Srila Prabhupada is angry at IRM

[Guest guest]

Even if what IRM is saying were correct, Srila Prabhupada is unlimitedly

angry at the members of IRM (especially their founder) because IRM is

propagating the image that Srila Prabhupada's mission was a failure, that he

did not produce a single pure vaisnava, and that his movement consists only

of cheaters, liars, murderers, child abusers, and power-hungry neophytes.

Thanks to IRM in the future Srila Prabhupada will be remembered in that way.

 

ys Ramakanta dasa

[Guest guest]

Hare Krishna. Please accept my humble obeisances. All glories to Srila

Prabhupada.

 

With due deference to all devotees such as Ramakanta and Sankarsana prabhu(whom

I have known personally when he was at the Atlanta Temple), I am amazed at the

statements which they have made. If Shrila Prabhupada is angry with IRM, how

much more angry must he be at people in mainstream ISKCON, who supported people

in the guise of devotee leaders, 'gurus', and engaged in stealing, adultery,

murder, lying, child abuse, active homosexuality, etc. etc., claiming them to

be gurus.

 

When I first came to Krishna Consciousness, every bhakta knew that Shrila

Prabhupada blasted scientists, leaders, philosophers, teachers that claimed to

teach but did not have perfect knowledge. He called them cheaters because they

were not sure of their so-called knowledge, and their 'truths' were changing

with new theories, etc. He stated that this is not perfect knowledge.

 

Now, like it or not, ISKCON claimed and is still claiming that you have to take

initiation from one of the voted-in, stamp-approved gurus. This in spite of

the fact that every few years, a new so-called guru has turned out to be a

pretender. In the meantime, while yet undiscovered, some of these same

pretenders may be voting in another person as a guru.

 

Another point is that I seem to recall Shrila Prabhupada himself stating that

amongst his godbrothers, none is qualified. Was he insulting his spiritual

master by making such a statement? I think not. If even in those times Srila

Bhaktisiddhanta produced only one pure devotee, how much more difficult it must

be in our mleccha society of 'modern' uncultured dvi-pada pashus.

 

Besides, I have never read any statement by the IRM that says that Shrila

Prabhupada never produced a pure devotee.

 

Sincerely,

Rama Raghava Dasa

"Ramakanta (das) HKS (PAMHO.NET SysOp) (Zurich - CH)" <Ramakanta.HKS (AT) pamho (DOT) net>

wrote:

Even if what IRM is saying were correct, Srila Prabhupada is unlimitedly

angry at the members of IRM (especially their founder) because IRM is

propagating the image that Srila Prabhupada's mission was a failure, that he

did not produce a single pure vaisnava, and that his movement consists only

of cheaters, liars, murderers, child abusers, and power-hungry neophytes.

Thanks to IRM in the future Srila Prabhupada will be remembered in that way.

 

ys Ramakanta dasa

 

-----------------------

To from this mailing list, send an email to:

Initiations.in.ISKCON-Owner (AT) pamho (DOT) net

 

 

Dr. Rakesh K. Sharma

Family Practice Attending

 

 

 

 

 

Search presents - Jib Jab's 'Second Term'

[Guest guest]

Dear Ramakanta Prabhu

 

PAMHO. AGTSP!

 

I'm afraid you are *again* making a number of misleading statements:

 

>Srila Prabhupada is unlimitedly angry at the members of IRM (especially

their founder)

>because IRM is propagating the image that Srila Prabhupada's mission was a

>failure, that he did not produce a single pure vaisnava,

 

It would be helpful, rather than making wild accusations and speculations,

to actually study what the IRM is propagating. "The Final Order" addresses

the question, "Are you saying that Srila Prabhupada created no pure

devotees?", thus:

 

"No, all we are stating is that Srila Prabhupada did set up the ritvik

system to allow initiations to continue. Whether or not Srila Prabhupada

created pure devotees is not relevant to his clear and unequivocal final

order. As disciples our duty is simply to follow the instructions of the

guru. It is inappropriate to abandon the guru's instruction and instead

speculate as to how many pure devotees there are now, or will be in the

future.

 

Even taking a worst case scenario, that there are in fact no pure devotees

at present, one should consider the situation that existed after the

departure of Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati. After almost 40 years, Srila

Prabhupada indicated that there was only one authorised initiating acarya

produced from the Gaudiya Matha:

 

"Actually amongst my Godbrothers no one is qualified to become acarya* [...]

instead of inspiring our students and disciple they may sometimes pollute

them. [...] they are very competent to harm our natural progress."

