9TH JANUARY 2000 Welcome to the 11th edition of our newsletter, and a happy new millennium to you all. We have had a little delay in sending out newsletters since we have been working on some developments that I am sure you will be glad to hear about. We will be presenting these in future newsletters. We have also been asked by many devotees to respond to a video that is being shown by the GBC at all temples in a last ditch attempt to halt the progress of the IRM. Called 'Disciple of My Disciple', it was produced by their hired hand Nrsimhananda of ITV, for a reputed fee of $10,000. However as we will now demonstrate, this video does nothing but damage to their cause, and the GBC would have been better off donating their money to the many victims of abuse in ISKCON. Please read on.
( A response to ISKCON TV (ITV)’s ‘Disciple of My Disciple’ video)
1. Introduction
When the GBC member H.H.Giridhara Swami paid ten thousand dollars to ITV’s Nrsimanada das, he surely hoped he would redeem himself in the eyes of ISKCON’s embattled leaders. Since Giridhari Maharaja helped arrange for ‘The Final Order’ to be commissioned, and was subsequently unable to defeat it, he has probably been getting the cold shoulder from his hapless GBC cohorts. Just imagine how he must have felt when watching Nrsimhananda’s cheerful conclusion to the new ITV video- ‘Disciple of My Disciple’. Having just spent thousands of dollars on propaganda trying to convince everyone that ritvik was a load of bogus concocted nonsense, on a par with mayavada, there is Nrsimhananda arguing that ritvik proponents were actually on the spiritual platform! As a snapshot of the out and out bewilderment of ISKCON’S leaders and senior followers at the end of the second millennium, ‘Disciple of my Disciple’ is required viewing. Future historians will no doubt study it as a text book case of a small religious sect in the grip of a pernicious group delusion. As we hope to show, the video brilliantly (though unwittingly) exposes the quagmire of incoherence and self-contradiction that inevitably infects anyone supporting the GBC’s current illegal insubordination over the issue of initiation. In a section of the video entitled ‘Dealing with Deviations’ Giriraja Swami sternly reminds us, with his most serious face, how Srila Prabhupada would not tolerate deviant philosophies. He gives the example of some disciples who were preaching that Srila Prabhupada was God, and how Srila Prabhupada completely demolished their philosophy. Apparently the viewer is meant to see ritvik as one such deviation, and its proponents as similarly displeasing to Srila Prabhupada. However, at the end of the video Nrsimhananda contradicts this view:
"Regarding the
present schism that exists in the ISKCON society over the issue of
initiations, Srila Prabhupada teaches us how to view such
differences of opinion." He then quotes the following:
We hope the GBC and their apologists will take note of this point and stop labelling us as ‘demoniac’ ‘word jugglers’ ‘mayavadis’ etc. While they are at it they can also remove their prohibitions against ‘ritvikism’ from ISKCON law too. No stranger to contradiction, having changed his story regarding ISKCON's guru tattva nine times over the last twenty-two years, this was always going to be Tamal Krishna Goswami’s show. He chooses his words as carefully as a soldier picking steps through a minefield. Even so he still manages to contradict one of the video’s most crucial pieces of evidence; the GBC minutes book. The GBC minutes book allegedly contains, amongst other things, a hand-written record of the May 28th meeting between the GBC and Srila Prabhupada. They state that some devotees were to be appointed by Srila Prabhupada to act as diksa gurus for after his departure:
The people who were specifically appointed by Srila Prabhupada were thus meant to act as initiating gurus after departure, according to the GBC’s official minutes, as presented on the video. On the video Tamal Krishna also recommends we read the minutes as a worthy record of what occurred on May 28th. However, on the same video H.H.Tamal Krishna states:
Thus HH Tamala Krishna and the video promote the GBC minutes book, which presents the old 'Guru appointment' theory; and at the same time the video has HH Tamala Krishna emphatically stating that Gurus were not appointed! We do not think H.H.Tamal Krishna Goswami should get all the blame for this contradiction, since the GBC body themselves have also contradicted their own minutes book in one of their recent papers:
