Ramesvara dasa 
bogus ex Isk_con-guru mafiosi
linked to the murder of Sulochana Das

PADA Newsletter Apr. 10, 2000


Some devotees suspected that "the pure as Jesus guru," Ramesvara, was involved in the murder of Sulochana for a number of reasons.

Ramesvara Swami aka Robert Grant
ex swami bogus guru, cheater and crook

The main reason was that he had a lot to hide. For example, he was dating a young, actually minor-aged girl named Rukmini. He would go to the Santa Monica high school and pick her up after school for "dates." He was alleged to be taking her to the cinema, Italian restaurants, the mall, and so on, for these "dates."

A devotee named Vadiraja also noted that while he was waiting for three hours to talk to Ramesvara, all of the temple's young girls were going in and out of his office to speak with "their guru." He said that Ramesvara had a .45 caliber gun right next to his seat, hidden from view, but that Vadiraja had seen it once when Ramesvara was off guard. Why would a guru keep a gun right next to him in his office? Ramesvara was also allegedly participating in the local gym club's "aerobic dance class" in the morning, mostly filled with young ladies dressed in skin-hugging exercise tights. Some devotees joked that this was his morning "jiggling meditation."

For his "dating a young girl" Ramesvara had apparently become a de facto pedophile, and he was compared to Kirtanananda. Ramesvara had also allegedly been taking money from the sales of drugs and drug related items, which he did not want to have investigated as Sulochana wanted to. Ramesvara was living like a millionaire business executive which means he was actually siphoning off the society's funds for himself. In other word, Ramesvara had a lot to hide and he was not pleased with the expose style of Sulochana. If Kirtanananda was exposed, there might be a domino effect, more gurus could be investigated. Even Hansadutta's siphoning the society's funds for his extravaganzas could be investigated, and that is why he backed Kirtanananda. So, they all had something to hide, and therefore Sulochana was their common enemy.

Exactly like Hansadutta, Kirtanananda, Jayapataka, Harikesha and others, Ramesvara also had a crew of mean looking, violent "enforcers." His "enforcers" would "patrol" the Los Angeles temple neighborhood where they were brow-beating, harassing, intimidating, threatening, if not beating dissenters. He simply could not let one of these dissenters "get away with" as much as Sulochana was. Perhaps the other dissenters would get more bold if Sulochana was not checked?

Ramesvara's thugs would do things like --go to a "dissenter's" door in the middle of the night to pound on it with aluminum baseball bats, to scare dissenters into "absolute submission to the guru." Even teeny babies and small children were terrorized by this tactic. Yet, who cared as long as the guru was able to continue dating his young female student? "The purity must be preserved at all costs"! There were a host of other diabolical tactics that Ramesvara's violent thugs used to keep dissenters in line such as slashing the tires on their cars, placing sugar in their gas tanks, breaking the windows on their cars, and just creating a violent, malevolent, malefic, death threatening atmosphere around the temples to keep the "doubters" in check.

A couple of Ramesvara's men had huge muscles and tattoos, and they looked like they had just got out of San Quentin prison. I recall that later, in 1998, one of these same muscle bound tattoo thugs came up and yelled at me for playing a harmonium in the temple, but by this time their spell had been more or less broken. One little devotee came up and chased away the muscle man with a broom. Being so much exasperated at the humiliation, he left the community. So their powers are dwindling now, but in 1986, they were at their peak.

Of course, by encouraging these criminal moods and actions, this naturally attracted a class of violent, perverse, if not demented criminals who enjoyed indulging in these odious behaviors. To sum, good people were being scared away and bad people were being welcomed and then given "posts of authority" such as "temple commander, temple enforcer" and so on. Therefore, in addition to criminal thug types, a wave of homosexuals; child molesters; women beaters and abusers; psychotic, mentally disturbed types; and similar other low-life characters began to emerge as a more prominent class amongst "Ramesvara's loyal devotees" and ISKCON members in general.

Even in 1998 the remnants of Ramesvara's temple thugs slashed all of the tires and broke out the windows of a "dissenter's" car as I personally witnessed. In sum, there is still, to this day (the year 2000) a constant patrol of violent looking, angry, sneering, scowling, vulture staring "enforcers" in the front of the Los Angeles temple, since Ramesvara's trained-up remnant clones are still in charge there today. When I would come out on the street they would do "the coyote walk" around me. That means three or four of them would start to circle me in a menacing way. Even the Los Angeles police picked up on this. They saw me on my bike one day and said, "Hey you, get around the corner. Get out of here! Can't you see that these people want to clobber you? We are going to watch until you are around the corner."

Anyway, in 1986 Ramesvara had a vested interest in keeping dissenters under control. Another reason he had to help check Sulochana is that he had to be loyal to the other violent thugs, perverts and molesters posing as gurus. If he did not help them curb Sulochana, they might not help him cover up his "dating of Rukmini" problem. The deviant "gurus" had to stick together. They were under attack, and thus even bringing Hansadutta back in some capacity, reinstating the pedophile Bhavananda, and whatever else it took, was acceptable. The crooks had to show solidarity now. The homosexual pedophile guru brotherhood had to show the world that they were still in charge.

Subject:  Ramesvara dasa
Date:      19.04.99,00:57:15
From:     angel108b@yahoo.com


For example the "guru": Ramesvara dasa. He was caught on numerous occasions
"dating," especially, one of his 15-year-old female disciples. Every day these young girls would come to his window and sing prayers in his praise. He would swim with all of his young girl students, he being the only male in the pool area. He dated one of his young girl "students" in movie theaters, Italian restaurants, etc. He used to talk to each of the girls, in his private office, even placing the girls on his lap, for hours and hours on end. He went out to buy his young "spiritual daughter" leather mini-skirts. He was also reported to be going to "aerobic exorcise classes" where young ladies were jumping up and down wearing skin-tight leotards. One of his ex-body guards told us that he would go out on dates with his "spiritual daughter" at two o' clock in the morning. Yet many of his followers did not think any of this was wrong, due to the fanatical preaching that "the guru can do no wrong" from the GBC.