(SP Letter to Rupanuga, 28/4/74)

 

*(Srila Prabhupada used the terms 'acarya' and 'guru' interchangeably):

 

"I shall produce some guru. I shall say who is guru, 'Now you become

acarya.' [...] You can cheat, but it will not be effective. Just see our

Gaudiya Matha. Everyone wanted to be guru. A small temple and 'guru'. What

kind of guru?"

(SP Morning walk, 22/4/77)

 

This could be seen as a damning indictment of Srila Bhaktisiddhanta's

preaching work. However, it would be extremely unwise to argue that Srila

Bhaktisiddhanta was a 'failure'. Srila Bhaktisiddhanta is known to have said

that if his mission only produced one pure devotee he would have considered

it a success.

 

Furthermore, the implementation of a ritvik system does not rule out, a

priori, the possible existence of pure devotees. There are various scenarios

that could easily accommodate both ritviks and pure devotees, e.g.:

 

Srila Prabhupada may have created many pure devotees who have no desire to

become diksa gurus. There is no evidence to suggest that the most advanced

devotees in ISKCON must necessarily be those individuals who put themselves

up for election each year. These pure devotees may simply wish to humbly

assist Srila Prabhupada's mission. It is nowhere stated that it is mandatory

for a pure devotee to become a diksa guru. Such persons would be delighted

to work within the ritvik system if that was their guru's order.

 

Srila Prabhupada's desire may be for large numbers of instructing gurus, but

not necessarily for more initiating ones. This would be consistent with the

earlier quoted instruction for everyone to become a siksa guru, and Srila

Prabhupada's caution not to take disciples. It would also be consistent with

the fact that Srila Prabhupada had single-handedly already put in place the

success of his mission:

 

Guest:

Are you planning to choose a successor?

 

Srila Prabhupada:

It is already successful.

(12/2/75)

[...]

(several quotes follow - see TFO)

 

The fact that Srila Prabhupada did not authorise any of his disciples to act

as diksa guru does not necessarily mean that none of them were pure

devotees. It could just be that Krsna's plan did not require them to take up

such a role. Nevertheless followers of Srila Prabhupada do have an important

role to play, just as when he was physically present on the planet. That is

to act as his assistants, not successor acaryas:

 

"The GBC should all be the instructor gurus. I am the initiator guru, and

you should be the instructor guru by teaching what I am teaching and doing

what I am doing."

(SP Letter to Madhudvisa, 4/8/75)

 

"Sometimes a diksa guru is not present always. Therefore one can take

learning, instruction, from an advanced devotee. That is called the siksa

guru."

(SP Bg. Lecture, 4/7/74, Honolulu)

 

Thus the issue is not whether Srila Prabhupada created any pure devotees,

but the fact that he did set up the ritvik system. Although the diksa guru

at this time is not physically present, that does not mean he is not the

diksa guru. In his absence we are expected to take instruction from bona

fide siksa gurus, of which there may eventually be millions. (QUOTED FROM

'TFO')

 

>...his movement consists only of cheaters, liars, murderers, child abusers,

and power-hungry neophytes.

>Thanks to IRM in the future Srila Prabhupada will be remembered in that

way.

 

So now you blame the IRM for the activities of your gurus? Why not blame

Jayadvaita Swami as well while you're at it?

 

"Let's take a look at some unpleasant facts:

 

FACT: ISKCON gurus in good standing have fallen.

FACT: The ISKCON GBC has supported even fallen gurus and tried to paper over

their falldowns.

FACT: ISKCON gurus have opposed, oppressed and driven out many sincere

godbrothers and godsisters.

FACT: ISKCON gurus have usurped and misused money, and diverted other ISKCON

resources for their own personal prestige and sense gratification.

FACT: ISKCON gurus have had illicit sexual intercourse with both women and

men, and possibly children as well.

FACT: Some ISKCON gurus still in good standing have had such serious

personal difficulties that the GBC has been obliged to suspend them from

initiating.

FACT: Other ISKCON gurus have snapped back into line only after "narrow

misses."

FACT: ISKCON gurus recently led a movement advocating a premature and

inappropriate emphasis on rasika-bhakti.

FACT: Some ISKCON devotees have felt obliged to accept a new guru twice or

even three times over."

