Dear folks, PAMHO. AGTSP.

[PADA is an online newsletter going out to over 1,000 devotees and Hindu's. Please let us know if you have comments, or if you are not interested. We try our best to keep our mailing list in order. Jai Srila Prabhupada!]

Please let us know if you wish to add other addresses or cancel your subscription. PADA also may or may not endorse all of the statements found in our featured letters.

ALSO the names of the GBC as well as accounts of their activities are sometimes unverified at this point, we are merely allowing readers to express their experiences, and we encourage others, including those named, to feedback. Comments / corrections on the history section are also encouraged..

PADA'S MOST WANTED LIST: Keep us apprised of the whereabouts of Jayapataka, Hridayananda, Bhakticharu and other GBC, thanks.

1) August 19, 1980 conversation with Sridhara Maharaja (SM)

DISCONNECTED GURUS?
RUSTY, GREEDY, ANGRY, ARROGANT GURUS?
DIGGING THEIR OWN GRAVES

GURU MARA VIDYA (They are killing Prabhupada/ "cutting Prabhupada's throat with a knife") SM: ... The old (Prabhupada's worship) must make room for the new (eleven gurus worship). August 19, 1980 conversation with Sridhara Maharaja

DISCONNECTED GURUS?

Sridhara Maharaja (SM): Yes, then (if the GBC's guru is disrespectful to the guru parampara) he is disconnected. I was telling that in the disciplic succession or the srota parampara (guru lineage), there are links, like the links of a chain. If one becomes offensive to the chain of links, if one becomes disconnected from the links, then that is the primary symptom and he (the GBC guru) has to be removed.

[PADA: This is the first major misconception of Sridhara Maharaja: that in the Gaudiya Vaishnava guru lineage (parampara) there are deviant members, or links, that are indeed "offensive" to the other members of the guru parampara? Yet, there is not one single such incident recorded in the entire 5,000 year history of the guru parampara (as is listed by Prabhupada in his Bhagavad Gita) where there is an "offensive" link? Where is there even one example of an "offensive" member of the lineage? Rather Prabhupada said it is wrong to consider that the "eternally pure guru parampara" is populated by "the offensive."

Of course a few months earlier, in June of 1980, one of the eleven gurus named Ramesvara had thought that since he was a defective conditioned soul, at best a layman, he was "being offensive" by accepting worship on the level of Jesus or Prabhupada according to the Governing Body and SM endorsed scheme existing at that time. Ramesvara argued in a famous letter that he had sent out to many ISKCON leaders that he and the other "ten gurus" or Governing Body members were at best priests and not gurus. Moreover, Ramesvara argued that the actual instruction from Prabhupada was that he and the other eleven are only priests (ritviks) or proxy agents for the guru, not full fledged initiating (diksha) gurus themselves. And so "the eleven gurus" were merely show bottle, pseudo and cheater gurus. Ramesvara pointed out at that time that Prabhupada abhorred such cheater gurus and as such "the eleven" artificial gurus were the antithesis of Prabhupada's instructions.

And so Ramesvara said in his letter that he wanted to leave his guru position and quit "being offensive." This alarmed SM very much. SM countered Ramesvara's letter in very emphatic terms that Ramesvara "must remain in his guru seat and continue to be worshipped as God's successor." In other words, even if there are such things as "God's successors" being "defective and offensive" (Jesus is really: Satanic?) and even if there are such things as "bad links" in the chain of God's successors, suppose that "the offensive successor to God" decides he wants to rectify himself and quit artificially posing as God's successor? Then -- SM, and of course his cohorts like Narayana Maharaja will vociferously oppose this as: blasphemy! When God's "gurus in His chain of successor links" drops into the sewage system, it has to stay there! Similarly when Jayatirtha was caught taking drugs and having illicit sex, SM said he too must stay in his guru seat.

And in December of 1980 when Tamal and Hansadutta were being removed as gurus by the Governing Body, it was again SM who stood up and said, "They have to stay in their guru seats." SM was among the first people to defend the false gurus, even when it was publicly revealed that they were deviating. And he would say the same thing repeatedly, "They have to stay in their guru seat." Indeed SM continued with this propaganda even when Hansadutta was having illicit sex and drugs problems in 1985, "Hansadutta must stay in his guru seat." Therefore, when SM says that a deviant guru has to be removed, he was only saying that to appease those who were asking, his real policy and agenda was to defend the worship of deviants as "Krishna's successor gurus."

Worse, SM's de facto successor, another deviant guru lineage apologist named Narayana Maharaja, cited in his recent "Guru Tattva" booklet that "there was nothing wrong" with SM's making a homosexual into a guru in 1936, and having this homosexual worshipped as "God's successor." Yet, that deviants are, were or could be gurus was never taught by Prabhupada. One side note item of interest is that SM, Narayana Maharaja, both BP and BV Puri Maharajas and so on, they all have supported the eleven guru system, i.e. that even homosexuals are or were gurus in the chain of "God's successors." And they have all opposed those of us who said: this cannot be so? There seems to be a homosexual thread to some of this? The removal of a deviant homosexual guru in India in 1936 was also opposed by SM way back then. Indeed SM's associate and fellow deviant guru apologist Narayana Maharaja (of Mathura India) even went so far as to say that our idea that these Governing Body are not gurus, "Is (ritvik) poison," apparently trying to incite violence upon us. Similarly both of the Puri Maharajas said that our idea that these Governing Body are not gurus is: bogus. In any event, when some of the eleven volunteered to quit being bogus gurus, SM forbade them from doing that, and he inisisted that they keep their bogus guru program.