SO WHAT? We recently asked one of Ramesvara's former disciples about the molestation of children all over ISKCON due to the influence and policies of these molester "gurus" (or de facto molester gurus like Ramesvara) and he said (angrily), "So what, who are you to criticize?" And this has been the attitude of the blind followers of the enforced worship of deviants and pedophiles for the past 20 years. Yes, who cares that homosexuals and pedophiles are being worshipped as good as God and they have been forming molester nests, and as a result: children have been molested? "You have no authority to challenge our wonderful pure molester guru empire? We are God's living spokespersons, and so, who are you"?

HISTORICAL "OPPRESSOR'S PARALLEL." Of course Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot and Kamsa of yore, they all would say, "so what?" to their critics. And as usual the above mentioned ex-follower of Ramesvara was very angry and vehement, as this type of fanatic has been for the past 20 years. That is why the molestation went on to the extent that is has.

The GBC's pedophile lineage has many such sub-violent vociferous supporters and enforcers. No questions are allowed, not now, nor have they been for the past 20 years. Yes, "who?" is anyone to "question" the GBC's enforced cult ritualistic worship of pedophiles, or their de facto pedophile "gurus" like Ramesvara, a regime which has been molesting children left, right and center? Indeed "so what" is their common reply? And Ramesvara is alleged to have arranged the assassination of Sulochana dasa, a critic of the molester guru regime. Again, so what? Yes, we ban people, yes we beat people, yes we molest people, yes we kill people, so what? So what? So what if we have no feelings for our victims like a normal human being. Yes our party can molest, ban, beat, and kill, and then we have a good laugh at our victims (as demons have done for centuries in the name of God?).

WOMAN THREATENED. According to Sulochana dasa, when a woman tried to investigate child molestation in the Los Angeles school, Ramesvara called her up and warned that she might be in danger if she kept up her investigation.

WATCHDOG? Other GBCs were told about potential abuse and molestation in Los Angeles. But they said that Ramesvara would control it. Yes, the man who is dating a fourteen-year-old girl should be placed in charge of investigating similar cases! And this blatant misbehavior went on "for years." He was eventually removed from his post, not for sexual deviation, but for misusing funds.

MURDER LINK. Ramesvara had said, "Sulochana needed to get a new body," i.e. he needed to be murdered. He even asked one of his followers to assassinate him. To date, the GBC has never investigated this and demanded criminal murder conspiracy charges (and so on and so forth).

Quote: "Rameshwara: (Robert Grant) soon to gift "leather miniskirts" to 15 year old statutory rape girlfriend, Sankritan "prostitution parties", is co-partner in Laguna Beach Drug dealing, helping in the murder of Sulochana"

Bhakta George: this I think is true. I spoke with one of the witnesses who helped put Kirtananda away. This devotee lived at the L.A. temple at the time and was approached by Kirtananadas goons, they requesting of him to help them find a place to bury the body of Solucana after the had commited the murder. This devotee informed Rameswara of this but he seemed already conversant with the plans to kill Solucana and told this devotee that it would be a good time for Sulocana to get another body when this devotee asked Rameswara if he should assist the murderers. This devotee testified at three trials to the truth of all this and is a personal friend. I have no doubt that Rameswara knew and approved of the plans to murder Sulocana.

Concerning Ramesvara: I recall one day speaking with Ramesvar and I think Janaka Rishi was the one Ramesvar was speaking with. They were talking about a brahmacari - a disciple of Ramesvar - who was having difficulty and had been begging and pleading with Janaka and others to please let him speak with Ramesvar - his guru. He was having difficulty and wanted his help. Ramesvar remarked to Janaka - He doesn't even make enough on "sankirtan" to pay for his room and board. I don't have time for such useless disciples. I am not his mommy, if he has problems and can't stay, let him go back to his mommy and let her take care of him". Even Janaka was taken back by that attitude.

I heard that Ramesvara was told by the FBI that if he didn’t give up his leadership position in ISKCON, he would be prosecuted as a co-conspirator in the murder of Sulocana Prabhu. Ask him whether or not this is true, if you dare. Look him right in the eye. Then you might be able to tell whether or not he is lying.


I realize it could have been faked on Ramesvar's part, but, after the GBC meetings in March 78 when the gbc decided, and declared to one and all, that the 11 were now the new Acharya's of our movement, Ramesvar openly admitted that he did not consider himself Qualified to be Guru. He openly said that 'Maybe in 10 years, but not now, I know i am not qualified'. I don't know if you, NaraNarayan heard him speak like this, But i did. He was standing on the steps of the LA temple and was openly telling his god brothers he was not ready to take the responsibility of Guru. I recall that Ramesvar's initial reluctance caused some discussions among the GBC and word came that Ramesvar had to take it up, as his duty to SP. Then Danavir made this big push - that it was SP's Order, and that this was the decision of the GBC. His first push was with Ramesvar, to make him accept his 'so called' "duty". And Ramesvar relented. Then Danavir made the push and called a meeting of all SP's disciples in LA and told us, as you said, that like SP's god brothers who were envious and could not see SP as pure devotee, we all will not be able to see those 11 god brothers as pure, but, their disciples will, and so Danavir told us that it was now our service, our duty, to not speak about their faults, because they were only faults in our eyes, but not to their disciples. We were to only glorify their good qualities to the new members so that they will be able to accept them as their guru. This, we were told, was not our duty to do this for SP.