What an incredible state of affairs that there should be no agreement even on such a basic, fundamental issue. Either Srila Prabhupada did appoint gurus for after his departure or he did not. And after more than twenty years we are still presented with nothing but a tangle of conflicting testimony over the very issue that the video was supposed to be shedding light on. In the end Srila Prabhupada only appointed ritviks- and there is certainly no order from him that they were to change function after his physical departure. We know this for a fact since the GBC have not produced any such document even for the court case in Calcutta. Had Nrsimhananda allowed that particular fact to infiltrate, he may well have further jeopardised future GBC patronage. One lesson from all this is that devotees should be extremely wary whenever the GBC or their supporters release anything, and especially anything with the title ‘Disciple of my Disciple’; it is just bound to be self-contradictory and misleading. This is especially so since the phrase itself is taken completely out of context. In the original conversation (May 28th ’77) the passage in which the phrase ‘disciple of my disciple’ appears is prefaced with the conditional ‘When I order’. It is this requisite ‘order’ for diksa gurus that the GBC have never been able to locate. Only if they can find such an order will there be any scope for ‘disciple of my disciple’. In his cautious explanation of the events surrounding the July 9th letter, Tamal Krishna claims the final order on initiations was only dealing with what was supposed to happen whilst Srila Prabhupada was still present:
Yet at the beginning of the letter, under Srila Prabhupada’s approval, Tamal Krishna actually starts the letter thus:
According to Tamal Krishna, and the entire GBC, this refers to the May 28th conversation, in which the only issue was what was to be done after Srila Prabhupada’s departure. So why on earth does mentioning this conversation as the original inspiration for what is to follow in the July 9th letter, tell us that the only issue being dealt with is what to do before departure? When we look back at the conversation that Tamal Krishna says he is alluding to, we see Srila Prabhupada said he was appointing ritviks as a direct answer to Satsvarupa Maharaja’s first question concerning what was to be done after he was no longer with them. Thus by starting the letter with reference back to the May 28th conversation the very last thing anyone would assume is that it was only concerned with what to do whilst Srila Prabhupada was still present. Indeed this has to be one of the most preposterous statements ever made by a GBC apologist. The Maharaja is contradicting the very letter he is so proud of typing for Srila Prabhupada. Once more we are being asked to believe that Srila Prabhupada went to all the trouble of issuing a letter to the whole movement on a subject the GBC had not asked him about- namely initiation before departure. And yet on the really important issue, the matter they all went to his room to ask him about- namely initiations after departure, Srila Prabhupada issued nothing, no letter to all the movements leaders, no approved GBC resolution - nothing. Tamal Krishna accepts that the letter was approved by Srila Prabhupada with his signature, in other words Srila Prabhupada signed the letter. As Maharaja says:
Yet Tamal Krishna also contradicts this in the following:
Srila Prabhupada did sign the letter as Tamal Krishna has admitted above, and as is plain from just looking at it. Thus the strain of twenty years of deviations are finally catching up with the Maharaja; he is now completely losing grip of reality.
Why does the Maharaja, and others on the video like Dravida das, make such an issue of the fact that it was not Srila Prabhupada’s letter? What are they so afraid of that they feel it necessary to make such an absurd argument? All shall be revealed. Even though there is no mention in the July 9th letter (or any other) that the ritvik system was only stop-gap, temporary or solely for Srila Prabhupada’s presence; the argument now being made is that to understand what the letter meant we must approach the real mastermind and author. Never mind what words are used in the letter, that is now irrelevant. Indeed if we read them we might even become confused. What really matters is what Tamal Krishna Goswami now tells us the words mean. Even if the meaning he ascribes is not hinted at, or is even contradicted within the letter. As he says himself in the video about the way the July 9th letter turned out:
So even when we read words in the letter like ‘henceforward’, and no words like ‘temporary system’ or ‘stop-gap measure’ or ‘just while Srila Prabhupada is ill’; we must somehow forget the real meaning of language according to every English dictionary on the planet, and simply understand from the humble secretary what the letter actually meant. The underlying reason for this sinister line of argument would seem to be: -since everyone knows that the Acarya is beyond the four defects it is hard to directly deny the validity of the letter’s wording. But by heavily exaggerating Tamal Krishna’s part in the production of the final order, and minimising Srila Prabhupada’s, devotees will not worry so much about exactly what the letter says. In that way the attention is gently and imperceptibly shifted away from the signed directive itself, and onto the wobbly testimony of a man who has changed his story nine times over the last twenty two years.- If this was the plan, then it’s been rumbled. The fact is Srila Prabhupada approved the letter with his signature, so he must have agreed with its contents. End of story. Other evidence offered that contradicts the picture the GBC and this video try to paint for us, arises in the form of two questions that the GBC formulated prior to their meeting with Srila Prabhupada on May 28th 1977. They read as follows:
