to Strain the Truth
8/11/98 - In responding to our article 'Drutakarma
Caught in Knowledge Filter', Drutakarma prabhu has once more
revealed his total incapacity to deal with this issue in a
straight-forward way. In his response 'Krishnakant Desai: All Bluff, no
stuff', Drutakarma prabhu (henceforward referred to as the author) does
not actually directly quote from either our article or 'The Final Order', not
even once. In contrast VNN readers will note that we quoted all his
articles verbatim, painstakingly commenting directly on every main
point he made. The author simply presents our hapless CHAKRA
Godbrothers (and Godsisters) with an inaccurate summary of what he
claims we say, and then deals with that. In other words he attempts to
defeat straw-man arguments. This type of approach is common with
persons caught in an inferior paradigm. The author will know since he
is expert at defeating evolutionists. What is so tragic is that he
cannot recognise the same behavioural pattern in himself. If we are
wrong then the author should be able to prove this without
misrepresenting our position,
undermining an order directly approved by his Spiritual
consistently failing to prove from Srila Prabhupada's
books that diksa is somehow dependent on physical presence,
contradicting the very body he is seeking to defend.
We will demonstrate that the
author commits all the above and more.
The author also re-asserts
arguments that have already been answered. Perhaps he feels he can get
away with this since CHAKRA refuses to carry rebuttals to the various
speculative papers they print (in spite of piously professing a
commitment to telling 'the whole truth'). This distasteful combination
of straw-man arguments and dishonest recycling of already defeated
points is leading increasing numbers of devotees to conclude that Srila
Prabhupada's final order on initiations should be re-instituted without
We shall once more reproduce the
author's entire article with our comments following in bold.
In what follows the reader will note that the author has not addressed
a SINGLE point that was made in our original 15 page response to his
All Bluff and No Stuff
By Drutakarma Dasa
Perhaps the author would see
there was some 'stuff' if he could be bothered to quote it,
rather than merely defeat his own mental concoctions. The author simply
'bluffs' that his own straw man inventions represent our stated
position, and that his recycled arguments have not already been soundly
Predictably, the leader of
the rtvik heresy Krishnakant Desai has responded to my Thoughts on
the Rtvik Heresy series by doing the only thing he can do: he adds to his hundreds of pages of verbiage
dismissing every direct word Srila Prabhupada ever said about how he
expected initiations to go on after his departure and
Predictably the author has
simply avoided dealing with what we actually said and did, and instead
makes up what he claims we said and did. This is why in the whole
article he does not quote us ONCE. We did not dismiss a single word
Srila Prabhupada said. If we had dismissed it we would have had to
either claim that:
Srila Prabhupada did not speak those words;
Or that Srila Prabhupada's words must be ignored;
Of course those readers who
have read the original article -"Drutakarma
Caught in Knowledge Filter" will know that we did neither of the
above. We simply point out, inconveniently for the author, that what
Srila Prabhupada DOES say does not match up with his fanciful claims.
For instance Srila Prabhupada never states that:
"After I depart I hereby
authorise you all to initiate your own disciples"
It is this sort of evidence the
author is sadly lacking, and without which he has no case.
(2) he adds to his
hundreds of pages of verbiage touting a letter not written by
The author is really losing
grasp of some very basic points:
Srila Prabhupada is the founder
acarya of ISKCON. Thus he
is responsible for all the directives establishing the GBC, and how
precisely it should run and manage things. He would issue policy
documents to his GBC via his SECRETARY. When letters came from his
secretary, even without a counter signature, the GBC would never for
one second think that the instruction was generated by, or coming from
the secretary himself.
H.H. Tamala Krishna Maharaja was Srila Prabhupada's
SECRETARY as stated on the letter - NOT adviser, or co-policy maker, or
head of a think-tank, but his SECRETARY. His duties were to communicate
Srila Prabhupada's wishes to his society.
Just in case this blindly obvious fact is still missed,
the opening of the letter states that what follows is the desire of
Srila Prabhupada, NOT of the secretary:
... Srila Prabhupada indicated [...] His Divine Grace has so far given
If Srila Prabhupada is not allowed to communicate his
desires to his society via his secretary for fear of the instructions
having less validity, then why would he keep a secretary in the first
place if every time the GBC were going to think - 'oh this is actually Tamal's letter'!?