[...] One might perhaps be forgiven for thinking that for all the laws and

resolutions the role of guru is still a perplexity even for the GBC. "

(Jayadvaita Swami, "Where the Ritvik People are Right", 1996)

 

However, I do understand that it is must be alot easier to shoot the

messenger than defend such an obviously flawed guru system.

 

Ys

Deepak

[Guest guest]

Dear Deepak Prabhu, PAMHO. AGTSP!

 

> It would be helpful, rather than making wild accusations and speculations,

> to actually study what the IRM is propagating.

 

I did not mean the information that IRM is propagating. That information is

probably correct (except the ritvikvada). I mean the image that IRM is

propagating or creating. You just should not publish such information in a

magazine. Srila Prabhupada never published a magazine where he spoke bad

about his godbrothers.

 

> "The Final Order" addresses the question,

 

I did not meant "The Final Order". I especialy meant BTP and what I have

heard from certain IRM members.

 

> "Are you saying that Srila Prabhupada created no pure devotees?"

 

No. But IRM is creating that impression.

 

> So now you blame the IRM for the activities of your gurus?

 

No, I blame IRM for publishing these activities. This is NOT the right way

to advocate ritvikvada.

 

 

I do not blame IRM that they are progagating ritvikvada. I blame them how

they are doing that.

 

ys Ramakanta dasa

[Guest guest]

Dear Deepak Prabhu, PAMHO. AGTSP!

 

> No, all we are stating is that Srila Prabhupada did set up the ritvik

> system to allow initiations to continue.

 

I have proven the opposite. Please refute my proofs before you again say

that Srila Prabhupada intended the ritvik system with him as the diksa guru

to be continued after his departure.

 

ys Ramakanta dasa

[Guest guest]

K.Kant posing as Deepak wrote:

 

> I'm afraid you are *again* making a number of misleading statements:

 

I have asked you several times for evidence to back up your claim that the

July 9th letter is the final words from Srila Prabhupada regarding how he

wanted initiations to proceed in his absence. You keep dodging. Do you have

any evidence or not? If you have, let's hear it, if you don't then admit it.

 

> It would be helpful, rather than making wild accusations and speculations,

> to actually study what the IRM is propagating.

 

Wild accusations?? The IRM publishes the magazine Back to Prabhupada. One

just has to take one look at that magazine to understand it could not have

been made by devotees. IRM are propagating filth, that's all. They are like

a political party propagating filth about their opponents. It's not even an

issue whether what they say it is true or not. The IRM only criticizes and

finds faults, they offer no solutions to the problems in ISKCON, nor do they

see all the good that is being done by ISKCON.

 

The funny thing is that the people in IRM are full of faults themselves, so

who are they to criticize anyone? Let's have a look a the three members of

IRM, shall we? Adridharan is a common thief with a warrant out for his

arrest. He used to collect lakhs and lakhs of rupees in the name of ISKCON

and put them in his own pocket. Then there is Madhu Pandit. He is another

thief who uses the good name of ISKCON to collect money for the benefit of

himself and his family members. By fraud and forgery he has signed several

of ISKCON's properties over into his own name and those of his family

members. 38 million rupees he has stolen from ISKCON. And K.Kant Desai, the

last member of IRM, is an envious atheist who is absolutely clueless about

Vaishnava philosophy, and these are the people you suggest should rectify

the problems in ISKCON? What a joke.

 

>"The Final Order"

> addresses the question, "Are you saying that Srila Prabhupada created no

> pure devotees?", thus:

 

I already tore TFO to pieces many years ago in the Point by Point Refutation

of the Final Order, so there is no need to go further into that. As for the

unpleasant facts about ISKCON we all know about them. There is no need to

reiterate them again and again like a parrot. Of course you have nothing

else to offer. You can't even produce so much as a shred of evidence in

support of your wild claims. The only thing you can do is babble on and on

about the mistakes and the faults of ISKCON.

[Guest guest]

> Jahnu (Dvipa das JPS) (Mayapur - IN) [Jahnu (AT) pamho (DOT) net]

> Wednesday, February 02, 2005 2:48 PM

 

>K.Kant posing as Deepak wrote:

 

You're still suffering from that psychological problem, aren't you?

 

>Wild accusations?? The IRM publishes the magazine Back to Prabhupada. One

>just has to take one look at that magazine to understand it could not have

>been made by devotees.