And as such, people like SM immediately stopped the process of rectification that was occurring in 1980 when people began to realize that "the eleven" were not really gurus, including some of the eleven themselves, as have his associate apologists. SM vigorously insisted that this self-admitted false and offensive link, Ramesvara, and the other ten as well for that matter, must -- continue -- with more offenses and continue artificially posing as God's links and successors? At the time, SM was considered a big hero by the Governing Body since he "saved ISKCON" by "keeping Ramesvara in his guru seat," but this subsequently deteriorated further with Ramesvara creating a band of thugs that terrorized the devotees of Prabhupada, he neglected the care of children in his schools which lead to many of those children being molested, he was caught dating a minor aged female disciple, he was implicated in the beatings and murders of dissenters, and so on ad infinitum. This culminated with Ramesvara leaving ISKCON altogether after the famous murder of dissenter Sulochana dasa in 1986, and he allegedly wound up marrying a woman lawyer from New York and being a landlord for some apartments.

Yet probably all of this tragedy could have been avoided if Ramesvara had been allowed to "step down" from his guru post in 1980? So this is rather amazing, on the one hand SM is telling us that when a link becomes offensive, we have to act to "remove" that bogus link, yet on the other hand as soon as a bogus link wants to resign and remove himself voluntarily, SM protests and insists that the self-admitted offender continue falsely posing as -- God's successor link? Thus SM, and his associates like Narayana Maharaja, BP and BV Puri Maharajas and so on, they never explain in any detail or with actual examples their theories of "appointed gurus" and subsequently "fallen gurus." Where are there any solid historical examples of "gurus in the parampara" who failed, who were offensive, and who had to be removed? SM simply does not provide us with any names or examples of where any bona fide guru parampara member, again in the whole 5,000 year history of the guru succession, "had to be removed."

SM never cites any actual examples of where this occurs in the guru lineage? Worse, as we see from the example of Ramesvara above, as soon as a bogus link wants to rectify and purify himself and quit his "guru show bottle business," then people like SM are the first vociferous apologists to come to the defense of the idea that we have to keep these fallen, conditioned and degraded souls in the post of "God's successors." Of course this is history repeating, Prabhupada had said that SM created a homosexual guru deviation in 1936, and when it was opposed: "SM insisted on it." So SM is a long time defender of the idea that deviants are God's successors, even homosexuals, which is perhaps why the GBC selected him as their "advisor"? And of course folks like Narayana Maharaja say that SM is a bona fide pure devotee, and both Puri Maharajas have agreed that the Governing Body are gurus, thus they all agree that deviants are or were sometimes "God's successive links" -- even though their "links" are in actual fact sometimes aggressive homosexual predators and orchestrators of murders.

Nor does SM give us any indication how such an "offensive guru," who may have millions of dollars, well paid lawyers, thousands of dedicated followers, perhaps a small army of potentially violent and well armed body guards, is going to be "removed" without all sorts of legal problems if not blood shed? Exactly what is SM proposing when he says that the people he is supporting as guru will -- "have to be removed"? SM freely gives us orders, "You (those who are non Governing Body members) will have to remove the offensive gurus," but then he never details -- what is the "removal of guru process," especially for those of us who are not on the Governing Body?

In other conversations SM states that every year at Mayapura the Governing Body can "vote in" more gurus and "vote out" deviant gurus, a process he calls "adding and eliminating gurus." Thus, even if we can theoretically remove one of SM's bogus gurus, he does not want the position of bogus guru to remain vacant for very long. As soon as the first wave of bogus gurus crashes on the beach, SM says that another wave of bogus gurus should be voted in right away. In this way SM wants us to have an ocean of bogus gurus instead of only the first wave of eleven. And thanks to SM's "voting for more gurus" system, allegedly over one hundred and seventy gurus were later on -- "voted in" although most of them have failed and are not even in ISKCON any longer.

The only system SM ever details for "removing a deviant guru" was only to be conducted by -- the other gurus who are members of the Governing Body? Again this process is not found in any of Prabhupada's writings either? Rather this is akin to the Papal system of "voting for the Pope" and "excommunicating a deviant Pope"? Yet the question SM never answers even in his proposal for the Governing Body to remove one of their deviant gurus is, "What happens if the 'guru' who was already 'voted in as guru' -- disagrees to be voted out by the other Governing Body members, as often occurs with the GBC gurus when attempts are made to jettison them by 'the vote' of the other GBC gurus"? As soon as the Governing Body says, "You are a deviant guru and you have to leave your guru post," then the deviant 'guru' simply replies, "I cannot be forced to leave since I am beyond the jurisdiction of any Governing Body, I am the guru -- in direct communion with God? How can a Governing Body over ride the authority of the guru's internal guide, namely God"? So these are merely a few examples of the types of frustratingly endless arguments, conundrums, and plainly insane contradictions that occur under SM's "guru" system.