The reader might like to consider question 3) first. The GBC and their apologists often tell us how the M.A.S.S. (multiple acarya successor system) was automatically 'understood' by every devotee since it was 'what Srila Prabhupada always consistently taught for ten long years, and was our tradition for millions of years before that'. We are often quoted the 'law of disciplic succession' as something that was clearly recognised and mentioned many times by Srila Prabhupada - everyone just becomes a diksa guru on the departure of the acarya - no question about it. Today, if a devotee even questions the above assumptions, he is labelled an offensive deviant, wholly bereft of transcendental insight. So why did the GBC ask this question in May 1977? Note it is not asking about the procedure for creating or selecting these 'inevitable' diksa gurus; nor is it seeking to clarify the implementation of this well known and customary 'law of disciplic succession', but rather how initiations would continue AT ALL. Thus we have the most senior devotees in the entire movement, who within a year were being worshipped as though they were as good as Lord God Almighty, all asking the dumbest question imaginable - (according to the current paradigm of intimidation). Other serious doubts arise when we look at question 4). It is just unbelievable that such a question could ever have been conceived of, unless there had been some prior mention of 'ritviks' or 'officiators' by Srila Prabhupada. It would be totally unnecessary, what to speak of plain daft, to ask- 'what will be the relationship between those who are diksa gurus and those who are their disciples'! Thus the very fact that question 4) was even asked forces any rational person to conclude that the one thing the GBCs were not expecting to be appointed was straight forward 'plain vanilla' diksa gurus. The GBC must have had some idea that ritviks, or some similar such entities, were on the cards. If not, perhaps the GBC can enlighten us as to why such questions were ever asked? (We raised this issue regarding question 4) on page 8 of 'The Final Order Still Stands' and have never received a response (Hari Sauri’s attempt to respond was answered in ‘Time Out for Hari Sauri’s Minutes’ which can be found on the IRM web-site). The video shows clippings from the same half dozen private letters that the GBC always use. As we know these were only sent to deal with four ambitious individuals, and were only published when someone in the BBT was bribed to release them in the mid-eighties. Regardless of their content, as we have many times asked, how can such private letters be used to counteract an order issued to the entire movement in 1977? Amazingly two of the persons who received such letters (Hamsadutta, and Tusta Krishna who was a follower of Siddhasvarupa) are also mentioned in the section of the video ‘Dealing with Deviations’. Thus how can the letter to Hamsadutta say, be taken as generally applicable when even the video itself makes clear (through Dananjaya das’s testimony) that it was only written as a reaction to inappropriate behaviour. Furthermore, other evidence presented in the video directly contradicts the main point of some of these letters regarding the ‘law of disciplic succession’. For example the letter to Tusta Krishna used in the video mentions the law of disciplic succession, and this directly contradicts the following letter which is also used:
If the above referred to Srila Prabhupada’s disciples acting as diksa gurus- (rather than as representatives) then that would entail his disciples initiating their own disciples whilst Srila Prabhupada was still present. Remember, Srila Prabhupada was still on the planet in 1975. But this would violate the ‘law of disciplic succession’ which states that disciples cannot initiate whilst their guru is still physically present. So either GBC apologists must abandon the law of disciplic succession (along with all the letters that mention it), or throw out such evidence as above. They cannot have both. We have lost count how many times we have pointed this out (it was mentioned in ‘The Final Order’ page 13 in 1996). It is disappointing to think ISKCON devotees are being systematically cheated through the deliberate use of such blatantly contradictory evidence. The other evidence from Srila Prabhupada offered in ‘Disciple of my Disciple’ falls generally into the following two categories:
All the other quotes from Srila Prabhupada in ‘Disciple of my Disciple’ have been answered in IRM papers, such as our response to ‘Prabhupada’s Order’, that can be found on our web-site.