 

Each issue of the magazine contains letters from **devotees** all over the

world praising the magazine. So you clearly stand in opposition to a

sizeable number of devotees who greatly appreciate the magazine.

(Prediction: Jahnu will, at some point, probably say Krishnakant invented

all the letters, just as his rather disturbed mind thinks I am really

Krishnakant posing as someone else).

 

>The funny thing is that the people in IRM are full of faults themselves, so

>who are they to criticize anyone? Let's have a look a the three members of

>IRM, shall we?

 

(Jahnu then falsely accuses IRM leaders of fraud, forgery etc. I do

commiserate with him, however, that his former mahabhagavat, sum total of

all the demigods, as-good-as God 'diksa guru' was exposed with his female

therapist in their million-dollar luxury villa in the Cote d'Azur).

 

>I already tore TFO to pieces many years ago in the Point by Point

>Refutation of the Final Order, so there is no need to go further into that.

 

Oh dear, not only is Jahnu's disturbed mental state making him imagine that

I am someone else, but he is also suffering from delusions of grandeur.

Anyone can read how Jahnu failed to make even a tiny rip in TFO, let alone

"tore TFO to pieces many years ago", in the devastating rebuttal "Jahnu's

Pointless Point for Point":

 

http://www.iskconirm.com/jahnu_pointless_point_for_point.htm

 

Here is the intro. The full reply can be accessed by clicking on the above

link.

 

Mar 26 1999 - This is in response to H.G. Jahnu prabhu's recently posted

paper, optimistically entitled 'Point For Point Rebuttal of TFO'. We would

firstly like to offer the author our sincerest commiseration's over the

recent departure of his initiating guru Harikesa das. We can only imagine

what effect such a thing would have on a devotee's faith and ability to

continue in spiritual life. We hope what follows will help Jahnu prabhu to

reconsider his aversion to Srila Prabhupada's continued diksa status. Srila

Prabhupada will never let him down since he is an authorised member of the

disciplic succession. We would also like to commend the author for actually

quoting 'The Final Order' verbatim, rather than just making up what we say,

as is common practice.

 

Jahnu's 'Rebuttal' makes a total of 344 points. Some 40% of these points

either directly or indirectly rely on appeals to the May 28th tape as

irrefutable evidence overriding our modifications A & B from 'The Final

Order' (T.F.O). The justification for this heavy reliance on the tape as

principal evidence is said by Jahnu (henceforward the 'author') to have been

proven in the paper 'Disciple of My Disciple' (DOMD). However, this paper

was itself comprehensively refuted in our counter response- 'The Final Order

Still Stands'- which was itself a post-script at the back of 'The Final

Order'. Throughout the author's 'Rebuttal' paper it is asserted that the

ending of the ritvik system and the ordering of diksa gurus is proven on the

conversation segment from the famous May 28th tape, and yet this very

assertion is demonstrated as false in 'The Final Order Still Stands'. Not

once does the author actually rebut any of the points made in our response

to DOMD. Thus, at least 40 % of the author's so-called 'Rebuttal' paper is

based on a paper which has itself been refuted for nearly three years, and

is thus quite pointless.

 

20% of the 'Rebuttal' paper is spent denouncing some of the 40 objections

answered within T.F.O. (pages 6-20 and 27-50) as being 'straw man'

arguments, since it is claimed the GBC have never collectively raised them

as objections to the re-implementation of the final July 9th order. Two

points are to be made here:

 

We never said that these 40 objections were ever raised by the GBC body, and

thus we cannot be accurately accused of using 'straw man' arguments. These

are simply objections we had heard raised in our discussions with senior

ISKCON devotees such as Temple Presidents and Sannyasis, and indeed one or

two members of the GBC.

 

If the author and the GBC do not accept that they are valid objections then

that's fine with us. It will save a great deal of time in re-implementing

the ritvik system if we only have to deal with objections arising from the

May 28th tape. Indeed such objections have already been comprehensively

addressed in T.F.O. and 'The Final Order Still Stands' amongst others.

 

A further 20% of the 'Rebuttal' paper comprises of points that ignore the

substance of what we say in T.F.O. The author will argue that we are using

'half-truths' and 'red herrings', or he attacks what he perceives as

'implied' or 'suggested' by our statements. We shall demonstrate that the

actual validity of our points in such cases remains intact. Thus before we

even commence our analysis we can see that at least 80 % of the paper is

completely irrelevant and dare we say, pointless.