Yet for us rank and file devotees, this is a major problem since we are not included at all in any part of SM's program for "guru removal." Exactly how SM proposes that the deviant and offensive guru is going to be removed, especially by us laymen, is never even discussed by him at all? For example, when Federal Marshals decided to remove a de facto "guru" like David Koresh, the self-styled "guru" for a deviant Christian cult in Waco Texas, they brought with them: several fifty ton army tanks, over one hundred sub machine guns with tens of thousands of rounds of ammunition, an FBI SWAT team, a small army of assorted Sheriffs, Federal Marshals and Government agents dressed in full body armor, and so on. Whether the government's techniques are overboard or not, they at least understand that "removing the guru" is not always -- such an easy task? How will a "guru" be removed if he and his fanatical followers may resort to having people physically assaulted and killed?

SM never tells us what practical means for "guru removal" -- are to be used, either by us in the rank and file, and indeed he never even explains how he proposes that the Governing Body would "remove a guru" who disagreed with their vote to have him removed? He simply tosses out some half baked ideas and then gives no details -- how this will be accomplished? SM merely tells us, "You can add some Jesus-like gurus by Governing Body votes," and, "You can eliminate some Jesus-like gurus, again by Governing Body votes." But wait? How will us laymen "remove" one of these deviant gurus? No response. And what we all really need to know is, "Who is the actual authority for someone who is God's successor, His pure link, a person like Jesus, is it not God directly and not a contrived Governing Body of gurus"? SM never tells us? And, "Why would a panel of administrators have power over someone like Jesus, a guru, in the first place"? He never replies to any of these questions. Notice that SM orders us laymen to be the watchdog for the Jesus-like guru? "Watch him, wait and see, remove him." "You laymen are now the lord and master, and indeed watchdog, of -- someone worshipped like Jesus"? This is absurd? Prabhupada never said that we are the masters of the -- spiritual master? This turns the whole authority of a guru on its head, "You laymen are now the watchdog of -- the guru, someone like Jesus"? "So if Jesus fails, and he becomes a drunkard, it is your fault"?

Worse, SM has no practical experience with his so-called "guru removal" proposal. SM was asked in the 1940s to remove his own bogus guru that he had appointed after 1936, a homosexual deviant named Vasudeva, and he was unable to remove his own appointed guru, this man named Vasudeva. Indeed Vasudeva argued just as the ISKCON GBC's gurus often argue when asked to be removed, "I am the guru, so you have no authority to question anything I am doing. God is my only authority. You have no opinion in this matter. I am not part of the material world and its Governing Body project. I am talking only to God not you, and God says I have to stay here and be worshipped as the guru." Thus, SM has never removed any deviant (sometimes violent cult) guru himself, so he has no practical idea how this could be done? Rather his experience is that being the watchdog for a guru is -- almost impossible, or actually impossible even for himself? This is like saying, "Go to Bellvue hospital, find the guy in the psychopathology lock-up who says he is Jesus, and tell him, he is not Jesus"? Will this work? The whole proposal of SM is insane in itself. And when a patient sobers up, like Ramesvara did, and he says, wait a minute I am not on the level of Jesus, then SM goes ballistic and insists, no you must continue to be worshipped as if you are Jesus. He is assisting and encouraging -- the megalomaniac's psychopathology?

And when SM tried to remove his own appointed deviant guru in the 1940s, he failed miserably. As such, SM does not even give us even a hint of how this "removal of guru" could be done in practice? So he is freely placing people in danger, even the danger of being assassinated, as some of the people who opposed his 1936 guru ended up -- with their skulls cracked open with bricks, beaten, murdered, dead, for their trouble of opposing SM's deviant guru. And SM even freely admits later in this conversation that -- opposing the gurus (that he endorses herein) is "dangerous and risky." Still he insists: go ahead and "remove" the "offensive" guru? And then what?, -- maybe get killed by the guru's violent fanatical followers, as actually occurred to people who opposed SM's violent guru cults in post-1936 and again in post-1977? In essence, SM is saying, "Go ahead and try to remove the bad guru (endorsed by me) it is certainly dangerous and risky, and if you get killed, so what -- it is not my problem is it"? He does not consider that by his supporting these fanatical and violent false guru cults, he is helping empower and enable them to commit embezzlement, molestation of followers, violence and murders, or else he simply does not care.]

RUSTY, GREEDY, ANGRY, ARROGANT GURUS?

SM: But if there is a little rust in the (guru) link then one should wait and see. Then it will have to be considered. That can again become clean. So these worldly considerations -- like someone may be too angry, someone may be too greedy, somebody maybe a little too arrogant -- all these characteristics in the external behavior, these things can be tolerated and watched for awhile.

[PADA: Again, there is not one single example of any bona fide guru(s) having these odious characteristics in the bona fide Krishna guru lineage? Notice that SM is saying that "the guru may be too angry," and that odious behavior "should be tolerated." As we all know, his angry gurus were telling their followers to go out and beat up (and kill?) dissenters, but this type of anger "must be tolerated"? Why? Molesting, beating and killing Krishna's devotees is: fine, dandy and -- "tolerable"? In sum, contrived banning, and indeed orchestrated beatings and killings, due to the preaching of these angry, greedy and arrogant "gurus" -- "can be tolerated." Why? Moreover, Prabhupada says that anyone who juxtaposes such evil qualities upon the guru lineage, as was done by SM in 1936, is "a severe offender." And indeed Prabhupada specifically named Sridhara Maharaja as a member of that 1936 "severe offender's" party in 1977.