Satsvarupa Maharaja is still plainly grappling with what happened for the first ten years after Srila Prabhupada’s departure, when he and his fellow gurus drove out anyone who did not accept their divinity. Strangely they are still doing the same today, only the claims of divinity have been downgraded somewhat. He says on the video:
This is a common theme throughout the video. On the one hand we are told that this is a disciplic succession, and that these ISKCON gurus were meant to ‘succeed’ Srila Prabhupada as new links in the chain (the GBC minutes even claiming that Srila Prabhupada had actually appointed his successors). And on the other hand we are told that these gurus are really not like Srila Prabhupada at all. They should not receive anything like the same worship, they should not sit on big Vyasasanas, or have as many servants and opulence etc. On the one hand we are told that Srila Prabhupada ordered his disciples over and over again to take thousands of disciples just like him; and on the other we are told one of the main problems with the zonal acarya system was that the gurus had taken on too many disciples. This schizophrenic approach makes it very difficult for Satsvarupa Maharaja, or others like Nityodita Swami and Hari Sauri, to say anything that approaches coherence. Satsvarupa Maharaja claims he was warned early on not to be a guru like Srila Prabhupada by one of his Godbrothers:
- So gurus do not sit on big Vyasasanas like Srila Prabhupada. Does this mean Srila Prabhupada was not a proper guru following the Gaudiya Matha tradition? - Or is it only founder acaryas who can do this, even though no such prohibition is mentioned in any sastra? - In the aforementioned letter Pradyumna confesses that his advice to Satsvarupa was not based on Srila Prabhupada’s teachings; so why is Satsvarupa Maharaja now placing so much credence on what he said? - And if Satsvarupa Maharaja and his Godbrothers did not want to be like the Gaudiya Matha, why did they all go straight over to Sridhara Maharaja’s temple in 1978 to seek guidance on how to run their guru system? - And since Satsvarupa Maharaja now accepts Pradyumna as correct, does that mean he now agrees with the way the Gaudiya Matha guru system runs - even though Srila Prabhupada roundly condemned it, saying none of his Godbrothers were qualified to be acarya? - Does Satsvarupa Maharaja believe there are different types of diksa guru, some of whom are allowed to be gloriously worshipped and run institutions, and some who must not; and if so can he show where Srila Prabhupada ever taught this? Thus in just this short paragraph we see that Satsvarupa Maharaja is completely and utterly bewildered. Earlier in the video he avoids explaining just how, where and why he ever got the idea that he could stop acting as a ritvik. He says that people have studied and analysed The May 28th tape, but for him the issue was very simple; it was just clear to everyone what Srila Prabhupada wanted. However, given that what followed was almost an entire decade of the zonal acarya system, in which many of his Godbrothers and Godsisters were driven out, and which everyone now says was completely bogus; perhaps the Maharaja needs to look again at what Srila Prabhupada actually said. Given the above, it is quite obvious that he is far from clear about anything relating to his current alleged status as a diksa guru.
Tamal Krishna Maharaja makes a big issue of the fact that the minutes were signed by 17 GBC members. However, earlier Giriraja Maharaja, one of the signatories, admits that he gained his understanding of what Srila Prabhupada said from Satsvarupa Maharaja, who came out to inform them of what transpired in the meeting. Giriraja, and those GBC’s who were with him, then signed the minutes book based only on the second hand testimony of a man who then went on to lead the zonal acarya deviation for almost an entire decade, and who, as we have just seen, is still extremely confused even today. So the GBC minutes are signed by two groups of people.
&
In the video Tamal Krishna admits that it was he who blocked the recommendations for initiation that were still being sent to Srila Prabhupada up to July of 1977. He claims this was to protect Srila Prabhupada from all the bad karma since he was sick. When we look at the July 7th garden conversation we see Srila Prabhupada immediately ordered for the initiations to be resumed under the new ritvik system, once he learned of Tamal Krishna’s independent initiative. The same system he had first mentioned way back on May 28th. Despite this, Tamal Krishna seems to think the whole thing was his idea, and in one passage of unbridled egotism reveals what he really thinks about his relationship with Srila Prabhupada:
Above we see Tamal Krishna Maharaja tries to present the whole ritvik system as his idea, and that he simply got Srila Prabhupada to sign it, almost as an after-thought:
How terribly thoughtful of Tamal Krishna to let Srila Prabhupada know how he was directing his movement for him, and how generous to allow Srila Prabhupada to sign his own letter. There is just one small problem. Tamal Krishna admits at the beginning of the letter that the whole thing was really Srila Prabhupada’s idea - not his at all. Please read again the beginning of the July 9th letter above. Notice the words ‘Srila Prabhupada indicated’. Look at the transcript of the May 28th conversation and see how it was Srila Prabhupada who first brought up the idea of using ritviks. Notice how even the great self-styled mastermind was asking how the system would run, just as he was on July 7th in the garden. It is Srila Prabhupada who chose the initial eleven devotees who were to act as ritviks. And it was Srila Prabhupada who signed the finished draft of the letter, typed by his lowly servant and secretary - Tamal Krishna Maharaja. Tamal Krishna Maharaja is fond of writing academic books that candidly expose all his past deviations. We hope this paper will provide a rich source of new material for future volumes in the continuing saga of the man who could not follow a simple order. We are treated a couple of times to glimpses of Hari Sauri’s immaculately written diary. In one entry on March 7th 1976, it is claimed Srila Prabhupada had told him his disciples:
Elsewhere on the video Hari Sauri tells us what he thinks was wrong with the original guru system that was based on the ‘appointment theory’ (that was itself based on the GBC minutes book which said the 11 were ‘appointed’ to be gurus):
So we have a few questions:
a) They were simply to do things exactly as he had done them. Or b) They were never meant to be worshipped as diksa gurus at all? (Hari Sauri rejects a) so that only leaves b)).