This whole line of reasoning is so absurd. When an
employee of a corporation receives a letter from the boss's secretary
saying that "The boss says you are fired", there is no sane person who
will say that the letter has less validity because it was signed by the
secretary. What to speak of a situation where the boss actually goes to
the trouble of counter-signing the letter in approval.
The author's line of argumentation implies that it was
actually H.H. Tamala Krishna Maharaja who ran ISKCON and that he would
simply get Srila Prabhupada to approve HIS decisions. Such devotion to
Maharaja by the author is admirable, but we suggest he wakes up and
starts following his spiritual master who was responsible for issuing
Thus how in heaven's name is
the fact that Srila Prabhupada used his secretary to communicate his
desires to the society, as people with secretaries do, relevant to its
validity or application? Why doesn't the author just give up this
pathetic line of argumentation and just deal with the CONTENT of the
and not containing a word
about Prabhupada's departure and how initiations were to go on after
Prabhupada's departure, as some kind of "final order" by Prabhupada
about how initiations were to go on after his departure. It's all
bluff, no stuff.
We simply state that the letter
was issued to the managing officers of ISKCON to be applied in ISKCON
and was to be put in force immediately, from that time onwards. It is
the author who has decided that departure has some special significance
for the application of the letter, having chosen that time to terminate
the application of the letter, even though as he correctly points the
letter makes no mention of this. Also as long as there is no other
instruction issued to ISKCON as to how initiations would continue in
the society, it is by DEFINITION the FINAL ORDER on this subject.
In one sense, it's a
botheration to divert some of my time and energy from my practical
service to Srila Prabhupada in the area of defeating Darwinism to
answer the heretical fantasies of Krishnakant Desai.
Whether or not our position
comprises of 'heretical fantasies' has yet to be demonstrated by the
author. What is demonstrably clear is that the author definitely does
not answer a single point we have made. We would therefore simply
repeat our previous advise - that the author sticks to writing about
Darwinism, a subject he seems to have an impressive grasp of. A
non-ritvik supporter said on CHAKRA that the author wishes to be an
ISKCON guru himself. Maybe this explains the author's enthusiasm for
writing on this subject. However, enthusiasm alone is no substitute for
a grasp of the facts.
But in another sense, it's
good practice, and even entertaining, a nice diversion when my brain
gets a little tired from writing my next book in furtherance of
Prabhupada's orders to challenge Darwinism. Krishnakant Desai is like a
good Darwinist or Mayavadi. He can make a case which seems plausible to
some, even though he has no real evidence to back it up- all bluff,
guff, and puff but no stuff.
Why the author should wish to
practise evasion, avoidance and misrepresentation is quite baffling.
Are these qualities necessary for GBC guru approval perhaps? So far the
author has provided lots of BLUFF, GUFF and PUFF, but he has yet to
address any STUFF from us.
Actually, there's more
evidence that human beings evolved from apes than that Prabhupada
concocted some brand new kind of disciplic nonsuccession, as alleged by
the ever-inventive Krishnakant Desai.
The author is correct that
Srila Prabhupada did not 'concoct some brand new kind of disciplic
non-succession.' We never said he did. Thus the author is inventing
here. Sometimes members of the disciplic succession remain current for
vast periods of time. Does the author challenge this point?
The only serious debate
going on in ISKCON is not about rtvik being right or wrong (anyone with
a brain knows its wrong) but when to kick out the rtviks-before or
after the Mayapur meetings.
According to Drutakarma some of
the successes of ISKCON highlighted in BTG, which he wrote for, are
somehow being manifested and run by persons without a brain. And for
that matter so is an increasing proportion of our movement. The
author's inquisitorial zeal for throwing devotees out of ISKCON
resembles the mood of the nasty zonal acarya days which the author also
enthusiastically supported and participated in. Just drive out anyone
who disagrees. And if they defeat you philosophically just pretend they
do not have a brain.
I advocate kicking them
out right away, because any talk about the rtvik heresy will just be a
waste of time (like talking with antagonistic fundamentalist
Christians) and will get in the way of genuine and much needed
reform in ISKCON.
We are not at all surprised
that this is the view of the author, since he obviously cannot defeat
our position, and thus for him 'talking' IS a waste of time.
But others of more
charitable disposition say we should do the reforms first and hope that
this will draw some of the rtviks back into the fold before we kick out
the hardcore rtviks once and for all. Best thing, of course, would be
for Krishnakanta Desai and his followers to wake up to the fact that
ISKCON is never going to take up their heresy. So either they should
give it up now, and contribute to the reform effort, or go and start
their own parallel movement. That would save everyone a lot of trouble,
and let everyone get on with their positive expansion of the Krishna
It would definitely save the
author a lot of trouble, since he would not continually be defeated in
argumentation, and his pathetic speculations masquerading as philosophy
would not be exposed.