Nor does SM explain why "God's guru successors" are full of evil qualities like anger, greed, arrogance and so on? SM, in other instances, agrees with us that the guru is to be considered as "qualitatively equal to God." "Acaryam mam vijnaniyam." Yet then he implies, as he does above, therefore God is also angry, greedy, or arrogant since His pure agent and representation has these qualities? SM is indirectly saying he is himself qualitatively a better person than -- God Almighty? SM is not full of anger and so on, but God through His "living successor and external representation" -- is? And then SM says that the rank and file, or even the brand new neophytes off the street, should "watch and wait and see," and take action to correct and "remove" their guru. Thus he is saying that the brand new neophytes -- are in charge of "administrating" the guru? Prabhupada says exactly the opposite, that Krishna (God) is in charge of administrating the guru. SM says, God is evidently not doing a good job of administrating His successor links and gurus, thus some of you former alcoholics and drug addicts can administrate the universe -- better than God? The inmates are running the asylum? Again, how does the rank and file of a Church watch over and administe someone worshipped as their Jesus, he gives us no details?

Another problem is that we are ordered to: "wait and see" as SM's gurus deteriorate and deviate more and more into: gambling in Reno, going to night clubs, driving a big car, "dating" minor aged female disciples, taking drugs, drinking alcohol, engaging in sex addictions and so on and so forth. Yet what particular single deviation are we "waiting for" to surface in SM's alleged guru before we "remove the guru"? He never tells us? What is the delineation point where we must stop "waiting" and start "removing" SM's ersatz Jesus? He never tells us? Perhaps SM's guru is having illicit sex, no problem, just sit back and "wait and see." Perhaps SM's alleged Jesus-like savior guru is taking opiate derived drugs, again, not really a problem, just "wait and see." What particular deviation exactly are we "waiting" for -- he never says? Apparently, we are waiting for SM's false gurus to orchestrate killing dissenters, so the police will come and take them away, as actually occurs with some of SM's "gurus." In other words, SM waited, and waited, and waited, and then the police had to move in, intervene, and "remove" some of his gurus? In this case, that makes people like the West Virginia police officer Tom Westfall the purest and best of SM's devotees, since he is doing the actual required service SM is ordering namely "removing the offensive guru"? The police are the best of the people who follow SM's orders?

SM even says in another instance that the bona fide gurus, really his rubber stamped gurus, may become foolish, mad, crazy. Yet again, where is the process of -- waiting for your guru -- to deteriorate into foolishness, madness, megalomania, psychopathology, and perhaps orchestrated murders and so on, none of this is detailed -- in any of Prabhupada's scriptures? And again, since the guru is qualitatively equal to God, how can we imply that God or His pure son is deteriorating into foolishness, madness and that He is -- gravitating towards being a megalomaniac psychopath? And moreover, SM says that in the case when God's living agent goes too far off the rails, then some former drunkards off the streets of Los Angeles have to correct, and indeed "remove" God's living external representation? God is not in control of His agent and guru, rather the drunkard off the street is? Or the police are in charge of God and His eternally pure parampara? God does not even fit into the equation? You neophytes will administrate the guru, the police will watch over the guru and: you will remove the guru, or the police will remove him, but God does not have any role in the function of His pure devotee guru? Moreover, since the links in the parampara are always compared to gold, SM gives us no indication how the links are now old and rusted "iron"?]

Dheera Krishna Swami (DKS): Some of these devotees have been waiting for three years.

[PADA: Excellent point, the devotees in ISKCON under the GBC "gurus" have already been waiting for three years (1977 - 1980) for their gurus to quit deviating. And yet in many cases their gurus are simply -- getting worse? Thus, the "waiting and seeing" advice from SM was and is useless and it is not working. Worse, the number of victims of the GBC's contrived banning, beatings, molesting and murders is increasing, and as such "waiting" simply means that the "guru monster" will merely be fed more victims to consume, including the mass molesting of children. Many children in ISKCON's schools were at this time being systematically starved, beaten and molested and yet here they are told, "Quit complaining, what is the problem, wait and see"? Waiting for -- what?]

[Bhakti Charu Swami (BCS): Provides a quote from the Sri Isopanisad where false gurus are: "Destined for the most obnoxious regions of the universe."]

SM: They are traitors and that is why they will be punished severely.

[PADA: This is one point that SM makes that we agree to. His false gurus are going to be punished severely, and according to the Vedas, the supporters and advisors of such false gurus are also fully implicated. Again, why are we "waiting and seeing" what these traitors will do next?]

SM: Now the substance of the whole teaching will come to this: "Who the other day (November 1977) my guru maharaja (Prabhupada) recommended (allegedly: that eleven of the GBC would be worshipped as God's living successor gurus), in only two or three years after (1980), it is wholesale failure." So I must search in my own heart, hmm, sufficiently before going to discuss and examine their practices. There may not be any fault or ulterior motive in me otherwise I will be the greatest culprit.

...When I am going to judge a man whether he is fit or unfit whom the other day my guru maharaja recommended to be fit approximately, the whole burden will fall to my head. Because in the back the recommendation of my guru is there. And the wholesale? One or two may easily be eliminated may be, but the whole thing is rotten within two or three years? A very brave vision.