In their eagerness to distract attention away from the final order on initiations, Tamal Krishna and Dravida das present the customary arguments on the July 9th directive, which they falsely claim have originated from the IRM. They focus on the word ‘henceforward' as being our basis for stating that the July 9th directive was intended to continue permanently in ISKCON. However the ' Final Order' actually states the opposite, making it clear that you could remove that word from the letter and still the system must run:
The fact is, nowhere in the letter does it even hint that the system was only temporary. This is the GBC’s, and Tamal Krishna’s, main problem. It is the final institutional directive ever issued by Srila Prabhupada on the matter of initiation, with no countermanding order for it to ever stop, or the role of the ritviks to ever change. And as we have seen the letter is the direct result of a conversation where the GBC asked Srila Prabhupada what they were to do about initiations ‘particularly’ when he was no longer with them. Once Srila Prabhupada left, that was then a ‘permanent’ state of affairs. Therefore any order relevant to that time frame and circumstance must also be ‘permanent’. At least until the institution in which it was to operate ceased to exist. Tamal Krishna and Dravida das can argue as much as they like about the word ‘henceforward’, they can contradict the English language to their heart’s content, but still the system must run unless they can find authorisation to stop it. The order of the guru is always ‘permanent’ unless there is some other counter instruction, or the order has been completed or has become impossible to follow. In this case none of these is applicable. The order does not depend on the word 'henceforward'. Tamal Krishna also states:
We quite agree with the above. As we have said, the GBC have never located any injunction in Srila Prabhupada’s books that would prohibit the deployment of representatives to initiate on behalf of a physically absent guru. What statement in Srila Prabhupada’s books does the continued application of the July 9th directive ‘change’ exactly?
To be fair the argument put forward by Dravida das concerning the absurdity of following the final order ‘to the letter’ was first invented by H.H.Jayadvaita Maharaja. As arguments go it is quite a clever one, so we felt credit should go where credit was due. Nevertheless it was refuted in ‘The Final Order’ in 1996, so clearly there is some element of desperation that second-hand defeated arguments have been simply recycled. No attempt has ever been made by anyone on the GBC side to refute our counter-argument, so they still stand within the context of this debate. In essence Jayadvaita Maharaja’s argument is as follows (though we are not quoting him verbatim here): ‘Since the ritvik’s absurdly ultra-literalist interpretation of the July 9th order clearly violates all Srila Prabhupada’s teachings and instructions on the matter of initiation after his departure, we will play them at their own game. According to their own narrow approach only the eleven people mentioned in the letter can ever be ritviks. Since they would all be dead within forty or fifty years, then we were correct to stop the ritvik system on Srila Prabhupada’s departure.’ Of course the basic assumption that ritvik violates all, or indeed any, of Srila Prabhupada’s teachings has never been substantiated by the GBC. Aside from that this whole argument has already been refuted in the ‘ Final Order’ (pages 47-48). For convenience we will reproduce the refutation below:
Having dealt with the main ‘witnesses’, we shall now go quickly through most of the other contributions that appear in ‘Disciple of my Disciple’. The video starts with Bala Gopal devi dasi relating something she had allegedly heard Upendra say. According to her testimony Upendra came out of Srila Prabhupada’s rooms in an agitated state saying he had just announced that in the future their children would have to take initiation from somebody else. Given that Bala Gopal is recounting something that occurred over twenty two years ago, and that even then she is only relating what someone else claimed they heard Srila Prabhupada say, this is hardly strong evidence. We have a signed institutional directive from Srila Prabhupada- buttressed by a legal signed Will; and the first item on the video is a second hand piece of anecdotal evidence over twenty years old from someone who unquestioningly supported the bogus zonal acarya system for nearly ten years. Nevertheless let us be generous and examine her paraphrase of what Srila Prabhupada allegedly said:
