Drutakarma Continues to Strain the Truth

by Krishnakant

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

  1. misrepresenting our position,

  2. undermining an order directly approved by his Spiritual Master,

  3. consistently failing to prove from Srila Prabhupada's books that diksa is somehow dependent on physical presence,

  4. 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 delay.

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 CHAKRA articles.


Krishnakant Desai, 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 demolished.

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:

  1. Srila Prabhupada did not speak those words;

  2. 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 Prabhupada,

The author is really losing grasp of some very basic points:

  1.       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.

  2.       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.

  3.       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 ..."

  4.       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'!?

  5.       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.

  6.       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 the letter.

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 letter?

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 consciousness movement.

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.
Tamala Krishna: 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.
Prabhupada:   The local, mean [men?], senior sannyasis can do that.
Tamala Krishna: 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.
Prabhupada: No, the senior sannyasis...
Tamala Krishna:   So they should continue to...
Prabhupada:   You can give me a list of sannyasis. I will mark who will...
Tamala Krishna: Okay.  
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.

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 disciples ..."

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 conversation:
Tamala Krishna: Okay. Is there someone else in India that you want to do this?
Prabhupada: India, I am here. We shall see. In India, Jayapataka.
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 departure.

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 simple point?

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.

Prabhupada: Hare Krishna. One Bengali gentleman has come from New York?
Tamala Krishna: Yes. Mr. Sukamal Roy Chowdury.
Prabhupada: So I have deputed some of you to initiate. Hm?
Tamala Krishna: Yes. Actually... Yes, Srila Prabhupada.
Prabhupada: So I think Jayapataka can do that if he likes. I have already deputed. Tell him.
Tamala Krishna: Yes.
Prabhupada: So, deputies, Jayapataka's name was there?
Bhagavan: It is already on there, Srila Prabhupada. His name was on that list.
Prabhupada: 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?
Tamala Krishna: Stopped doing what, Srila Prabhupada?
Prabhupada: This initiation. I have deputed the, my disciples. Is it clear or not?
Giriraja: It's clear.
Prabhupada:   You have got the list of the names?
Tamala Krishna: Yes, Srila Prabhupada.
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.
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.

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 overlooked:

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."

Krishnakant Desai, 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.

  1. "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.

  1. "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 like this."

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 will continue."

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.

  1. "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 23, 1971)

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.

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."

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.

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 too.

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 initiations.

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:

  1.       Gives an instruction to support Modifications A & B as defined in the 'Final Order';

  2.       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 movement.

Actually, Krishnakant 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 possess brains!

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 ISKCON family.

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.