[PADA: This has been the main theme of the "advisors" and supporters of the false eleven GBC gurus, such as Sridhara Maharaja, Narayana Maharaja, BP and BV Puri Maharajas -- and so on, that Prabhupada had "recommended" eleven of his leaders to be worshipped as Krishna's successive "gurus." This is of course a reference to the so-called "appointment of eleven gurus." Yet there is no evidence that Prabhupada had ever appointed -- any -- gurus. Moreover Prabhupada had always said he was -- not -- going to appoint any gurus. Prabhupada said he was going to make a Governing Body instead. Prabhupada said in no uncertain terms that he was not going to name one or any number of "successor gurus." Oddly, a few months after this August conversation on December 3 1980, two of the eleven, namely Tamal and Hansadutta admitted there had -- never been -- any guru appointment. Yet even after hearing about this SM still kept pounding his drum that the eleven were nominated and appointed as "gurus." Of course, recently Narayana Maharaja still cited that the GBC are "gurus," and he said "there was nothing wrong" with the 1936 homosexual guru either, so they cannot get over the idea that deviants -- are or were -- God's living links, gurus and spokesmen?

Notice also that here SM says that while sometimes Krishna's successors are sometimes "rotten," they are not usually "wholesale rotten." He says that in Krishna's line of successors "one or two may be rotten and thus easily eliminated." In sum, that which is "as pure as God" is simultaneously -- "usually and easily -- rotten," and sometimes "wholesale rotten"? Yet again SM gives us no examples of where members of the guru chain, such as Krishna and/or His successors --- are rotten and then "eliminated" from the guru lineage or parampara? This is also odd because the guru parampara is called for example "shaksat Hari tvena" which means it is "qualitatively identical to God." And yet here SM implies that sometimes, that which is "shaksat hari tvena": i.e. fully equal to God in quality, is sometimes "rotten"? This means SM is saying that God or His guru chain extension is sometimes "rotten" since God is identical to His pure guru succession lineage? How is it that God and His "shaksat" direct representative is often, using SM's example, ten or twenty percent "rotten," and sometimes "wholesale rotten" in other cases, again SM never explains? Is this atheism? God's pure representation is usually and easily partially rotten, and sometimes it is wholesale rotten? Read: God is easily a partially rotten person, but maybe He is a wholesale rotten person, because: His representation is a partial or wholesale rotten person? God is also an angry and arrogant person, because His pure representation is: angry and arrogant? That means that the residents of San Quentin prison are perhaps the best "pure representations" of God on the planet?

Again, since SM agrees that it is possible that the whole group of his eleven "pure as God" gurus may be rotten, in that case the entire group of successors to God are "wholesale rotten"? Which previous successors to God were partially rotten, or wholesale rotten, he gives no explanation? Again, since God is considered as equal to His pure succession, "acaryam mam vijnaniyam," by SM's saying that God's extension or succession is rotten, SM is saying God is also sometimes contaminated and even, rotten, since God and the lineage are one qualitatively? We wanted to repeat this point a bit here because this is the essence of the disagreement between us and the Sridhara Maharaja, Narayana Maharaja and BP and BV Puri sector. SM cites their idea that God's direct pure representation, His guru succession, is "usually and easily" partially rotten, or sometimes "wholesale rotten," and yet this was not taught by Prabhupada, he said that the guru chain is always and indeed it is eternally -- pure. Prabhupada says that if someone is not pure, then he is not a rotten guru, he never was a guru in the first place? Srila Prabhupada says that the guru is pure like the sunlight, he purifies things, yet SM says the guru is sometimes rotten so: the pure and uncontaminated sunshine -- stinks like rotten garbage? This makes no sense?

Again, the various "advisors" such as SM, Narayana Maharaja and both Puri Maharajas said that these eleven are or were gurus -- because they were allegedly "recommended" to be gurus, while at other times SM said the eleven were "nominated," and he also agreed that the eleven had been "appointed" -- as gurus. Yet many of us were asking at this time, "When, where, and how were the eleven selected, nominated or appointed -- as gurus? Where is the proof"? So the "advisors" trusted the words of the eleven and their "big lie" that they had been "appointed as gurus," and yet none of these advisors asked, as we did, "Where is the evidence that Prabhupada appointed eleven gurus"? The "advisors" were simply: duped by the lies of the eleven. Yet this created a huge problem for those of us protesting the "big lie" of the appointment of eleven gurus, the "advisors" were always trying to undermine any attempt to remove and contain these false gurus as we see from this conversation. What we see here is that the SM, Narayana Maharaja and BP and BV Puri Maharaja sector created the false theology under which these "rotten" gurus operated.]

Dheera Krishna Swami (DKS): In the Fourth Canto of Srimad Bhagavatam in the sacrifice of Daksha, Sati recommended that her father was expert materially, speaking very successfully in the sacrifice, but because he insulted Lord Siva, vaisnavam yatha Sambu, the greatest devotee...

[PADA: Another very good point which SM simply ignores as we shall see. Dheera Krishna was essentially saying, even if the GBC had been "appointed as gurus," they were now offending the greatest devotee, namely Prabhupada. And as such they were degrading his institution, making a mockery of the "successors to Krishna" concept, and they were harassing and threatening violence to Prabhupada's devotees. They were in sum insulters to the greatest personalities like Prabhupada. Thus their claims to any "guru" position were -- false and useless. Dheera Krishna even goes so far as to imply that the false eleven gurus are so offensive, that they are fit to be killed just as Daksha was killed, because of their serious attack on Prabhupada, his devotees and his mission. In other words, Dheera Krishna was pointing out that the eleven gurus are not only false, but that they are grievous attackers, and they are essentially usurping Prabhupada's worship just as Daksha tried to usurp Lord Siva's worship. Despite this very grievous description given by Dheera Krishna, SM does not seem to care what levels of offenses the GBC and their eleven gurus are committing, he simply goes back to his mantra -- that we have to allow, facilitate and protect the worship of the (false) gurus.]