If Srila Prabhupada really did say this it was amazingly prophetic. This is exactly the situation today within ISKCON. Hopefully we can reverse this bogus state of affairs so that Srila Prabhupada - the authorised member of the disciplic succession - can initiate those more fortunate children of the future. Dr. Thomas Hopkins talks about how there was a lot of confusion after the departure of the prophet Mohamed over the issue of succession. This point was quite out of kilter with the rest of the video, whose sole purpose was to demonstrate how Srila Prabhupada’s wishes were extremely clear, and that only ‘deviants’ would not understand them. Dr. Hopkins also points out that since so much of what Srila Prabhupada said was taped, you could prove practically anything. He also stressed the importance of looking at the full context of a particular instruction. Whilst we do not go along fully with the first point -(try proving Srila Prabhupada wanted his disciples to engage in gambling or illicit sex for example)- his second point was most pertinent to the current debate. We fully agree that one needs to look at any instruction’s context. As we know, the July 9th letter was the final institutional directive on the issue of initiations, with no countermanding order for it to be terminated. That is the context of what we are currently debating. He was obviously not made fully aware of this by Nrisimhananda prabhu. The next contributor, Ranjit from the BBT, said that Srila Prabhupada was totally philosophically consistent in everything he said. We agree, especially on issues of guru tattva and generally applicable instructions relating to the future of initiation within ISKCON. On the latter he only issued one directive to the society. Bhakti Tirtha Maharaja admitted he is not an empowered acarya like Srila Prabhupada. We agree. Sivarama Swami said conditioned souls need to take diksa; we agree. He said that a devotee should be able to trace back his lineage through a bona fide succession; we agree (though we feel his disciples are not currently able to do this). He admitted that there has been, and still is, a great deal of mistreatment and abuse within ISKCON over the guru issue (he should know since he is one of the worst perpetrators); we agree. He also confirmed a point we make, that when we say the word ‘guru’, everyone always automatically thinks of diksa guru, but that there is an important role for siksa gurus also within ISKCON. Unfortunately Sivarama Swami has made the same mistake by assuming, without supporting evidence, that when Srila Prabhupada ordered all his disciples, men women and children, to become ‘guru’ he meant diksa guru. Amita das said he was originally struck by the fact that we have a disciplic succession of teachers passing down pure spiritual knowledge. We agree, and we also maintain that Srila Prabhupada is the current representative of that succession. Amita must also agree with us since he has sold hundreds of thousands of Srila Prabhupada’s Bhagavad Gita’s which state this very fact on the dust jacket. Surely he would not just be selling these books for profit, regardless of their accuracy? Bhaktividya Purna Swami claims, without quoting any reference, that pancaratrika diksa initiation requires the physical presence of the guru. We challenge him to support his bold claim with quotes from Srila Prabhupada’s books. If it is a fact, then Srila Prabhupada himself violated sastra since he was not physically present at thousands of his disciple’s initiations. Several devotees made the same point as Dr.Hopkins about a general lack of maturity amongst the original leaders at the time of Srila Prabhupada’s departure. This video proves that these same leaders have improved little with age. Indeed they seem to be more confused than ever. Clearly there was never any intention to ‘shed light’ on the guru issue as is promised on the video’s jacket, but merely to assist the current regime in holding onto power for as long as possible. Nrisimhananda das did not quote or refer to any IRM literature, nor give us any opportunity to answer any of the ‘evidence’. He carefully selected individuals with vested interests who he believed would best reflect the current party line (apart from Dr.Hopkins and possibly a Bhaktin). In this he has acted most unfairly and irresponsibly. But as we have demonstrated, in spite of this the video has value in that it effectively exposes the fact that:
All glories to Srila Prabhupada ! Iskcon Revival Movement (IRM) Thank you for taking the time to read this newsletter, and please keep your letters, and e-mail addresses of other devotees who should be added to our list, flowing in. A hard copy of our main position paper 'The Final Order' is available on request. If you would like to receive any of the back issues of the Newsletter please let me know.
No 1. Invitation to Srila Prabhupada's Vyasa Puja No 2. GBC Lose First Round of Court Case No 3. The Story VNN Refused to Publish No 4. Poison Theorists Accuse Adri of Complicity No 5. Iskcon Continues to Promote Child Abusers No 7. United World Body Formed No 8. Does Srila Prabhupada Support Poisoning Theory? |