But let's get back to this
supposed final order by Prabhupada. Actually, if it is a final order it
is a final order by Tamal Krishna Goswami, because he wrote and signed
the July 9 letter. Prabhupada is referred to only indirectly, in the
third person, and his signature is below Tamal Krishna Goswami's as an
approval of Tamal Krishna Goswami's words.
This weird 'Tamala was behind the letter'
theory has already been defeated above. This continual
attempt to undermine the validity of a letter personally approved by
Srila Prabhupada leads one to believe that the author is actually
scared of its contents. Otherwise what point is the author trying to
make exactly, that Srila Prabhupada signed something he did not agree
with? Why can the author not just deal straight forwardly with the
final order rather than casting irrelevant and baseless aspirations.
Furthermore, the whole
process that resulted in the letter was begun not on the initiative of
Srila Prabhupada but on the initiative of Tamal Krishna Goswami, who
put to Srila Prabhupada a specific question, on his own accord, without
any prompting from Srila Prabhupada. That question, unrelated to
Prabhupada's departure, was this: what to do with the backlog of
initiations that had accumulated during the time when Prabhupada was
not answering letters. This can be seen from the start of the July 7
conversation on this topic.
So Srila Prabhupada was
not responding to a question about how initiations would go on after
his departure. He was responding to a question about what to do with a
backlog of requests for initiation from devotees desiring initiation
from Srila Prabhupada. Tamal Krishna Goswami indicated that the whole
concern was Srila Prabhupada's health. The devotees were thinking Srila
Prabhupada was so weak that the karmic burden of accepting new
disciples would not be good for him. This places the whole episode in
the context of what was to be done during Srila Prabhupada's physical
presence. There is no mention at all of Prabhupada's departure or how
initiations were to be conducted after his departure.
||Srila Prabhupada? We're receiving a number of letters now,
and these are people who want to get initiated. So up until now, since
your becoming ill, we asked them to wait.
||The local, mean [men?], senior sannyasis can do that.
||That's what we were doing... I mean, formerly we were... 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...? I mean one thing is
that it's said that the spiritual master takes on the... You know, he
takes on the... He has to cleanse the disciple by... So we don't want
that you should have to... Your health is not so good, so that should
not be... That's why we've been asking everybody to wait. I just want
to know if we should continue to wait some more time.
||No, the senior sannyasis...
||So they should continue to...
||You can give me a list of sannyasis. I will mark who will...
Now the author is apparently
offering us first hand knowledge about exactly how the letter was
generated (perhaps he was hiding in the closet). He speculates
that H.H. Tamala Krishna Maharaja writes the letter of his own accord
as a result of the July
7th conversation. Unfortunately the letter itself
directly contradicts this fanciful speculation of the author:
"Recently when all of the GBC
members were with His Divine Grace in Vrindavana, Srila Prabhupada
indicated [...] His Divine Grace has so far given a list of eleven
The letter clearly states that
the context of the letter is a meeting held previously with all the
GBC. According to the GBC this meeting occurred on May 28th and deals ONLY
with what should happen AFTER Srila Prabhupada's departure. The
letter makes no mention of the fact that the reason for the system was
the same concern for Srila Prabhupada's health that the Maharaja had
expressed just two days previously. We are now to believe that in
writing this letter of his own accord, Maharaja forgets to mention the
REAL reason for the letter - the conversation of two days ago - and
instead mentions the context as being a conversation in May that is not
even MENTIONED in the July 7th conversation. Further the May
conversation, according to the GBC, ONLY specifies the context of what
should occur AFTER Srila Prabhupada's departure!
Srila Prabhupada went on
to name several other devotees. Here is another significant part of the
The rtvik advocates say
that Srila Prabhupada was completely withdrawing from the initiation
process and setting up a system that was designed to operate in an
unbroken way even after his departure. But Srila Prabhupada indicated
the possibility that he himself would continue to handle initiation
requests from India, by saying "India, I am here."
In conclusion, on July 7
neither Srila Prabhupada nor the devotees present say anything about
Prabhupada's departure or how initiations were to go on after his
||Okay. Is there someone else in India that you want to do this?
||India, I am here. We shall see. In India, Jayapataka.