DIGGING THEIR OWN GRAVES

SM: So my advice was wait and see, they will dig their own grave if it is such (the eleven are not qualified to be gurus or named as gurus). Swami Maharaja came with a great motive, a great force, and it cannot be conceived that within two or three years the whole thing will be smashed.

[PADA: Yet when Ramesvara, Jayatirtha and similar others wanted to quit "digging their own grave" and get out of the guru business, SM tossed them back into: digging their graves, again? He insists that they must continue to dig their own graves -- even when they volunteer to stop that odious path of degradation? The above is also a favorite argument of the false eleven and their advisors: if the false eleven gurus fail, then Prabhupada has failed? This is like saying, if the medieval inquisition fails, then Jesus has failed? How so? This again, is never explained by SM? The fact is that by his policy of forcing people to worship false gurus, SM's plan, this is what caused ISKCON to fail.]

SM: So wait and see. They will dig their own grave and I will be disgusted with their misbehavior. Then it will be easy and it will be sure to cleanse, the attempt to cleanse the alien trouble.

[PADA: This is an important point. SM correctly predicts that the leaders of ISKCON, the false gurus, "will dig their own graves" yet we all know that he indirectly means that they will take with them the ISKCON society, and many of its members, into the grave with them? The eleven are not merely the administrators of ISKCON but indeed they are the "gurus" for that society? If a ship's captain or an airplane pilot is a drunkard or a drug addict, and as a result the intoxicated pilot crashes his vehicle filled with passengers, then he will dig not only his own grave but he will dig a grave for all of the passengers on board his vehicle as well? The drunken pilot and all of his passengers will ALL go into that grave? So the reason that this is important is because what SM is really saying is that the fate of the passengers is not important, their lives are not at all important, and so they do not need to be preserved and protected. Moreover he does not want the system of false gurus to be halted even if all the eleven defected, he wants to vote in more false and grave digging gurus. When it was reported to SM that some people were envious of Ramesvara he said, then vote them (the envious) in as gurus as well. So, when one guru digs his grave and falls into it, SM has hundreds more ready to start digging their graves, and so on. So he simply wants the grave digging process to continue ad infinitum, which is why the Governing Body selected him as their advisor.

In any case, the only significant item for SM is that the drunken pilot, the grave digging guru, be allowed -- to stay at the helm? In sum, let ISKCON and everyone in it -- go to hell, they can all go to their graves. Actually when we argued with SM's false gurus, they did just that, they wanted to kill us and put us in our graves. So it is fine by SM if us dissenters are killed and we go to our graves, or that ISKCON goes into the grave along with its drunken ship's captains, the important thing for SM and his ilk is that liars, guru appointment hoaxters, homosexuals, pedophiles, murderers, and guru poisoners, are worshipped as God's successors, as he already orchestrated in 1936. And yes, as a matter of fact, due to SM's policy of protecting these GBC gurus, and their deviant policy of worship of molesters, thousands of children were molested. So children as well as adults can all go -- to their grave, SM said "none should challenge the GBC gurus." So even if mass child molesting is going on, "none should challenge." Prabhupada says, we should reject and indeed challenge false gurus.]

GURU MARA VIDYA (They are killing Prabhupada/ and "cutting Prabhupada's throat with a knife")

Dheera Krishna Swami (DKS): Prabhupada sometimes gave the comparison of guru mara vidya (killing guru). So if someone feels that my spiritual master is being killed by these actions, how can he wait and see? Or participate and just pass the knife to those who are cutting the throat of his spiritual master?

[PADA: Isn't this amazing? Dheera Krishna is actually saying what many us folks said a few years later, that Prabhupada was murdered: "guru mara." And Dheera Krishna indicates that Prabhupada is still being killed, by the false eleven gurus. "Guru mara" means: to kill your own guru. Indirectly, this means that some people were (at least subconsiously) aware that Prabhupada had been killed, or actually poisoned, at least on the subtle platform. Why is there a mention that the eleven are -- killing Prabhupada, even cutting his throat, unless this was the perception around the society at the time already? So this is very interesting, Dheera Krishna is saying that Prabhupada is being killed or had already been killed. And worse, the killers are still passing around the knife inviting others to cut Prabhupada up all the more. In sum, the de facto statement here is that Prabhupada was killed, and he is still being killed, by the false eleven gurus. "They are cutting Prabhupada's throat." Thus, many people apparently did know, at least through the back door or by subtle means of perception, that Prabhupada had been killed. Oddly, a few months after this conversation Tamal admits in his Topanga confessions, "Many people blamed me for killing Prabhupada." That "Prabhupada was killed or is still being killed" is thus the perception, and here we see this idea was submitted directly to SM, and yet still he says, so what, we must support the deviants who are -- "cutting Prabhupada's throat." Why? And even after Tamal admits that he was linked by some devotees to Prabhupada's death (probable murder) in the December 1980 Topanga talks, SM (and later Narayana Maharaja) then became his defense lawyer to -- keep him in his guru post?]