I recall that was the first time in my life that I actually got, physically, a bad taste in my mouth. We were being told to throw Honesty out the door. That our personal realizations no longer had any validity. That my realization that these men were not qualified, even if my conclusion was based on the realization and application of the teachings of Guru Sadhu Shastra, that my realizations now meant nothing, Worthless as dirt. I no longer had any right to speak out honestly based on my realizations. I had to suppress my own conclusions, and worse even, i had to perpetuate something that in my own heart i knew was wrong. I was being told to now tell new comers that these men were pure devotees, even though my own personal realizations told me they were not. Personally, based on my own realizations, I knew Ramesvar was not qualified, but I was told that I had to become dishonest, dis-genuine, and LIE to the newer members, and tell them things i knew were untrue. And, if I didn't, then there was no longer a place for me in ISKCON. It was a very dark time. Everything that was going down was WRONG. Those who stood up and complained were unceremoniously shown the exit door. I stayed because I had my services to do for SP. It was not easy to stay.

As far as this idea that SP's god brothers did not see him as pure, a few could see. While most were envious, that is true, when they spoke out, it was obvious to someone with some degree of realization that they were envious and were not speaking based on shastra. Most of them would say, in words or actions, that SP was just the foot soldier, he went to the West and taught us the basics, but, now they will teach us the Higher levels of KC. Their motive was not to protect us from accepting someone they felt was a neophyte and unqualified, but their motive was to trick us in leaving SP and accepting them as our guru. Their motive was self-serving. In our case, we had no desire to take any one as our own follower, we had no self-serving motive, our concern was that these men were not qualified and thus no one should accept them as such. To glorify someone who is not worthy is also an offense. It misleads those who then accept that person as being able to deliver them Back Home BTG, when in fact, they were not at all qualified to do so. In the case of SP's God brothers, they were Envious and self-serving in our case, we simply wanted to be able to openly express our honest realizations in order to help others. But, our honest views and realization were suppressed and declared as worthless as dirt.

And if we dared to speak out and tell others our honest views, then we were labeled envious, deviants, fallen rascals and worse... The problem since 1978 has been that Honesty and Truthfulness have been thrown out and suppressed. Those Prabhupad disciples who tried to express their honest realizations were caste out and suppressed. That is the real cause of all the problems since.... In ISKCON truthfulness in this regard is not allowed. If we told new comers in 1978 NOT to accept those 11 men as guru, we would be kicked out on our ears. If we speak out today and say that these 80-120 men are not qualified to give diksha, we will also be told to leave the temples. In the case of SP's godbrothers, out of enviousness they said SP was not as elevated as they were, and that by following him we could only go so far, but to go become a Gopi and directly serve Radha and Krsna, we needed their Higher guidance, that is enviousness and self-serving. We are not telling people don't accept Vaisaseka (sp?), accept me because I am more qualified then him, we are saying, don't accept him because he and the other 120 rubber stamped men are not qualified, period. But, our honest realizations are worth less then dirt. Honest opinions by many of SP's disciples are considered less then dirt, because the GBC have rubber stamped these men, they are now qualified and any one who says they are not, he is dirt and should be treated as dirt. Honesty and Truthfullness has been kicked out.

ys ameya

Ramesvara was NEVER a BBT Trustee

by Hansadutta das

In response to “A Reply to Rupanuga’s Article” by RAMESVARA DASA, published on Mar 23, 2013 — NEW YORK, USA by Sampradaya Sun —

Hansadutta 2006 at AirportIf Rameswara was ever a BBT Trustee, then when I was in litigation with ISKCON / BBT International, Inc. (the bogus BBT that illegally converted the assets of Prabhupasda’s trust into their “For profit” corporation BBT International, Inc.), why when they attempted to bring Rameswara for testimony as an expert witness, claiming he had credentials as a legally appointed BBT for-life Trustee by Srila Prabhupada, he (Rameswara) could produce no legally acceptable BBT document supporting his claim as a legal BBT Trustee? And none have been produced since that time, about 15 years to date.

The court found that he had no standing, no position as a BBT Trustee legally appointed by the trust, filed by Srila Prabhupada, or added since the original filing. Rameswara was subsequently DISMISSED BY THE COURT and excluded from testifying in that case.

Comment by Das:
Ramesvara operated BBT as ISKCON dba “BBT”, meaning BBT was a registered fictitious business name for ISKCON. If that’s not a shell, then what is? We also have to thank Ramesvara for publishing the first revised Bhagavad-gita As It Is, while he boycotted Hansadutta’s reprinting of the 1972 MacMillan edition. And not only was Ramesvara not a BBT trustee, he also proved not to be so “lily white”. He knows better than anyone that he was never guru material. So what does he have to say about Srila Prabhupada’s instructions with regard to initiating? I’m referring to the July 9th, 1977 directive. Or does Ramesvara harbor an ambition to get back into the ISKCON guru club?

Comment by Ramesvara das:
Here is one of many examples: Srila Prabhupada wrote a letter to me dated May 26, 1976. In the last paragraph His Divine Grace wrote: “I am sending a copy of this letter to Jayatirtha and Bhagavan to discuss this matter. Since you are all BBT Trustees, you can discuss and come up with some idea how this can be done. I hope this meets you in good health. Your ever well wisher, A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami”
I suppose this was just Prabhupada giving us “honorary titles”?
I beg to remain your aspiring servant,
Ramesvara dasa


Just what was Ramesvara’s Role?

by Hansadutta das

The following is a repost from harekrishnamalaysia.com/KRSNAinsight: How ISKCON bypassed the BBT

How ISKCON bypassed the BBT

In your post “Copyrights Transferred to the BBTI?”, published up on the Sampradaya Sun, you’ve understood correctly that BBTI is not the same as Prabhupada’s BBT. BBTI (Bhaktivedanta Book Trust International, Inc.) is a California corporation (non-profit) that was registered in 1988, in a deliberate attempt to bypass the legal trust.