 

The remainder of the paper comprises of the author himself using 'straw man'

arguments or making claims which are either demonstrably false or are

contradicted by other GBC papers (*3* of which he refers to in this very

'Rebuttal').

 

We have not felt it necessary therefore to answer all 344 points raised in

the 'Rebuttal' paper, (no doubt a relief to the reader), since by

establishing -from a reasonably sized sample- that all the points in the

paper fall into one or other of the above pointless percentage groups, we

will have effectively destroyed its credibility.

 

The central issue in 'TFO' was the need to be given evidence for

Modifications A & B. In the author's 'point for point' reply to TFO the

author has attempted to answer these modifications by stating that they do

not actually exist, but are already pre-empted by what occurred in the May

28th tape (from now on all extracts from the author's 'Rebuttal' paper shall

be boxed followed by our comments):

 

http://www.iskconirm.com/jahnu_pointless_point_for_point.htm

[Guest guest]

> >K.Kant posing as Deepak wrote:

>

> You're still suffering from that psychological problem, aren't you?

 

On the contrary. I can look right through you.

 

> >Wild accusations?? The IRM publishes the magazine Back to Prabhupada. One

> >just has to take one look at that magazine to understand it could not

> >have been made by devotees.

>

> Each issue of the magazine contains letters from **devotees** all over the

> world praising the magazine.

 

You have gotten no such thing. No devotee would praise a piece of garbage

like BTP.

 

> So you clearly stand in opposition to a

> sizeable number of devotees who greatly appreciate the magazine.

 

As I said, no devotee would appreciate BTP. But I am not surprised you are

confused as to who is or is not a devotee. You wouldn't know a devotee if he

fell on your head in broad daylight. You remind me of Puranjana who also

makes up letters from 'devotees' in praise of his PADA newsletter.

 

> (Prediction: Jahnu will, at some point, probably say Krishnakant invented

> all the letters, just as his rather disturbed mind thinks I am really

> Krishnakant posing as someone else).

 

I wouldn't put it past you.

 

> >The funny thing is that the people in IRM are full of faults themselves,

> >so who are they to criticize anyone? Let's have a look a the three

> >members of IRM, shall we?

>

> (Jahnu then falsely accuses IRM leaders of fraud, forgery etc.

 

Unlike you I am not in the business of false accusing anyone. I have merely

stated facts regarding the members of IRM. Madhu Pandit has stolen 38

million rupees from ISKCON, and keeps collecting money in the name of

ISKCON. Just see the hypocrisy. He blasphemes and criticizes ISKCON's

devotees with every cell in his body, at the same time he uses ISKCON's GOOD

reputation to collect money from the congregation in Bangalore. Meanwhile he

is hiding his criminal activities behind some so called philosophical

dispute. The only one who hasn't waken up yet to that fact is you, who are

being used like a pawn in Madhu Pandit's money grubbing game. He must be

really happy to have a sycophant like you working for him to perpetuate the

illusion that the there is a philosophical twist going on in ISKCON.

 

>I do

> commiserate with him, however, that his former mahabhagavat, sum total of

> all the demigods, as-good-as God 'diksa guru' was exposed with his female

> therapist in their million-dollar luxury villa in the Cote d'Azur).

 

Spoken like a true ritvik. Going straight for the pus, and you didn't even

manage to get your facts straight. Besides, compared to your masters

Adridharan and Madhu Pandit, what Harikesh did was peanuts. He has never

stolen any money from ISKCON. The fact is that Harikesh has done more for

Prabhupada and Krishna than you'll be able to do in a million lives.

 

As for suffering from delusions of grandeur you no doubt take first price.

Who else but a demented person would seriously suggest that ISKCON needs

correction from common thieves, rogues and atheists such as yourself and the

rest of those who make up IRM?

[Guest guest]

>> Prediction: Jahnu will, at some point, probably say Krishnakant invented

>> all the letters

 

>Jahnu (Dvipa das JPS) (Mayapur - IN) [Jahnu (AT) pamho (DOT) net]

>You remind me of Puranjana who also

>makes up letters from 'devotees' in praise of his PADA newsletter.

 

PREDICTION CAME TRUE!

 

Part 2 of Krishnakant's rebuttal to Jahnu's "Point by Point Refutation of

the Final Order"

http://www.iskconirm.com/jahnu_pointless_point_for_point.htm

 

----------

-------------------

Jahnu wrote:

 

"According to the May 28 conversation the decisions of a) and b) were Srila

Prabhupada's own explicit instructions.