SM: If one is so clear in his conception, that his guru is being killed, going to be killed, then he cannot tolerate. He may take the risk. If his clear conscience dictates to him, that his guru is at risk, then of course he cannot stop.

DKS: Or the mission of his guru...

[PADA: Notice that the reply by SM is very oblique and vague and does not acknowledge the main point, that Prabhupada was directly being killed, or that Prabhupada was indirectly being killed because his mission and his life's work were being killed. Is it not true that placing homosexuals and other deviants into Prabhupada's seat is "killing" him, at least indirectly? Is not true that turning his institution into a criminal enterprise is indirectly killing him as well? And of course what is of interest to folks like myself here is that we "contaminated Western neophytes" are the ones who had to point out: the poison plot conspiracy against Prabhupada -- to kill him in fact. If the SM, Narayana Maharaja and Puri Maharaja sector are so "dear to Prabhupada" as they love to self advertise themselves, why did they not know of the poison plot? Again, the problem here is that SM does not say clearly, yes Prabhupada is being killed directly or indirectly, so let us take action to correct that, and this is what must be done. Rather his reply is very oblique and unclear about what course to take to rectify the situation. Worse, he details no plan of action in the event we decide that "our guru is at risk"? He merely says we have to take some inchoate, nebulous, vague "dangerous risk." Yet what that specifically really means, he never says? Instead he gives us his real idea, his detailed plan is: how we must really "wait and see" and "tolerate" the false gurus and essentially work under them? In sum, he does not want us to oppose the deviants therefore he is not detailing how to counter the deviants. Rather what he is detailing is -- how we have to work under the authority of the deviants.]

SBD: The present situation maharaja, is that it has become more of a cult, it has become....

[PADA: Again an excellent point is being raised. The GBC's "eleven gurus" have already become a cult, a cult that is displeasing to the devotees in general, a cult that is driving the devotees away from ISKCON, a cult that is upsetting the public and is garnering bad media coverage, a cult that even SM acknowledges is somewhat "rotten," and worse, this cult is perhaps "cutting Prabhupada's throat." Notice that SM totally ignores this statement and goes back to his original theory that it is best not to challenge the eleven gurus.]

SM: Never go in front, because if it is successful then you share the results equally with everybody else, but if you fail then you are the one to bear the brunt (laughing). When a dangerous campaign has come before you to take the lead is also dangerous, but (laughing) remain behind. ...If there will be any danger, the front man will be in danger and you will be safe (laughing). So always be in .. try to remain in the back. This is of course ordinary policy, (laughing) but a genius...

[PADA: Once again SM says that it is best to "remain behind," and not to take any action against the false gurus. Worse, he thinks that since if you take the lead "it will be dangerous," therefore do not bother to complain about anything? Read: let the GBC's false guru cult, and its embezzling, banning, beating, molesting and murders continue, and let people like Puranjana (the author of this paper) take the "dangerous lead," i.e. let him get killed. And SM is laughing, thinking this policy of beating and murder is very funny. SM implies that people will be in danger, they will be killed, and he is -- laughing? Amazing. Let folks like Puranjana take the lead, agreed it is very dangerous, and if he fails, that means he will be killed, then so what -- we are all laughing?]

SBD: [Explains that the GBC gurus are establishing their own cult worship, they are earning money in the name of guru, and so on...]

SM: ... The old (Prabhupada) must make room for the new (eleven gurus).

SM: ... The old (Prabhupada) must make room for the new (eleven gurus). Because the new generation, the newcomers are there waiting for the same atmosphere as you expected and got, you wanted about your guru. The next generation, you will be with the spirit of toleration, hmm. You will have to adjust internally and the external circumstances will be given ... facility will be given to the newcomers.

[PADA: Again SM reemphasizes his idea that the "new" people must worship one of the eleven gurus in the same way that Prabhupada's followers worshipped him, indeed the eleven gurus must be worshipped in the same mood and "same atmosphere" as Prabhupada was worshipped. SM even rather boldly declares that Prabhupada is now the (somewhat irrelevant?) "old" guru whereas the eleven are now the "new" gurus, and so we have to work with the "new" system and offer worship to the new gurus "in the same atmosphere" as Prabhupada was worshipped since he is now the "old" -- and irrelevant -- guru? So SM is not really interested in the actual statements from Prabhupada about whether the eleven GBC gurus were actually "appointed as gurus," or whether or not Prabhupada had established a Governing Body system instead, rather he is clearly convinced that there is no other alternative than to worship the eleven as gurus since Prabhupada is now the "old" (gone, departed and finished) guru, and so now we have to work with what SM calls in other instances the eleven: "living gurus." Of course, SM forgets that the "living guru's" clique had poisoned Prabhupada to be the remaining "living"? Never mind also that some of the eleven are already admitted herein by SM to be "rotten." So it does not matter -- even if one is rotten -- he is still to be worshipped "in the same atmosphere" as Prabhupada was. So this is SM's ideal, one must worship a living body, or what he calls "the external circumstance." We must worship a living body even if the person in the body is a rotten deviant?