However as we have already
stated all this becomes irrelevant since the letter itself states that
the reason for the letter was not the July 7th conversation
but a conversation in May which the GBC
state deals ONLY with what should be done when Srila Prabhupada
departs! We pointed this out in our last rebuttal, what is wrong with
the author's brain that he cannot understand, or even address this
In fact, Srila Prabhupada
himself contemplated the possibility that he might again take a direct
role in the initiation process, if he recovered his health. This is
evident in the following statement made by Srila Prabhupada in
Vrndavana on October 18, 1977. conversation.
Here, several months after
the July 9 document, which the rtvik supporters say establishes the
rtvik system forever, Srila Prabhupada is contemplating stopping it and
taking up his initiation duties again. It seems clear that he regarded
it as simply a temporary measure, related to his health, and did not
see it as a system that was going to continue after his departure.
||Hare Krishna. One Bengali gentleman has come from New York?
Mr. Sukamal Roy Chowdury.
||So I have deputed some of you to initiate. Hm?
||Yes. Actually... Yes, Srila Prabhupada.
||So I think Jayapataka can do that if he likes. I have already
deputed. Tell him.
||So, deputies, Jayapataka's name was there?
||It is already on there, Srila Prabhupada. His name was on
||So I depute him to do this at Mayapura, and you may go with
him. I stop for the time being. Is that all right?
||Stopped doing what, Srila Prabhupada?
||This initiation. I have deputed the, my disciples. Is it
clear or not?
||You have got the list of the names?
||Yes, Srila Prabhupada.
||And if by Krishna's grace I recover from this condition, then I
shall begin again, or I may not be pressed in this condition to
initiate. It is not good.
This assertion has already been
answered in 'The
GBC Fails To Answer the Final Order's, a reply to 'Prabhupada's
Order'. We reproduce that answer here:
"Sometimes devotees get
confused by the conversation on October 14th, whereby Srila Prabhupada
talks about 'stopping' and 'resuming' his role in giving 'initiations'
However some facts are
Srila Prabhupada had
already largely 'stopped' giving initiation some years before, even
prior to the July 9th letter, since as we showed earlier he was already
employing 'local sannyasis' to initiate on his behalf. The one thing
Srila Prabhupada was still doing was performing the ceremony himself if
he was there personally.
It is the above sporadic
participation Srila Prabhupada is referring to when he speaks of
'stopping and resuming'. In the above conversation an Indian man had
flown all the way from New York to get initiated PERSONALLY by Srila
Prabhupada. This physical involvement with the actual fire ceremony was
something that was affected by Srila Prabhupada's fluctuating
health. And as we have just seen PO admit above, Srila Prabhupada had
indicated THIS continued local participation of his in the ritvik
system when he stated 'India I am here'.
Thus the 'time being' Srila
Prabhupada had 'stopped' for does not refer to the ritvik system he had
only just set up on July 9th. At that time the only thing he 'stopped'
was the practice of dictating names, something that was not impeded by
his health, since Srila Prabhupada's ability to dictate remained
unaffected right up until the end, as anyone who reads his wonderful
Srimad Bhagavatam will attest."
however, has his own opinion, and he bases it on the occurrence of the
word henceforward in the July 9 letter. The first thing we have to
consider is that henceforward is Tamal Krishna Goswami's word, not
Srila Prabhupada's. Tamal Krishna Goswami is therefore the best
authority for the intended meaning of the word, and he has said he did
not intend that word to mean from now until eternity. So taking the
letter at face value, whatever Tamal Krishna Goswami intended to say
(including his intended meaning of the word henceforward) was approved
by Srila Prabhupada. But even if we take it as a word approved by
Prabhupada in a sense different from that intended by the author of the
letter, I have carefully studied Srila Prabhupada's use of the word
"henceforward" and have found many instances in which he uses the word
in a time-limited sense. Here are some examples of Srila Prabhupada's
use of the word henceforward. Many more could be cited.
- "As I told you, that
2,500 years ago, or 5,000 years ago Vyasadeva wrote about Lord Buddha's
appearance. Still, there is appearance of Kalki from this time,
henceforward, after 400,000's of years Kalki will appear."
(Lecture on Srimad-Bhagavatam, London, August 16, 1971)
In this case, Srila
Prabhupada uses henceforward to refer to a specific time in the future,
a specific number of years from the present. It is not used in the
sense of a ceaselessly executed action.