Immediately thereafter, ISKCON GBC voted to assign the copyrights from BBT to BBTI. However, they had no legal authority to do so, because Prabhupada gave express instructions in the trust document that ISKCON was to have no jurisdiction over the trust. more

Over at Rochan das’s Sampradaya Sun, Ramesvara has retorted to Brhatasloka’s statement that Ramesvara was instrumental in bypassing the BBT, operating a shell. Ramesvara claims that Srila Prabhupada made him trustee at Mayapur in 1976 after the marathon production of 17 volumes of Sri Chaitanya-charitamrita. He also suggests that Hansadutta had nothing to do with BBT after 1975, that he himself was running the entire BBT operations in North America, and that Hansadutta had no part in the conversations that Ramesvara had with Srila Prabhupada pertaining to the BBT structure and accounts. Read Ramesvara’s article.

When ISKCON and BBT International, Inc. brought the courtcase against Hansadutta and Srila Prabhupada’s BBT, Ramesvara could not produce any document showing his appointment as trustee, and so the court excluded him from giving testimony. The court found that he had no legal standing to claim that he was a trustee. Whether Srila Prabhupada named him a trustee or not, without the formal resolution on record, he was never a legal trustee. This, from Hansadutta.

A little history…

In 1972, Srila Prabhupada formulated the California trust named “Bhaktivedanta Book Trust”, with himself as Settlor and Karandhar das and Bali Mardana das named as trustees. The trust agreement allows for no more than 5 trustees at any time, and furthermore states:

[cited, III. Purpose of Trust, Paragraph 1] -

This trust shall exist independently of the International Society for Krishna Consciousness and the Trustees’ functions and duties stated herein shall be separate and not dependent on the Governing Body Commission of the International Society for Krishna Consciousness.

In 1974, Srila Prabhupada named Hansadutta das as BBT trustee with the following resolution:


The written resignation of Kelly Gifford Smith (Karandhara das Adhikari) is hereby accepted by the trustees of the Bhaktivedanta Book Trust.

Hans Kary (Hamsaduta das Adhikari) is hereby appointed as a Bhaktivedanta Book Trust trustee to replace Kelly Smith.

Resolved this 15th day of September, 1974;
A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami [signature appears on original]
William Berke (Bali Mardan das Adhikari)

Ramesvara claims his appointment as BBT trustee was handed to him publicly at Mayapur festival, 1976. If so, there should be witnesses who can back him up. There is no mention of Srila Prabhupada addressing him as BBT trustee in the letters from Srila Prabhupada on microfiche or VedaBase, but Ramesvara did sign letters between himself and Srila Prabhupada’s secretaries or GBCs as BBT trustee from 1976 on, so perhaps Prabhupada might have called him trustee, like an honorary title. Certainly he was pleased with Ramesvara’s management of the BBT operations in North America. Ramesvara also claims that Hrdayananda, Bhagavan, and Harikesa were appointed BBT trustees by letter. Again, there is no record of any such letter of appointment or BBT resolution in the VedaBase. There does seem to have been confusion between the Indian BBT (a publishing trust) and the California BBT and what was referred to as the “international BBT”, with any number of devotees being called trustees. A letter from Srila Prabhupada dated 26 May, 1976, addressed to Ramesvara alludes to Ramesvara, Jayatirtha and Bhagavan as all being BBT trustees. By 1977, Tamal Krsna Gosvami is also calling himself a BBT trustee. However, Srila Prabhupada was meticulous in his dealings, particularly when it came to legal matters, and the fact that the trust agreement limited the number of trustees to just five (5) at any one time meant that not all these persons who were called trustees could have been trustees of the California BBT. There is no record of any BBT resolution noticing the resignation or removal of any trustees except for Karandhar das. That means up until Srila Prabhupada’s departure, the legal trustees of the California BBT were Srila Prabhupada, Bali Mardana das, Hansadutta das and possibly two others at most. So was Ramesvara BBT trustee? Was Bhagavan trustee? Was Jayatirtha trustee? Was Harikesa trustee? Was Tamal Krsna Gosvami trustee? Not possible that all these persons were trustees of the California BBT.

The confusion carried forward even after the incorporation of Bhaktivedanta Book Trust International, Inc. in 1988, when the GBC appointed “trustees”, who were in fact not trustees, because the BBTI, Inc. was not a trust at all, but a corporation, and they were not even the directors of the corporation. So evidently a number of persons were loosely called trustees, and given some kind of portfolio, but in fact had no legal status as trustees.

If Ramesvara’s claim is true, why did the court say he had no legal standing in the courtcase brought by ISKCON and BBTI against Hansadutta back in 1998? ISKCON and BBTI claimed that the BBT was not a valid trust, that the trustees were not legal trustees of the BBT, that the BBT did not own the copyrights to Prabhupada’s books, and that Prabhupada himself never owned the copyrights to his books because he was only a hired worker of ISKCON? Where was Ramesvara the BBT trustee when all that happened? He could not produce any documentation showing his appointment as trustee, and so the court excluded his testimony. This means that as far as the law is concerned, Ramesvara was never a legal trustee.