The rotten deviant must still be viewed "externally" as if he was as good as Prabhupada and worshipped in the same way as if he were Prabhupada, "same atmosphere." SM says that the "external" must be adjusted read: the false guru show must go on. Show bottle. Form and no substance. The Pope needs to be worshipped, not Jesus, because Jesus is now the old, dead and gone. This is how SM is thinking, he is an ecclesiastical mundane body worshipper. And so are the people who respect and support his ideas like SM's top disciple Tripurari swami. And so are the people who say SM's preaching is -- their idea of a parampara guru: like Narayan Maharaja. And so are SM's top disciples like Dristadyuma swami (Tamal's man). And so are the people who have supported the Governing Body gurus such as BV and BP Puri Maharajas and so on, all of whom have supported the Governing Body's violently enforced cult ritulistic worship of homosexual pedophiles regime, created by the the eleven gurus, as "Krishna's successors" -- as if God were an arrogant, violent deviant, a sexual pervert, a drug addict and a murderer of gurus with poison. This is their idea of God's direct link and successor, this is their idea of a Jesus like saint: an odious criminal, a Judas.]

=============================

2) ring o' racketeers

Obeisances. All Glories to Srila Prabhupada.

I would like, if I may, take this opportunity to make some comment on the 'BIF' article: "BIF Update', posted on PADA (BIF 78/79). What the article does not fully disclose is the behind-the-scenes connection between the characters it puts in focus i.e, Devamrita Swami, Deva Gaura Hari (JPS) and Tirtha Raja (TKG).

As exposed by BIF in earlier articles, the late Tamal Krishna (TKG) (alleged chief suspect in the poisoning of Srila Prabhupada) was canvassing energetically for writers to help promote a proxy defence on his behalf, as shown here: "Better yet, post such an appeal to all Temple Presidents, since they have a COM forum. Also, we have GBC Delegates. Ask them to write and suggest names of others. Madhusudhani Radha, I request you to please do this...[...]...We need to give extended textual materials in which sentences like the one we claim "proves" that Prabhupada was not poisoned (the "not that I'm poisoned" comment) occurs." (TKG on COM. 20/12/97).

The progression of such an appeal would be towards those most articulate in the literary field, as desired by Tamal himself in this COM message: "Writers! Writers! Writers! I suggest that Vipramukhya Maharaja or Umapati Maharaja write personally to a number of sannyasis and senior men and women known to be articulate..." TK (20/12/97). Who more 'articulate' than a Princetown graduate? And who more obligated than an exile given another chance? Devamrita Swami fit the bill on both counts. So it was he whom Tamal 'appointed' as organiser for the proxy defence, which manifested as the book: "Not That I am Poisoned." (If we examine Tamal's first COM message, noted above, we will see that the book's title was in fact selected from his direct instruction.)

However, publicly proclaiming Devamrita as organiser/ literary orchestrator for Tamal's defence, was too obvious. Devamrita had only recently been re-issued a ticket on the gravy train; the boot-licking would be heard for miles around. So, a stooge was sought, and there isn't a better stooge than Billy Bunter: Tirtha Raja (TR) (ex. TP, Brisbane. Now promoted to Regional Secretary of South America & N/E Australia). Tirtha Raja will do anything to look/be important, even tell people he once played flute at the Sydney Opera House. Besides, TR is a TKG disciple, and a well known name -dropper who depends on who-you-know to advance his position in ISKCON. He accepted the public mantle of 'Publisher'. This was also good in that TKG was not going to allow a clown to accept the title of 'author', and TR had a new recruit only recently initiated by Jayapataka; his name was Deva Gaura Hari (David Hooper) and he had a newly acquired degree in science (BSc). So, the scene was set: Devamrita would coach/direct/edit and write the 'Introduction'; Tirtha Raja would be the 'Publisher', and Hooper would be the 'Qualified Author'.

And this is where the BIF article fails to make the connection: Devamrita, who had only recently renewed his vow of allegiance to ISKCON, was waiting in the wings to prove his worth. Tamal's call opened the door of opportunity for 'Devo'. and he needed no urging. Soon after the publication of NTIP he was made co GBC of South America. It was not too much longer before his application for 'guru' was approved. When he was promoted to "Zonal Acarya", Tirtha Raja das, then Temple President of Brisbane, was made Regional Secretary of South America (Devamrita's zone). And Hooper, who worked under Tirtha Raja, was given Tirtha Raja's position as Temple President of Brisbane.

All one has to do is follow the paper trail to see the connection, the conspiracy, and the degree of complicity. Had Tamal picked the right driver, these lackeys would have been even more richly rewarded. But as it is, they willingly carry on the tradition of conspiracy that poisoned the 'body' of ISKCON. Srila Prabhupada ke jaya! rampuridd

PS. It was reported not so long ago that Ramai Swami (2002 GBC Chairman) was having clandestine meetings with a woman in Cairns (Australia). I believe it was BIF who claimed that the Maharaja was leaving his travelling party to spend nights away at an 'hotel'. BIF also claimed that it could be proven, but there was no particular reason to do so. It appears that BIF maybe right. From what devotees in the know are now saying, Ramai Swami put forward a notice recently to the GBC informing them of his desire to take a wife. The GBC has asked him to wait a year before going ahead with the decision.

If there is anyone who wishes to correct/reject any part of the article above they are welcome to do so, provided they put name and e-mail address to the post.

To Ramai Swami (who must be fast approaching sixty) we wish to say, "Goddamn it Maharaja, it's about time. The fact that you could lie in motel rooms year after year watching videos and chomping on pizzas without losing it, is a fair dinkum miracle in itself".