- "Regarding printing
20,000 copies of Back To Godhead, I have appealed to 4 centers, namely
New York, San Francisco, Los Angeles, and London to contribute $750
monthly. I have got confirmation from Los Angeles, so I shall be glad
to hear from New York also whether this center is going to hand over to
me $750 per month. I have no objection if this $750 is collected in the
way of advertisements from New York, but charges will be increased
because we are going to print 20,000 copies henceforward." (Letter
to Rayarama, February 20, 1969).
Let us imagine that Srila
Prabhupada had left the planet soon after this letter had been written.
Would it have been wrong for devotees to have printed more than 20,000
copies in the future? The word henceforward is obviously tied to a
certain set of circumstances that could change in a very short period
of time. Henceforward means, "given the current situation, we shall do
In the case of the July 9
letter, the same implication is there. Given the current situation
(Prabhupada still on the planet but too weak to even answer letters,
devotees still requesting initiation from him) the process for
initiation will go on as stated in the letter. Given that the usual
system throughout history is that when a guru departs he ceases to
accept disciples, Srila Prabhupada's departure would mark a major
change of circumstances requiring a change in the system outlined in
the July 9 letter.
Therefore, the rtvik
reading of the July 9 letter would only hold true (in unambiguous
fashion) if the word henceforward had been qualified to mean that it
applied even across such a major change of circumstance as Srila
Prabhupada's departure. In other words, for the rtvik case to be made
unambiguously the July 9 letter should have read "henceforward, even in
the event of Srila Prabhupada's departure from this world, this system
But the letter does not
read that way. The word henceforward stands alone, and given that Srila
Prabhupada sometimes used this word in a time-limited sense, the
intended meaning in the July 9 letter is unclear. The rtvik supporters
argue that it is up to their opponents to show that the word
henceforward was qualified to mean the system would stop on Srila
Prabhupada's departure. Given that the normal system down through
history is that a guru's departure signals the time for him to stop
accepting disciples by diksa, it is, on the contrary, up to the rtvik
supporters to demonstrate that Srila Prabhupada intended the word
henceforward to apply to the time after his departure.
- "I have again begun
speaking on the tapes and very soon you will get transcribed copies of
my dictaphoning for being edited and laid out for printing,
chapter-wise, the fourth canto. Let the second and third cantos be
finished quickly so that the fourth canto can be started. Henceforward
I shall be supplying material for all cantos and you must do the rest;
editing, layout, printing, etc." (Letter to Candanacarya, March
It is obvious here that
the time period represented by the word henceforward will have an end
to it, although this is not specifically stated by Srila Prabhupada.
The end will come when the work on the Bhagavatam is completed. This is
not stated, but it is clear from the context. Furthermore, it is
obvious that the word henceforward would cease to apply if Srila
Prabhupada were to leave his body. What this means is that the word
henceforward does not always mean continuing into the future, forever,
without end. It could mean that, but not necessarily so. In the case of
the July 9 letter, the departure of Srila Prabhupada would represent a
major change of circumstances. So it is not at all clear from the
context that the word henceforward was taken by Srila Prabhupada to
mean that the system described in that letter was to continue after his
departure. The general system is that gurus do not accept disciples
after their departure. So the word henceforward, if meant to apply
after this major change of circumstance, would have to be properly
qualified to indicate this. That is not the case with the July 9 letter.
In short, there is no sign
at all that the July 9 letter is Prabhupada's final order about how the
disciplic succession was to continue in his absence. It was simply a
temporary measure, tied to his health. Srila Prabhupada indicated that
the system could change at any moment. Therefore it is not true that he
intended the word "henceforward" to mean from now to eternity, as the
rtvik advocates falsely say.
Summary: Henceforward is a word that means from now on, but it can be
qualified, either directly or indirectly. It does not mean in all cases
"from now until eternity."
All the above is nothing more than an elaborate
'straw man' argument. The author has simply invented something we do not
claim, and then defeated it. Should we ever come across a person who
presents the above argument we promise to inform them that they have
been smashed by the great Drutakarma. In the meantime it should be
clear to anyone who has bothered to read all that 'stuff' in 'The
Final Order' we never claim that the word 'henceforward' means from
'now until eternity'. We simply states that it means 'from now
on', the standard dictionary definition.
Neither do we base our claim for the applicability
of the letter on the word 'henceforward'. We state in the
'Final Order' that you can take the word OUT and it does not
change the meaning of the letter.