Then we get to the part where Ramesvara asserts that he alone was running the BBT. Ramesvara refers to a letter from Srila Prabhupada to Hansadutta, dated 8 December, 1974, wherein Srila Prabhupada rejects the proposal of organizing an umbrella corporation with BBT as satellite of ISKCON. Ramesvara suggests that after this letter, Hansadutta was no longer consulted on BBT matters, and that he became redundant. However, letters from Srila Prabhupada to Hansadutta since that date point to Hansadutta’s continuing role as BBT trustee.

This particular letter from Prabhupada does raise a question, though: Was this perhaps the origin of the ISKCON dba BBT? Srila Prabhupada instructs that ISKCON LA should act as agent of BBT India, with monies going in and out of the ISKCON LA account instead of creating a separate BBT account, and so as to keep BBT legally separate and safe in case ISKCON should go into liquidation. At some point Ramesvara operated BBT under the fictitious business name BBT, but in fact it was just another name for ISKCON of America or ISKCON of Los Angeles. We would like to hear explanation from Ramesvara how he did operate the BBT accounts and how it came to be that BBT was registered as a dba, or fictitious business name.

In a letter dated 29 July 1975, Srila Prabhupada wrote to Hansadutta das:

You can send the new German publications to New York. I am going to New Vrindaban on August 20th. I am glad you are selling the books nicely there in Germany. Therefore I have elected you BBT Trustee. Sometimes you should come to L.A. to see the BBT affairs. Ramesvara and Jayatirtha they are doing it, but still sometimes you may come and check. Sometimes you may come and sometimes Bhagavan das may come.

Ramesvara says that Hansadutta did not have a hand in management of North American BBT at any time from 1975 onwards. That doesn’t mean he was not acting BBT trustee; he took his orders from Srila Prabhupada, and wherever he was located, continued to act as GBC and BBT trustee.

After Srila Prabhupada departed from this world, GBC assigned Hansadutta to the zone covering Northern California, Oregon and Washington, and so in 1978, Hansadutta found himself in Berkeley, California, just up the road from Ramesvara in LA.

At once, Hansadutta cleaned house, and put an end to the prostitution of the Berkeley women’s party (Jiva’s girls). He got most of the Berkeley brahmacharinis married off. The women’s party was practically disbanded, which resulted in sudden considerable loss of revenue flowing into Ramesvara’s hands. I personally witnessed Ramesvara’s tirade to these sankirtan women in a tent at the LA Rathyatra in 1979. He was furious, and made strong objection, saying “What right does Hansadutta have?”, and referred to a BBT debt that Berkeley must pay nevertheless. Ramesvara tried to direct the women to continue to go out on sankirtan because the BBT depended upon their collections, and said that they should answer to him and not Hansadutta, because he (Ramesvara) was the BBT. King of the hill.

Was perhaps Ramesvara just a little threatened by the proximity and influence of Hansadutta, the BBT trustee? One might have expected Ramesvara to cooperate with Hansadutta, acknowledging that he was a senior BBT trustee and senior devotee. Instead, Ramesvara took steps to thwart Hansadutta’s involvement with BBT.

1980 – 1981. Meanwhile, behavior inconsistent with that expected of pure devotees was cropping up amongst some of the new gurus, and lent credence to Hansadutta’s open acknowledgement that he was not an infallible and perfect pure devotee, adding to the dissonent voices already questioning the appointments and qualifications of the elite 11 – a crack in the dam that the new gurus had to fix.

The movement also encountered legal challenges on the preaching front, and the media had picked up on shifty tactics employed by some sankirtan devotees, cheating people of their money. Hansadutta went on TV and called for the cessation of the change-up trickery and prostitution of the women devotees, and introduced a plan for “contract sales” of Srila Prabhupada’s books, in which Srila Prabhupada’s books could be sold to families in affordable library collections or sets, like Encyclopaedia Britannica, under similar terms, accepting a deposit and payment by installments. But Ramesvara became incensed at Hansadutta’s public denouncement of the methods of his leading collectors.

Sometime before August, 1980, the GBC held court in LA to discipline Jayatirtha, Tamal and Hansadutta. Hansadutta was sent off to Vrindavan and prohibited from making contact with his disciples and initiating, and Ramesvara and Hrdayananda came to Berkeley in turns to manage. During their brief stint they bankrupted the Berkeley center. They emptied the coffers, sold one of the properties, and finished the stocks of books with a “free distribution” program (Ramesvara’s brainchild), and ran the place into debt. Many devotees left. The older Prabhupada disciples were first to go, then the new disciples. In Berkeley, where there had been 70 devotees under Hansadutta, there remained fewer than 25 under Ramesvara and Hrdayananda.

From Vrindaban, Hansadutta wrote in a letter, dated 25 August, 1980 to Yudhamanyu, Radha Govinda, Rahugana and Devananda:

The Gurus were trying to present themselves to the body of ISKCON as being Pure devotees, infallible and perfect. However, as you know I would not and could not act that part. This was a fly in their ointment, so first chance they got, they removed me, but on what grounds? What have I done? I never said or tried to play the part of being perfect. Whatever I was doing in N.W. zone was never a secret to my devotees. I did not try to hide my shortcomings, no one felt that I was forcing them to worship me. But all along they (Hridayananda and Rameswara) are trying to make some big secret thing out of my activities. But I have nothing to hide, even the diary, I wanted that the devotees should see it, and then if they think I am a demon they can leave me or whatever they want to do, they are free. But these two men, Rameswara and Hridayananda, would not allow me, just so they could use it again and again to keep the devotees in fear and confusion.

A handful of Hansadutta’s men rallied to call him back from India, and reinstated him in Berkeley. By that time, Berkeley was in serious financial trouble. Hansadutta regrouped his men and fired them up to go out on sankirtan to save the situation.

