. So now Varaha says, "I don't have a wife. Of course, I have one, but I feel like I have no control over her whatsoever." They tell the children that the parents are off the wall. Not to listen to them. So he feels like, "I don't have a kid-l don't have a wife" but he says, "I'm attached to them, so I stay."

SD: But he knows that as soon as he leaves there-or stops doing sankirtana-they'll immediately get his wife in bed with one of Kirtanananda's men?

Jj: Yeah, right. If he gets out of hand. Like that. He actually discussed it with her. She said, "No, don't worry about it, I'm not into it." But he told me, "She's a woman and susceptible." I went through a similar thing in Vancouver. My wife and I had some problems and so we separated for a while. She went up there. She didn't even know what was going on, but I found out from some other devotees there, one guy I knew, like they had it all planned out. They'd get her re-initiated, they already had some guy picked out for her, and she didn't even know anything about it. So when I talked to her, she goes: "Yeah, they're real nice to me up there," and this and that. She didn't know they had all these little plans for her. So when I went to go get her, I went in like a new bhakta so I could trick them. So once I found out where she was, I talked to her and she agreed to come, but you know, we had to split in the middle of the night. She was real innocent. She went to the temple president and told him I wanted her to go and they just like flipped out and got real nasty, then they revealed themselves. She said, "And I'd thought they were so nice." Another incident he told me was this one Bhaktipada disciple, was fixed up with this one girl who didn't want to marry the guy. She was into someone else, and then one night they tried to escape together, but got caught. They (Kirtanananda's men) beat the crap out of the guy and threw his motorcycle over a cliff. They finally managed to elope anyway. (This incident involves Murti dasa's daughter and will be told in a later publication.) It goes on everywhere. In the days when jiva was here, I heard stories. Almost all the mothers on his party were married to somebody, but then they went out on Jiva's party and, you know....

SD: Did he have sex with most of the women?

Jj: He had twenty-five women, but I don't know how many of them he had sex with. I heard that he was so burdened in that area that they even had some brahmacaris go over there to keep the women satisfied.

SD: How many marriages did he wind up destroying? Do you know?

Jj: No. They're scattered all over by now.

SD: Was there anything else Varaha told you?

Jj: Well he's out there and he knows he has to stay there or they will remarry his wife, even though he doesn't really like "Bhaktipada". He says, "I'm married, but I'm not really married." He says, "They got a program that if you want to have sex with your wife you have to get permission, and they put you in this guest house for one night so you can have a kid."

SD: They do that to everyone or just the new people that don't know any better? Jj: I guess it depends on who you are and what they want to do with your wife. SD: What else do you know about Jiva's party?

Jj: Kushala told my wife that if some of the women went out and didn't meet their quota, they'd slap her around a little. But if you got your score, then you got the privilege to sack out with the sankirtana leader. One devotee told me that he went over there one night to fix some electrical problem and heard some women arguing, "I collected more than you, I should sleep with him tonight." Back and forth. Like that. I once asked jiva-this was after he'd taken sannyasa and fell down-he was like a sankirtana leader in Portland with his wife, Champak. I was up there too. And I asked him, "How did you control all these women for all those years?" And he said, "Well, they're just really stupid, you know, they're extremely stupid. And I always wanted to be a pimp, and when I became a devotee, Krsna fulfilled my desire. I always had a strong desire to be a pimp. That's all I ever wanted to be. So Krsna just fulfilled this desire." (This man jiva, was trained up in this philosophy by Dharmatma, Kirtanananda's right hand man.)

SD: I heard he wasn't even good looking?

Jj: No. You look at him, he's like a little caveman. He's got these tattoos all over him. He used to have a big naked lady on his back, but when he became a devotee, he had a Nrsinihadeva made over it, to cover up this naked lady. He was a boxer in San Quentin prison-tough as nails. He would just love to go out on sankirtana and get in some fight with someone and beat the crap out of him. They used to worship Jiva. Even after Hamsadutta gave him sannyasa.

SD: Hamsadutta gave him sannyasa?!

Jj: Well, he had to. He knew that if he just came and broke the whole thing up, Jiva would just bloop and the women would follow him somewhere else. He needed them to collect, like that. So he said, "what I'll do is just give him sannyasa." So even when he was sannyasa, he had all these women standing around. It was like he had 25 wives. Every tune he went into the temple they all paid their obeisances. Before he took "sannyasa" he even had a vyasasana at the sankirtana house. He was like their guru. It was a whole thing.