Thus we state the exact opposite of what the
author claims we state. The author being unable to deal with what we
actually state, invents something else that he can defeat. The author is
thus deliberately dishonest, or so arrogant that he does not even bother
to read what he is supposed to be answering. In either case, his
arguments remain the same - ineffectual having failed to address the
point in hand.
The July 9 letter cannot
therefore be used as unambiguous evidence of how Srila Prabhupada
intended the disciplic succession to go on in his absence. First of
all, it does not contain Prabhupada's direct words and, more
importantly, it makes no direct mention of his departure or how
initiations were to go on after his departure. Krishnakant Desai can
speculate and interpret and juggle words "henceforward" (from now
until eternity), but the fact is that the July 9 letter says
nothing about Prabhupada's departure and how initiations were to go on
thereafter-and that is the question we are trying to answer.
We have of course already put
paid to the absurd notion that the letter has any less validity because
the secretary typed and signed it. The argument that the letter is not
Srila Prabhupada's 'DIRECT WORDS' is even more ludicrous. By this
logic, the author would also have to reject all of Srila Prabhupada's
books since they also are not Srila Prabhupada's DIRECT WORDS, having
been first edited by Hayagriva, and lately by the author's colleague H.H. Jayadwaita Swami.
Thus the author must cease presenting any
evidence from Srila Prabhupada's books unless he can first locate the
appropriate dictation tape and demonstrate that the book does indeed
contain Srila Prabhupada's DIRECT WORDS. We pointed this out last time
Also, as already answered, if
the letter does not say anything about departure, why has the author
chosen that precise moment to suspend the operation of the system
described in the letter. This in spite of the fact that it is an
institutional directive applicable to an institution that was set up
specifically to exist after the departure of the founder?
So our only resource is to
look not at Krishnakant Desai's word jugglery but at the direct words
of Srila Prabhupada, in the cases where he himself talks or writes
about his departure and what he expected to happen thereafter regarding
As I predicted,
Krishnakant Desai responds that he has already dismissed these direct
instructions by Prabhupada, but I don't intend to let him get away with
dismissing Prabhupada's direct words of instruction about the
continuation of the disciplic succession in his absence. I will deal
with that part of Krishnakant Desai's program to dismiss Prabhupada's
instructions in All Bluff, No Stuff (2) (3) (4) (5) etc.
We look forward to this,
because then the author's dishonesty will become even more apparent. We
have 'dismissed' nothing. We simply point out that none of the evidence
offered by the author either:
Gives an instruction to support Modifications A & B as
defined in the 'Final Order';
Or authorises all Srila Prabhupada's disciples to initiate
their own disciples the moment Srila Prabhupada leaves the planet.
And without evidence for a), we
are still left with the problem as to why the GBC did what they did in
1977. A problem that cannot be directly answered by most of the
author's 'evidence' since the evidence was not even available to the
GBC to act on in 1977 when they decided to arbitrarily terminate the
order of July 9th, which was sent to the whole
Desai is in many ways an intelligent person, and has some nice personal
traits, but unfortunately he is misusing his intelligence and personal
qualities. Sometimes we all have to admit we are wrong. My prayer is
that he just become humble and admit his error and become a nice member
of Prabhupada's family, as he should. Tragically, he appears intent on
defying the will of Srila Prabhupada and Srila Prabhupada's bona fide
followers. Even more tragically, it appears that there are some
Prabhupada disciples who want to follow him in his error.
We are grateful for this kind
praise from the author, especially since then there is the possibility
that we are not the agents of kali portrayed by other contributors to
CHAKRA. Also it is nice that the author thinks we have some
intelligence, especially since he stated earlier that we did not even
Meanwhile, I again request
the GBC to (1) immediately discipline the few ISKCON officers who have
violated GBC resolutions by publicly supporting or practicing the rtvik
heresy, (2) announce that rtvik is absolutely not going to be part of
any reform agenda or discussion in ISKCON. Reform yes, rtvik no, (3)
announce total amnesty for anyone who gives up rtvik and rejoins the
The author should seriously ask
himself why the GBC do not seem to be responding to his repeated
requests if ritvik is the 'heresy' he says it is, and if those that
would need to be 'disciplined' are just a 'few'. Is the author next
going to launch a campaign against the whole of the GBC, if they do not
yield to his demands. If he has any integrity he should immediately do
this, because by their inaction the GBC must implicitly be supporting
and encouraging such 'heresy'.
All glories to Srila Prabhupada.