In December, 1980, at the Pyramid House in Topanga Canyon, Tamal Krsna Gosvami confessed:

Prabhupada never appointed any gurus. He did not appoint eleven gurus. He appointed eleven rittviks. He never appointed them as gurus. Myself and the other GBC have done the greatest disservice to this movement for the last three years, because we interpreted the appointment of rittviks as the appointment of gurus…

Hansadutta reported all of this to his disciples in Berkeley and admitted his own inadequacy, how he was not qualified, and directed everyone to worship Prabhupada, to regard Prabhupada as their guru. Ramesvara also gave up sitting on his vyasasan for a time. Afterwards, Tamal retracted his words, and Ramesvara resumed sitting on the vyasasan. But Hansadutta pushed the devotees in his zone to help him print Srila Prabhupada’s books and get the contract sales program off the ground.

At this time he initiated the publication of three editions of Bhagavad-gita As It Is: vinyl cover & Bible paper, paper cover and hard cover. It deserves mention here that this printing of Bhagavad-gita As It Is was the first printing of the original MacMillan’s edition (1972) by BBT upon the termination of the copyright license agreement with MacMillan’s.

In the meantime, Hansadutta had simultaneously launched an ambitious undertaking to publish the 30-volume sets of Srimad-Bhagavatam. Along with the 30-volume Bhagavatam, he also printed Golden Avatar (Teachings of Lord Chaitanya), and the one-volume Srimad-Bhagavatam and one-volume Chaitanya-charitamrita. Besides these major books, also he printed a Chinese Gita and a number of other books in Chinese, Tamil and English for distribution mainly in Singapore, Malaysia, Taiwan and Philippines.

The Berkeley sankirtan collection was divided between paying off Berkeley temple’s debts and the printing of the books under Hansadutta’s direction. Money for the publication came exclusively from sankirtan collections in Hansadutta’s zone. Although Ramesvara had promised that all the money remitted to BBT from Hansadutta’s zone would go towards printing for the contract sales program, he did not follow through, and ultimately blocked the program. Moreover, Ramesvara adamantly insisted that the Berkeley Temple still owed a debt to the BBT. Hansadutta disputed the amount owed to BBT, and getting no cooperation from Ramesvara, channeled the money to his own BBT printing.

In a letter dated June 6, 1981, Ramesvara requests Jayatirtha’s help to come up with a definition of a BBT Trustee:

Regarding the definition of a BBT Trustee, my original idea was to clarify the trustee’s position, as we did with the GBC member’s position, so his autonomy, responsibility, who his authority is, etc. was clear. Since everyone has to be responsible to someone and those guidelines and definitions must be clear to avoid problems in the future I felt it would be valuable.

He goes on to cite passages from the Direction of Management and Bhaktivedanta Book Trust Agreement. Then he says:

From these statements of Srila Prabhupada it is clear that the Trustees’ powers and position is limited, and in the absence of Srila Prabhupada’s physical vapu, we have to have some checks and balances. That brings up the difficult question of defining the relationship between the individual Trustees and the International BBT Trustees’ Board which meets each year at Mayapur.


There are other letters from Prabhupada to various Trustees, especially to me, defining what they can and cannot loan BBT money for, etc. But that is secondary, although very important, to the basic task given to us of defining what is a BBT Trustee.

Moreover, with butter and honey:

Since you are expert at these transcendental definitions, having authored most of the ones the GBC has, and since the matter of the relationship between the individual Trustees and the Trustees’ Board is very necessary and delicate, I leave the matter to you to prepare a rough draft. While the individual members don’t derive their authority from the Board, some at least were appointed by the Board, and must answer to the Board at least on some matters. Plus the Board must have some authority to review the operations of the individual Trustees, to have any hope for a system of checks and balances, which Prabhupada obviously intended when he originally created only one BBT, with various Trustees, who would all see financial reports of the one BBT.

What does Ramesvara mean here, when he refers to a “Trustee’s Board” and some trustees being appointed by the Trustee’s Board, and furthermore when he says “when [Prabhupada] originally created only one BBT”? Is he alluding to the existence of more than one BBT? We want to ask Ramesvara just how many BBTs were there. He is the one who created the first smokescreen, which led to the creation of the corporation that would serve to bypass Srila Prabhupada’s trust.

1982. Hansadutta’s three editions of Bhagavad-gita As It Is came off the press in time to be presented at the Mayapur festival in 1982. Bhima das had set up a table in Mayapur at the Gaura Purnima festival to exhibit the books, but then word came that the GBC had banned them. They were not allowed to distribute a single book there, and had to pack up the table, everything.

The 30-volume Bhagavatam, one-volume Bhagavatam and Golden Avatar came out later in 1982. The one-volume Chaitanya-charitamrita came out in 1984. But Ramesvara denounced the black covers as “demonic”, and refused to order them for temple distribution. The rest of ISKCON followed suit and boycotted the books.

Hansadutta’s vision of revolutionising book distribution bore fruit as the contract sales program got underway and reaped success through the efforts of the Berkeley sankirtan devotees, and devotees in Singapore and Malaysia. People were eagerly buying the sets – complete with Bhagavad-gita As It Is, 30-volume Srimad-Bhagavatam and Golden Avatara.

1983. Ramesvara published what was billed as BBT’s first printing of the Bhagavad-gita As It Is since the MacMillan edition, but it was the revised edition. Thus it was under Ramesvara’s watch that the BBT started printing the changed books.

The GBC cited Hansadutta for numerous transgressions, and named a special privilege committee to investigate the charges against him.