 

In fact, from the May 28 conversation Srila Prabhupada's desire is clear.

 

In fact, the ritvikvadis themselves claim that the evidence of one word

henceforward is enough to over-rule everything Srila Prabhupada had taught

his disciples so far, including his very clear instructions in the May 28

conversation."

----------

-------------------

 

As we have pointed out previously the GBC have:

 

* Offered at least four different transcripts (five if you include the

Lilamrta) of this very same conversation.

* Given at least four different contradictory interpretations of this same

identical 'clear' evidence.

* Through their own investigative expert (Perle) rendered the tape

inadmissible as evidence.

 

Thus it is some cold comfort to be told that this taped evidence gives

'clear' and 'explicit' support to the GBC's disbanding of the ritvik system

and the resultant M.A.S.S. Indeed this is now the only evidence on offer,

which apparently allows the GBC to blithely disregard the conclusions of

T.F.O. If this evidence so clearly supports the M.A.S.S. one might ask how

it was that the entire GBC operated the bogus zonal acarya system for so

many years, driving away many dissenters in the process? 'Clear' and

'explicit' are not adjectives, which immediately spring to mind when reading

the following extract from H.G. Ravindra Svarupa's paper:

 

"Many Devotees have spent many hard hours studying this sometimes

frustrating and baffling conversation. The parties at times seem at

cross-purposes, and pronouns without clear referent abound"

('Under My Order, H.G. Ravindra Svarupa prabhu, 1985)

 

How can something be 'clear' and 'baffling' at the same time?

 

It is ironic that in his role as chairman of the ISKCON protection ministry

(if he still is), Ravindra Svarupa is contradicted by a paper that should be

supporting him.

 

It should also be pointed out that the author of the 'Rebuttal' paper later

uses a transcript of the tape that differs in two key places from the one

used by Ravindra Svarupa in his above mentioned paper. In 'Under My Order'

H.G Ravindra Svarupa uses a transcript which he claims was 'checked and

corrected by Jayadvaita Swami', and was never challenged at the time or

subsequently. We noticed that later on the GBC simply changed the transcript

to better serve the distorted interpretation they wanted to squeeze out of

this brief exchange of words.

 

'Under My Order' has the lines:

 

"So on my behalf. On My Order, amara ajnaya guru hana, he is actually guru.

But by my order."

 

The GBC approved author has now changed this to:

 

"So on my behalf, on my order... Amara ajnaya guru hana. Be actually guru,

but by my order."

 

Above we see significant changes to words and punctuation.

 

'Under My Order' has the lines:

 

"Who is initiating. His grand-disciples."

 

The GBC approved author has changed this to:

 

"Who is initiating. He is grand-disciple."

 

This is highly significant. It demonstrates that deliberate cheating is

being perpetrated by some of the most senior devotees in the movement, even

as we write. How such persons think they can get away with this flagrant

mendacity beggars belief, especially given the enormous spotlight currently

illuminating this entire issue. It also shows that Ravindra Svarupa prabhu,

at least at one time, accepted that Srila Prabhupada was speaking in the 3rd

person, since how is it possible for a ritvik to initiate his own

grand-disciple- 'Who is initiating. His grand-disciples'. When we asserted

that Srila Prabhupada was doing this in T.F.O. the GBC ridiculed us in DOMD,

and yet how else can the conversation be made sense of? Of course it can

not, and that is why the GBC's sympathisers are dishonestly presenting

falsified transcripts to back up their allegedly falsified (according to

their own report) tape. What a mess!

 

For the whole of Krishnakant's rebuttal, click on

http://www.iskconirm.com/jahnu_pointless_point_for_point.htm

[Guest guest]

I wrote:

 

> You just should not publish such information in a magazine.

 

Mark replied:

 

> If someone is a thief then people should be warned he is a thief!

> Famous words! Dont ever forget them!

 

And Krishna Priya replied to Mark:

 

> That is it exactly. That is exactly what BTP is doing and being so

> unpopular with these people, who would rather see the perpetuated crime in

> Iskcon, swept and swept under the carpets and individuals kept on

> pedestals.......

 

Okay, inform the people that he is a thief. But don't do this in a magazine

with "Prabhupada" written in big letters on the front page! (If you do this,

the people will connect "Prabhupada" with "thief".)

 

Did you now get the point?

 

ys Ramakanta dasa