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

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

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

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


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

DAS Devotee Access Services


Dec. 12, 1985

Dear Vaisnavas and aspiring Vaisnavas:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Another point specifically to those who use the bait and switch tactic of luring devotees into your camps under the pretense of being sincere to Prabhupada; both the ISKCON "gurus" and the Sridhara Maharaja "gurus" are doing this. It is illegal, demoniac and a crime that I have every intention to putting a swift halt to. I tell the same thing to Dheera's cult that I tell Keith Ham-asura's cult. That is: I don't care if you want to preach some bogus philosophy but if you continue to use the name of Prabhupada and Krishna as bait, then you're going to be stopped. It's not all right. It's not all one. I don't care if you continue to use Sridhara Maharaja as bait to prop yourself up as a "guru", any more than I care if you use Rajneesh, but if you continue to use Prabhupada's legacy and name as bait, then you will be stopped for that is illegal. If you don't present a response to all of the challenges we have made then you have to remove au of Prabhupada's pictures from your temples and stop making this asinine claim that Sridhara Maharaja is equal to Prabhupada. That is simply not a fact. We have proven that in only Part One of our expose on Sridhara Maharaja. Your silence is your defeat. Stop using Prabhupada as bait! This is not a request, but an order. You are defeated in debate and that means you have to surrender. Otherwise, you will pay dearly for each and every person you lure away from Prabhupada. And don't try to juggle your way out of this or try to impress us with a discourse on Brahma Gayatri either. We are only interested to hear a discourse from you on why Prabhupada said, "Sridhara Maharaja is responsible for disobeying this order of Guru Maharaja," and that's all. Until you can answer this very simple and obvious question, don't pretend to be a scholar. So I'm saying, either present a full rebuttal to our challenge, surrender to the above demands, or expect a severe reaction. As you may have gathered by the way in which I'm dealing with ISKCON, I'm serious. When they're gone, you're next.

If anyone reading this would like to offer some tangible help in the service of Srila Prabhupada's mission then there are many different services available at this time. For instance, while Dheera is busy writing books by and about Sridhar Maharaja, Srila Prabhupada's thousands of lectures are just sitting here waiting for someone to come along to index. Until then, we have no access to all that pure knowledge, pure humor, and pure Prabhupada contained therein. Researching Vedic texts, such as Chanakya Pandit book Artha Sastra, or books on the vamasrama social structure in general, is also crucial if Krsna consciousness is to be established in the world. So rather than waste time with an "ease lover's" philosophy, we humbly request serious devotees to come forward to help establish the mission so kindly started by our real father, Srila Prabhupada. He gave us all we need to know about Radha-Krishna and the Gopis. The followers of Srila Prabhupada don't need Sridhar Maharaja's "high realizations" on that subject (as though they were higher than Prabhupada's). He said, "Work now, samadhi later." So there is much solid and practical work to be done right now. Prabhupada left the "down to earth" work for us. That's all we are competent for-and not imitating real saints like Prabhupada. We hope there are enough practical and solid devotees around to take some of the credit for all this real work that needs to be done. Thank you.

As a final point, we are not claiming to be saints. We have all kinds of problems dealing with the material energy that seem insurmountable. We are not pretending to be always absorbed in the love of the gopis like the Sridhara Maharaja club. Nor are we pretending to be scholars or brahmins like the smarta club of Subhananda, Ravindra Svarupa, and those who talk a lot but still get their bread and butter by handouts from demons. Nor are we members of "the end justifies the means" ISKCON "gurubhava" club that sits on thrones between semen breaks, drug deals, nervous breakdowns, wife stealings, child molestations, etc., etc. It is not necessary to join any of these clubs to understand Srila Prabhupada's books. He wrote his books for people just like us: simple but honest. In fact, it is only honest people who can understand Prabhupada's books. That's because honesty is the only leg left in this age and we are proud to be tightly hanging on that one leg. So for those of you who don't like this simple, direct, often crude, often angry, but at least honest way of speech, then why don't you come forward and do something better to remove these demons who have ravaged Prabhupada's movement? Dheera says guru is one, and Keith Ham-asura says we are trying to crucify Prabhupada. Both these statements are in essence the exact same thing: trying to place yourselves equal to Prabhupada, and that is an offense no real disciple of Prabhupada will tolerate, for long.

Your servant in the exclusive service of Srila Prabhupada:

Sulocana dasa


by Sulocana dasa

May 20, 1986

Once upon a time there lived a very wise and saintly king who had thousands of sons and daughters. His kingdom spread throughout the world and he loved all of his children equally. He was the well-wisher of all. His children could live in any one of their father's many kingdoms and be happy in their service to the king, no matter what that service may be. The elder, managerially inclined sons, managed the kingdom for their father but they were not favored over the youngest sons just because of their managerial post. This was because the king saw the love of his sons and not their material qualifications. He wanted the best for all his sons but unfortunately not all of his sons loved the father equally. Many of the younger sons loved their father more than the eldest sons and this naturally created some jealousy amongst them. The wise old king of course tried to pacify all his sons but eventually he gave up and decided to leave this world.

But first, he requested that all his sons try and live together in love and trust. He practically begged his oldest sons to treat the youngsters as brothers and not as inferiors. But the moment the king died, some of the oldest sons held council and as a result, they grabbed as much territory, riches, women and children as they could. Each declared himself an independent sovereign king equal to their father. The thousands of younger, more simple and trusting brothers were baffled. Some of them, out of humility and in order to keep peace in the family, went along with the older brothers for awhile but it was wrong and everybody knew it. Eventually the older brothers took complete control of the kingdom.

Some of the younger brothers and sisters protested by reciting their father's last wishes. But to no avail. The older sons already had the taste of wealth, worship and power and would not give it up. So instead of listening to the humble advice of the younger brothers, they had them beaten, exiled, or killed. One after another, the young brothers came forward to protest and one after another, they failed until finally all gave up and left the kingdom for good, leaving behind their heritage, homes, and often even their wives and children since many of the women chose the security of the kingdom over the wandering, struggling life of their exiled husbands. Many wives were so young they never really knew the old kind and thus they thought the oldest brothers were as good as the king. So they chose to worship the new "kings" rather than follow their husbands into the cold, cruel world.

One of the younger sons, however, not willing to sacrifice his family and home to such a corrupt despot of a king decided to fight. Without wealth or many allies, and practically alone, he fought the older brothers who had stolen the kingdom for themselves. Aided with only a computer and the knowledge in his father's books and personal letters, he tried to awaken a revolt amongst the discouraged and exiled brothers. He knew that peaceful pleading and scriptural argument would fall on deaf ears as it had for many years. So instead, he spoke straightforward and truthfully, often using violent language when appropriate. He described the crimes that had been committed to the younger brothers, and their families, many of which were crimes the father had said were punishable by death. The older brothers were shocked by this violent verbal attack but they could say nothing in argument. Every word spoken by the younger brother was true and they all knew it. Since they could not defend themselves verbally, and since they were too blinded by power to give up their folly, they tried to kill the younger brother. But alas, they could not find him, for he lived in hiding, moving constantly from the house of one exiled brother to another.

Then one of the oldest, and most corrupt brothers went outside his father's kingdom and told the police of that town, who knew nothing of the king, his kingdom, or the teachings of the king, that a violent killer was stalking nearby. He convinced the police that this young brother should be arrested and thrown in jail. He showed the police a quote from one of the letters of the younger brother which stated that the older brother deserved to be executed. Not knowing, or caring to know where the real violence was, the outside world police found and arrested the defenseless younger brother.

Since the corrupt brother went outside the walls of his father's kingdom to stop the younger brother, the younger brother decided to try and fight in the outer world also. So he described all the crimes the older brothers had committed in terms that the citizens of the outside could understand. He tried to get them to understand that a horrible injustice had taken place and that as citizens of a free country, the younger brothers also had a right to protection under the laws of the land. The young brother showed the police exactly how the older brother had stolen his wife and family in exactly the same way they had stole hundreds of other families from the younger brothers. He showed how the women had been taken and used as whores, how the children had been tortured. How the young brothers had been beaten, robbed, and exiled. He showed how the older brothers had lost all sense of right and wrong in that they even justified selling heroin to amass wealth since they didn't have the purity to inspire honest contributions.

Some of the outer world people listened and agreed. Some even sympathized. But most didn't want to take the time and trouble to understand all the intricacies of the kingdom, which to them was too different, and was based on a different set of laws. And so no one helped. The younger son was sitting alone in a strange jail with no one. Almost all his fellow exiled brothers had given up on their father's kingdom and went back to living in the outer world, the way everyone else lived. But the younger brother could not stand to see his father's kingdom fester and rot to the point where self-confessed homosexuals, rapists, heroin pushers, and murderers were being worshipped as though they were as good as their father. He could not bear to see his father's name brought down to such a low level and thus he...(to be continued).

(Sulocana dasa was murdered May 22nd, 1986, 1:00 a.m., Los Angeles, two days after this story was written.)