I have a copy of “Resolutions from the Special Meeting of the GBC Privilege Committee” dated May 31 – June 1, 1983 at New Vrindaban. Those who attended were Tamal, Harikesa, Kirtanananda, Satsvarupa, Jagadisha and Rupanuga.
Please note the following points pertaining to the BBT:

5. The P.C. has learned that the BBT in America is now operating, for legal purposes, as a corporation known as ISKCON of America, Inc. We resolve that only BBT Trustees should be the officers and Trustees of the ISKCON of America, Inc., and no others.

6. It should be firmly stated by the GBC of ISKCON that His Divine Grace A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada gave the rights to print his books directly and independently to each GBC Trustee for publishing in their respective languages and it does not depend on permission from the owner of the copyright. A written statement confirming the above should be given by the custodian of the English copyright (now held by ISKCON of California), so as to avoid any future legal entanglement due to legal judgments or other reasons.

7. As soon as possible, the BBT should be incorporated as a non-profit corporation.

8. The Minister of Legal Affairs (Balvanta Prabhu) should arrange to execute resolutions 5, 6 and 7.

9. The P.C. acknowledges the debt owed by Hansadutta Swami’s zone to the BBT, as claimed by the BBT. However, the P.C. resolves that Ramesvara Swami must find a Krsna conscious method of collecting this debt, without resorting to court

Please permit me to make some observations here. First of all, it is plain to see that they were confused about the legal identity of the BBT and the copyright ownership. The GBC Privilege Committee members believed BBT was operating as ISKCON of America, Inc., and that the copyrights were held in the custody of ISKCON of California, Inc. Secondly, they clearly were mistaken as to the identity of the BBT Trustees and the separation between the BBT Trustees and ISKCON as stipulated in the Trust Agreement. BBT matters do not come under the jurisdiction of ISKCON GBC at all. Thirdly, they recommended that the BBT be incorporated as a non-profit corporation, contradicting Srila Prabhupada’s own legal arrangement and ultimately his authority. Fourthly, Ramesvara’s status as legal BBT trustee is at question. Even if Srila Prabhupada called him a trustee, in legal fact he was not. And so, when in 1976 he represented himself as a BBT trustee in a letter assigning the BBT trademark to ISKCON of California, Inc, he did not have the legal authority to do so. Moreover, although Ramesvara was overseeing the jumbo operations of BBT in America, it was not his call to challenge Hansadutta’s authority to act as trustee in publishing books, nor was it his call to initiate a boycott of the publications, and in fact he should have been accountable to Hansadutta the BBT Trustee, not the other way around.

As for the disputed BBT debt, accounting submitted by Hanumat Presaka das (ACBSP) showed that whereas the Berkeley temple had funds amounting to some $200,000 at the time when Hansadutta was exiled to Vrindaban in 1980, by the time he returned the temple was IN DEBT to the amount of -$50,000. Ramesvara took the bank funds, and additionally took proceeds from the sale of a house belonging to the temple, helped himself to various temple equipments, took away and sold farm equipment, horses – all these things worth thousands and thousands of dollars – and diverted all sankirtan collection at the time to BBT, took a vehicle belonging to the temple, took from Hansadutta $150,000 dakshina monies and even at the airport took from Hansadutta the few dollars he had in his pocket! And yet Ramesvara still claimed that Berkeley temple had not satisfied its debt to the BBT.

Furthermore, Ramesvara and Hrdayananda deliberately set out to destroy the morale of the devotees, drove out Prabhupada’s men, and a large number of the new devotees as well, did not send any replacements, abandoned the farm project. Basically, they dismantled everything. So it is curious why the Privilege Committee did not instead direct Ramesvara to compensate the Berkeley temple and Hansadutta, but all that is beside the point here.

In a letter dated June 13, 1983, Hansadutta replied to the GBC Privilege Committee the following:

Regarding Rameswara and the BBT, it is my belief that Rameswara should not be able to solely operate the BBT and decide who are the trustees. We must always adhere to the original wishes of Srila Prabhupada and acknowledge the original trustees that he appointed to the BBT. Prabhupada had inconceivable spiritual knowledge and insight into the future of our organization, as well as full knowledge of the people he appointed to be trustees of the BBT. For any single devotee, at this point, to try to step into Prabhupada’s shoes before he is ready, and to try to appoint himself the chief trustee or overact any of Prabhupada’s instructions, is an immoral act against the whole society. Whomever
Prabhupada appointed as BBT trustees should remain trustees until a devotee with as great an insight as Prabhupada and able to prove himself as having such insight would then be able to overrule. If you minimize or take away this ruling of Srila Prabhupada, then you have to take away everything that Prabhupada ever said as wrong, because if we cannot believe entirely in Prabhupada with total trust, we can’t believe in him at all. Therefore, we must live up to the original instructions and arrangements of Srila Prabhupada, and no one man or one committee should be able to overrule him.

This same problem can be seen in the mundane example of the Constitution of the United States. All decisions in the courts must live up to the Constitution of the United States. And no court in the land can change the laws of the Constitution. Prabhupada promulgated the original constitution of ISKCON so that no one can be allowed to change any original decisions that Prabhupada made.

We must understand that Prabhupada really had the insight to know that ISKCON would come into difficulties in the future, and he definitely made his request, based on this insight, that the BBT should be a completely separate entity so that even if ISKCON fell, the publication and distribution of books would not be hurt. Based on these points, I seriously ask you to consider not changing the original wishes of Prabhupada regarding the BBT, its structure and function.

If you feel that you are stronger and more in knowledge than Prabhupada, then this means that all of the books and all of the teachings of Prabhupada are useless, because it implies that you feel Prabhupada didn’t know anything.

P.S. I might remind you that the original BBT document reads that there can never be more than five trustees, and that Prabhupada appointed me as one of them.

1984. Hansadutta was expelled from ISKCON. GBC resolutions as follows: –

MARCH 6,1984.
1. Resolved that Hansaduta Swami is hereby removed from his membership on the GBC, his position as BBT Trustee his position as an initiating guru. .He shall no longer be considered a Sannyasi. All ISKCON corporations are hereby advised that Hansaduta is no longer qualified to serve in any authoritative capacity relative to such corporations. All of Hansaduta’s disciples are directed to accept initiation from another ISKCON recognized guru.

Again, ISKCON GBC had no jurisdiction over BBT, and thus no legal authority to remove Hansadutta from the BBT trusteeship. Their pronouncement had as much bite as a raving lunatic shouting, “Let the Queen of England be deposed.”

1986. Ramesvara was caught out on a date with a 15-year-old disciple, and left the Society in disgrace.

1987. Incorporation of Bhaktivedanta Book Publishing, Inc. in the State of California.

1988. GBC Resolutions of February, 1988 that refer to BBT, as follows:

BBT Trustees. The GBC recommend that three of the current BBT Trustees resign and that five new trustees be added.

BBT Copyrights. The highly sensitive issue of what legal entity(ies) should ultimately hold the copyrights to Srila Prabhupada’s book was discussed at length, the issue was ultimately tabled until the new International BBT Trustees complete the reorganization process.

39. Since the BBT meeting on July 15 & 16, 1987 in Stockholm had an ambiguous and nondefinitive outcome, the GBC wishes the BBT to reconstitute itself. The present trustees, Harikesh Swami, Gopal Krsna Goswami, Tamal Krsna Goswami, Hrdayananda das Goswami and Jayapataka Swami, have voted to request the GBC to give them definitive guidance for consideration. Accordingly, the GBC asks that Jayapataka Swami, Hrdayananda das Goswami and Tamal Krsna Goswami to submit their resignations as International Trustees. However, before any resignations are accepted, the current trustees elect replacements and additions up to a total of seven, and place these names before the GBC for its blessings.

40. That the GBC direct its members, Indian and all other BBT trustees and management to follow the directives of the International BBT trustees regarding matters of International BBT concerns, such as the securing of copyrights to Srila Prabhupada’s books.

43. That the GBC gives its blessings to the plan conceived of by the current International BBT Trustees to replace the three resigning trustees with Sesa das, Isvara Swami and Naresvara das, under the condition that when they decide to add two additional trustees they again seek the blessings of the GBC Body at the annual meeting for these additional names.

72. That the four devotees present who were part of the former International BBT (Tamal Krsna Goswami, Gopal Krsna Goswami, Jayapataka Swami and Hrdayananda das Goswami) shall be requested to recommend an additional two persons to be part of the newly constituted International BBT. This resolution modifies Resolution #43 above.

73. That the local BBTs are requested to withhold transfer of copyrights to an International BBT, as under resolution #40 above, until a proper constitution and by-laws have been accepted by the GBC. The GBC Body appoints a committee of Gopal Krsna Goswami, Jayadwaita Swami, Hari Vilas, Sesa, Bhima and Sri Rama to study the issues involved and recommend a constitution and by-laws to the GBC body through correspondence vote.

74. That the GBC Body gives its blessings to Jayadwaita Swami and Hari Vilas das to be added to the International BBT Trustees, as per the recommendation of the four-man committee mentoned in Resolution #72 above.

And with the GBC stamp of approval, BBT International, Inc. was born:

October 12, 1988. Incorporation of Bhaktivedanta Book Trust International, Inc. in the State of California.

1989. Resolutions of the GBC AGM, March 1 – 16, 1989, Mayapur mention:

51. That all ISKCON devotees are hereby instructed to fully cooperate with the consolidation of rights to Srila Prabhupada’s works in the Bhaktivedanta Book Trust-International.

As you can see, there was a great mixup over the identity of the BBT, the BBT Trustees, the copyright ownership, and the few persons who knew anything cleverly took advantage of the others’ ignorance. But much came to light in the course of the court cases instigated by BBT International, Inc. and ISKCON against Bhima das in Singapore and later against Hansadutta das in California, in 1998.

ISKCON’s and BBT International, Inc. tried their best to perpetuate the illusions, going so far as to argue that Srila Prabhupada’s California trust had never been legally valid, and so there were no legitimate trustees, and certainly Hansadutta was not one of them, and moreover, the trust never owned the copyrights to Srila Prabhupada’s books, nor did Srila Prabhupada himself ever own the copyrights, because the books were “works for hire”, a legal term which translates to: Srila Prabhupada was the hired worker of ISKCON, who owned the books that Srila Prabhupada produced in exchange for giving him room and board, pen and pencil, etc. By that argument, Ramesvara certainly also was never a trustee.

So how does Ramesvara identify himself now? He says that Brhatasloka’s statement is an attack on his eternal relationship with Srila Prabhupada. But how did he serve Srila Prabhupada when he obstructed Hansadutta from acting as BBT trustee, when he boycotted the books Hansadutta printed, when he gutted the Berkeley temple, taking advantage of Hansadutta’s absence, and when he failed to administer to the devotees as a caretaker? How did he serve Srila Prabhupada when he printed the revised Bhagavad-gita As It Is, unlocking pandora’s box to allow Jayadvaita’s endless changes? How did he serve Srila Prabhupada when he was cavorting with a 15-year-old girl? We would rather remember Ramesvara for his extraordinary management of BBT North America, and not recall him for his machinations and pedophilia, but he is not humbled at all, and to this day would put down others, in particular Hansadutta, as if he alone was running the whole show. What a disgrace.



Chant Hare Krishna and be happy!

All glories to His Divine Grace A.C.Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada!