03/11/98 - 1684

Reflections on a Proposed Debate

USA (VNN) - by Yasodanandana dasa (yasoda@artnet.net)

March 11, 1998

Dear Puru das and company,

Please accept my humble obeisances. All Glories to Srila Prabhupada.

Friends have brought to my attention that your good self has mentioned my name in connection with a proposed debate. However, before a proper debate on the peripheral issues can be conducted, the following preliminary issues should first be taken into consideration. For one thing, we should try to analyze things as Srila Prabhupada has trained us to do. For example, he often states that the problem with the late 1930s Gaudiya Matha was their self-appointed "guru deviation."

According to Srila Prabhupada, some "envious" persons tried to artificially pose as "successor gurus." And Srila Prabhupada clearly identifies the root cause of this deviation: it is a means of extracting money and control of assets. In short, artificially posing as a "guru successor" is a device or smoke-screen used to take over the assets or the "bricks and stones" of a church or mission.

Srila Prabhupada is always very much averse to such false guru projects (or so-called "sannyasa renunciates") and their "usurping the assets businesses." This exact deviation is what he says destroyed his guru's Gaudiya Matha mission. Srila Prabhupada thus gave a series of warnings about the false guru party's development in the Gaudiya Matha. He simultaneously ordered his leaders to backpedal the "sannyasa" (renunciate) order in his movement in early 1977 and develop an integrated society made up primarily householders (varnasrama.)

Instead, what happened is that a very few elite sannyasas have evolved millionare lifestyles while most of the thousands and thousands of householders are outside and alienated. This pattern of --the transfer of assets to a few "gurus"-- also occured in the Gaudiya Matha, while the mass of rank-and-file devotee were banned or they left in disgust.

As such, Srila Prabhupada generally summarizes false guru projects simply as "usurpers" of the assets. Of course he also calls these false gurus "fools, envious, hogs and dogs, ferocious snakes, cockroach charyas, sudras," and so on and so forth, to show his utter displeasure in them. He further says that such false "pure devotee acharyas" are "the most dangerous elements in human society" and that they are "destined for the most obnoxious regions of the universe." Clearly, he is not in favor of such false Vaishnava guru projects.

As such, he does not concern himself too much with their vast imbroglio of false ideologies. In both ISKCON and in the Gaudiya Matha, there are often big complex meetings and long elaborate discussions about: "appointed gurus, living gurus, shiksha gurus, dikskha gurus, re-initiating gurus, fallen gurus" (and so on.) Yet since the foundation is a deviation, or according to Srila Prabhupada the criminal theft of the assets of the mission, who cares for these "advanced topics"?

Srila Prabhupada often states that his policy is to avoid these "usurpers." He also avoided their position papers, arguments, debates, discussions and so forth. In short, he is inclined to identify "the root of the disease": i.e. that some of the members of his guru's mission are using cheating tactics to declare that they are gurus, mostly as a means of stealing the assets of the mission for their personal aggrandizement. And he said that this "siphoning of assets" is still going on since the 1930's, without any resolution. In other words, they are not just people who made a one time error, they are very systematic deviants who are very attached to their ill-gotten gains. Srila Prabhupada thus says the tactics used by a Gaudiya Matha guru is "hook and crook."

We should look at the history briefly.

1) First, some of the Gaudiya Matha's prominent leaders (in the mid-1930s) were alleged to have poisoned their guru. This allegation now surrounds some of ISKCON's post 1977 top leaders. Indeed a mysteriously hidden tape has recently surfaced with direct quotes from Srila Prabhupada stating that someone is giving him poison.

2) Important documents and statements from the actual acharya were circumvented, changed, hidden or lost by deviated "leaders," to make is seem that a successor had been named in the mid 1930s. In ISKCON, the same events occurred, i.e. many tapes, documents, statements, conversations and letters were hidden, lost and altered. And worse, eyewitnesses and persons with testimony are STILL, to this day, intimidated with banning, threats and violence. This also occured in the Gaudiya Matha.

3) The Gaudiya Matha's deviated leaders "unauthorizedly appointed one successor acharya" (i.e. a pure devotee who is worshipped as "the sum total of the demigods.") Similarly, in March of 1978 the GBC also unauthorizedly appointed eleven "pure representatives of God" or acharyas. Then the ISKCON GBC went to the architect of the Gaudiya Matha's appointed (homosexual) guru deviation "for advice." Worse, documents made with this "advisor" are still considered as bona fide GBC documents.

4) In the Gaudiya Matha, as the original "appointed guru" deviation began to unravel with illicit sex, homosexuality, threats, violence, murder of dissidents, and the murder of a child, a so-called "guru reform" was concocted. Then, many other unauthorized persons came forward to "apply for the position of acharya."

In the exact manner, the ISKCON GBC's original deviant "guru" party began to unravel with similar (or worse) tales of drugs, illicit sex, homosexuality and even murder. An even more horrific complaint against the ISKCON GBC has evolved, the widespread (criminal?) neglect, abuse and molestation of children, while many "gurus" live like opulent Gods on earth. And in both the 1930s and post 1970s we have the beatings and murders of dissidents, with very negative media publicity.

Correct me if I'm wrong. Wasn't Kundali dasa one of the persons who helped the GBC with their idea that "the sum total of the demigods" sometimes becomes a sexual pervert who needs reform and correction? And that the voters of these perverts should also vote in more "sum totals"?

In short, the ISKCON GBC, in their great wisdom, has also now started the same identical "guru reform" with the same identical "acharya factory." They have "made" ("2/3 show of hands voted) 100 or more "acharyas" and they are worshipped all over ISKCON on the temple's altars as "the sum total of the demigods," "as pure as Krishna," and so on. Of course, we all know that when the GBC first "voted in" twenty "reformers as gurus," they simultaneously voted in a known homosexual pedophile as a guru.

Thus, instead of resolving the issue, the GBC simply started raising a whole new set of questions. "Which previous acharyas had to be 'reformed'? Which previous acharyas were 'voted in' at all? Which previous acharyas were voted in with a known homosexual," and so on and so forth?

We may recall that Srila Prabhupada sardonically commented that the Gaudiya Matha's deviation is "another man comes, then another man comes, then another man comes" (to become guru,) and he said that in this way they killed their guru to become guru. (August 1976, Bombay, India.) So, once again the GBC is proven to be following the Gaudiya Matha with "another man comes to be guru idea," "reformed guru idea," "voting in guru idea," "homosexual gurus are in the parampara idea," and so on and so forth.

In both deviant parties there is considerable criticism of their false "guru's" illicit activities. In ISKCON there are downright hideous accounts of "gurus": illicit affairs; oral and anal sex with children; licking of children's gentials; wife stealing; "dating" children; orchestrating the beating children, depriving children of bare necessities; as well as the usual petty criminal activities like: theft, embezzlement, banning, beatings, and so on and so forth. There are also links to "gurus" and more major crimes such as child beating, molestation, murder of dissidents, and so on and so forth.

Of course Puru dasa and the GBC always have an explanation for how the sum total of the demigods, the pure devotee, the person whose picture is on the altar, engages in these abominable even animalistic activities? The GBC uses the Gaudiya Matha's rationalizations for the same deviations that occured there.

To explain these blatant failures as some of them appeared in the Gaudiya Matha, their deviants began to quote an alleged rationalization of these "guru problems" by citing "SRI KRSNA BHAJANAMRTA" by Srila Narahari Sarkara Thakur. This text allegedly describes how bona fide gurus can become fallen and even demons (asuras.) In ISKCON, one of their gurus named "HH Gaura Govinda swami" of Orissa was engaged by the GBC in translating this document, just so they could propagate their theory that the pure gurus from God might (be or might) become homosexuals, child molesters and demons. In short, Gaura Govinda swami was employed by the GBC to re-introduce the Gaudiya Matha's explanation for their guru's homosexuality, murders and so on. As a side note, both Gaura Govinda swami and Kundali have tried to introduce the smartas and Gaudiya Matha's "jiva tattva" arguments was well, which are totally the opposite of Srila Prabhupada's.

Amazingly, the "BHAJANAMRTA" book was first presented to the ISKCON GBC by their then "Gaudiya Matha advisor." And the GBC has quoted it ever since. In sum, the same identical rationalizations evolved, i.e. that saints and Vaishnava Acharyas might sometimes be, or they may become, homosexuals, child molesters, criminals, and demons. The ISKCON GBC has used this rationalization, handily borrowed from its architects in the Gaudiya Matha or their bogus translators like Gaura Govinda swami, to prove that Vaishnava acharyas could fall. The widespread acceptance of these rationalizations, that "saints might be or might become demons" is important for their guru business. Otherwise if people become convinced that their system is simply corrupt, and the theology profoundly deviated, the cash flow or income collections will go down. The GBC's guru franchises will suffer economically. So, why is Puru, the GBC and others trying to use a false interpretation of this book, just as the Gaudiya Matha used it: to degrade the position of the acharya?

The problem for these thinkers is that Srila Prabhupada already summarized Srila Narahari Thakura's book. He stated that the persons who fall down from the post of acharya are not really acharyas in the first place, they are only cheaters posing artificially as gurus by their own authority. (NOD p.116)

Is it that the deviants disagree with Srila Prabhupada and thus they have to go to another alleged source for knowledge? Yet why does it seem that everytime it is: the Gaudiya Matha's idea? For example, Puru dasa even submitted one paper quoting a Gaudiya Matha guru? Why? The GBC has all kinds of documents wherein they admit they are quoting various Gaudiya Matha gurus? Why? When did Srila Prabhupada tell us to go to the Gaudiya Matha for advice? Or did he not say: avoid them, they can harm us?

Srila Prabhupada even banned one devotee named Nitai dasa from ISKCON in 1976, calling him a "venomous serpent" since he maintained that the acharya (Lord Brahma) becomes fallen. "Who is that rascal?" he asked. Yet in 1980, the deviant GBC (using arguments from the condemned smartas and some from the Gaudiya Matha) made a paper stating that Lord Brahma falls into illusion, borrowing exactly the banned and forbidden "venomous serpent's" idea.

Even more amazing is that the GBC now says that those who do not accept Nitai's offensive philosophy, and/or the Gaudiya Matha's philosophy, are to be banned from ISKCON, the total opposite of what Srila Prabhupada wanted! Indeed, devotees can now be threatened with death for not agreeing with the GBC and their Gaudiya Matha and 1976 Nitai vada ideas?

1) PRABHUPADA'S ANALYSIS OF THE GAUDIYA MATHA

In A 1969 letter to Narayana Maharaja, Srila Prabhupada summarizes the problem with the different Gaudiya Matha parties. They had "usurped the missionary assets of Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati Thakura."

"Regarding the Section 92 case against the Gaudiya Matha, I don't think there is any possibility of compromise. Both the Bagh-Bazaar party and Mayapur party have unlawfully usurped the missionary institution of Srila Prabhupada, and whenever they will talk of a compromise, it means another complication..." (Srila Prabhupada letter September 1969)

In our ISKCON institution we have seen an almost exact repeat of the Gaudiya Matha's post-1937 scenario. Moreover, the GBC has gone to "seek advice" from some of the biggest leading exponents of the Gaudiya Matha's deviations. Thus it is no surprise that most of the pillar concepts of the GBC's "guru siddhanta" i.e.: "appointed gurus," "zonal gurus" "voted in gurus," "fallen gurus," "gurus with anarthas," et al. was originally given to them by the Gaudiya Matha. After all, they had originated and perfected many of these deviated processes over the past fifty years, which according to Srila Prabhupada was done for exploitation. Srila Prabhupada has summarized the exploitation mentality:

2) BECOMING ACARYA AND CHEATING THE GOD BROTHERS

Srila Prabhupada: "Our Kunja Babu also planned like that He thought: 'By cheating all the Godbrothers, I have now got now Caitanya Matha. And people will come to see Caitanya Mahaprabhu's birthplace, and I will get good income. And it will be distributed amongst my brothers and sons and myself. That's all.' That is his scheme. Tamal Krishna: "Perfect material plan" Srila Prabhupada: "Yes, it is another way of earning money..."

3) AND WHAT WAS THE DISEASE?

Srila Prabhupada: "Because at heart, they were 'After demise of Guru I shall become acarya' 'I shall become acharya.' So all the acharyas began fight." (Room conversation with Srila Prabhupada, Bombay September 21,1973)

A similar scenario developed in post 1977 GBC. "They unauthorizedly declared themselves acharyas" (the bogus 1977-8 guru/acharya "appointment.") Some GBCs "took over the assets" (i.e. the properties) through their illegal and bogus "zonal acharya" usurpation of ISKCON. They "cheated the God brothers" and indeed harassed, banned, and/ or forcibly "kicked out" so many innocent devotees. Some "dissidents" were assassinated in the Gaudiya Matha, and some of ISKCON's GBC orchestrated the same types of crimes. In sum, the leaders deviated and conspired against the rank-and-file devotees to rob them of the legal rights, temples, and so on, just so these leaders could exploit the assets and establish worship of themselves and not the original acharya, Srila Prabhupada.

As one "ISKCON Guru" said in October of 1978 in Vrindavana India, "Let them (the God brothers) all leave, we have got our own disciples now." Read: "we have stolen the assets, and so now we shall ban, harass, drive out, threaten, and beat-up those who object." In short, these leaders had to drive out the worshippers of the original acharya to establish their plan to establish worship of themselves, as occurred in the Gaudiya Matha.

And it is now well known (and it has been extensively documented in many major medias in the West) that the ISKCON "gurus" backpedaled the authorized means of preaching. Instead they introduced dubious and fraudulent means of raising money for their lavish jet-set lifestyles. This includes, but is not necessarily limited to, selling rock-n-roll records, nonsense decals, beer buttons and caps, karmi paintings, and numerous other scams, under the name of samkirtan. Some historians will say that they simply tried to cheat the "new devotees" and defraud the innocent public under the name of Srila Prabhupada and Krishna. Apparently, there was also some "devotee women being dressed alluringly to collect money in bars," support for drug selling, "gurus" investing in gold, and endless other scams going on.

Thus it would seem that the "initiation issue" is merely a front to take over the assets of Srila Prabhupada's movement and start various cheating businesses. And some leaders have used the ill-gotten financial power to legally threaten Srila Prabhupada's disciples out of their legitimate place in Srila Prabhupada's institution. In sum, the real issue is all about "usurping" the money and control of the assets.

4) WHERE IS THE MONEY?

This raises several important issues. What happened to all the money that had been collected after 1977? There seems to be millions and millions of dollars involved, and the original followers were deprived of the use of those assets by the guru scam. Where is the accounting of all of those funds? And what has happened to the money collected since 1977?

"In Krishna Consciousness we are getting sufficient money, but we should never think that the money belongs to us; it belongs to the Supreme Personality of Godhead and should be equally distributed among the workers, the devotees. No one should claim that any money or property belongs to him. If one thinks that any portion of property of this huge universe belongs to anyone, he is to be considered a thief and is punishable by the laws of nature." (Srila Prabhupada purport on Srimad Bhagavatam 8.1.10)

1) What has happened to all the guru-daksina moneys collected by all ISKCON gurus since 1977? How much was collected and what has it been spent on? The GBC should provide a CPA audited account.

2) The samadhi collections. Again, how much has been collected and how has it been spent. Again a CPA audited account.

3) How much has been spent on private book trusts, private tape trusts, houses and cars, phone calls, faxes, travels, hotel room, etc by all the Iskcon gurus since 1977. Please provide a CPA audited account, etc, etc.

1) TRADITION OF DEBATE

Whoever is proposing to participate from ISKCON has to read and reply, point for point, to the "Tradition of Debate" posted on Rocana's web site. Any and all questions and issues raised in this paper must be fully answered in writing by any and all of the GBC participants before I can agree to participate in any kind of debate.

2) RESTRICTION OF PARTICIPANTS.

The restriction of various devotees such as Puranjana dasa or others is not acceptable. The issue has much broader importance than can be discussed by a mere few people anyway. We suggest that at least the following devotees be included as potential members of a board of discussion: Harinam dasa, Dhamaghosa dasa, Isa dasa, Kapindra Swami, Kamsa Hanta dasa, Krishna Kant dasa, Kulasekhara dasa, Hamsadutta dasa, Gauridasa pandit dasa, Gadadhara dasa, Naranarayan Viswakarma dasa, Narasingha dasa, Vadiraja dasa, Mahabuddihi dasa, Nityananda dasa, Hasti Gopala dasa, Pratyatosa dasa, Praghosa dasa, Tulsi dasi, Satyahit dasa, and any other individuals who may wish to contribute to the discussion. They must be allowed to participate. Why not allow them? What are we afraid of?

3) NEUTRALITY?

With all due respect, the proposition that Kundali dasa and yoursef are neutral is not accurate. Both of these speakers have, in the recent past, supported various pillars of the GBC's view, such as the deviated "living guru ideology" borrowed from the Gaudiya Matha and smarta camps. And you have used numerous other arguments in attempt to uphold various GBC ideas and doctrines. On the one hand, Sriman Puru das vigorously defends the GBC and some of their ideologies and he attempts to rationalize some of their illicit and illegal behaviors, and the other hand he also wants to be seen, simultaneously, as neutral. Our friend, Puru das, has no history of being neutral? Worse, he has cited as his authority a spurious translated book and gurus from the Gaudiya Matha?

Therefore first of all, for anyone to be counted as "taking a neutral position," one should publicly disassociate himself from any and all deviant GBC individuals, and their philosophies and behaviors, and the Gaudiya Matha's deviated ideas. Then, one's request to be considered as a neutral party would have some credibility. At this point they do not, because some have gone on record defending many of the GBC's incredibly deviated philosophies and ideologies. How can one be called neutral?

4) H.H. RADHANATHA SWAMI

With all due respect to HH Radhanatha Swami and his good service, the request to have him as a neutral moderator is incomprehensible. He cannot be accepted as a neutral moderator. He is an ISKCON GBC "voted in" guru, he is under the GBC's jurisdiction and control. He has been known to have supported and still supports the GBC positions and documents, with their dubious so-called siddhantas, questionable behaviors, and even immoral if not criminal activities in the name of guru.

Before his position as a neutral moderator can be considered, he would have to answer a few questions. Further, I would like to respectfully ask H.H. Radhanatha Swami and the other proposed GBC participants to scrutinizingly read "The Tradition of Debate" and specifically the area regarding homosexual pedophile gurus. We'd like to know Maharaja's written answers to all the questions and points in this paper. We'd also like to know why he has not acted to clear these points up a long time ago?

There are several other points for the Maharaja to consider:
1) Whom does the Maharaja credit with starting these deviations?
2) Who was "consulted" to help create these types of deviated gurus?
3) Who are the parties who were voted in later by the same deviants?
4) Which previous gurus were 2/3 voted in by known deviants?
5) Which previous gurus wanted to be known as voted in by deviants? etc.
6) Why have some GBCs stated that gurus deviate when this is forbidden? (Arcye visnau sila-dhir gurusu nara-matih vaisnave jati-buddhi...)

And way before the Maharaja can realistically be considered as a neutral moderator, is he willing to publicly disassociate himself from any and all deviations? Is he willing to declare the parampara as free of these deviations eternally? Is he willing to name the deviant GBC's involved in these deviations and demand a retraction or replacement? Otherwsie, where is the neutrality?

5) WHAT IS THE SCRIPTURAL BASIS?

We have categorically stated that we do not accept that the first edition books of Srila Prabhupada should be changed. Please refer to chapter two of the "Tradition of Debate." Debaters must have common scriptures and we do not seem to have that? And before we even have a standard book, we are already changing his books? Also our friends Kundali dasa, yourself, and the GBC, desire to bring in books by other Vaishnavas that were not even translated by, or directly discussed, or quoted by, Srila Prabhupada? Srila Prabhupada himself stated many times that he had covered all relevant topics in his existing first edition books? Do we now say that we know more than he does?

For example, he has elaborately discussed, and rejected, the guru fall down philosophies, and therefore we need not consult others for advice on this matter. "If one considers guru an ordinary human being, then he is hellish." (SP lecture Los Angeles) So, now we find a new book, which we allege says "guru is ordinary" and thus we "go straight to hell." Fine, but why drag the whole society to hell with these false interpretations? Take this outside of ISKCON. Keep ISKCON pure? Srila Prabhupada says there a many folks who are determined to go to hell. That is all fine and good, but why do we want their ideas to form the central authority for ISKCON? If some people want to say that "gurus fall down and become molesters," they should do that outside of Srila Prabhupada's mission because that is not his teaching? These teachings in his movement will cause chaos and conflict, and murders, as occured in the Gaudiya Matha.

Srila Prabhupada:

"Whatever is to be learned about the Teachings of Bhaktivinoda Thakura can be learned from our books, there is no need whatsoever for any outside instruction" (Srila Prabhupada letter 12/1970)

So, why are we introducing new books unless we are trying to contradict his books? Indeed, this is one of the major areas of contention. When did Srila Prabhupada authorize his devotees to consult with "other authorities" and scriptures and override His conclusions using such "evidences"? And besides, you proposed that you will have Srila Prabhupada's books on your table. Fine, but which editions?. If you propose to use the revised editions, that is not acceptable. Again, please familiarize yourself with my position on this subject by thoroughly reading "the Tradition of Debate." Please answer in writing all the points raised there.

First, it might be advisable to be ready to prove your fallen guru idea from direct statements in Prabhupada's purports [original unrevised editions only] and provide specific examples from Srila Prabhupada's books, and then talk. Please read "The Tradition of Debate" before you attempt any reply to this message.

6) WHO IS GOING TO REPRESENT THE GBC?

The GBC sometimes debates a few devotees over a few issues. If they think that they looked like winners, they might say "there was a debate and we won." If they think they looked a little bad, as they did in San Diego in January of 1990, then they will say that "Ravindra Svarupa does not [or did not] represent the GBC." So, we need to know if the GBC is going to put in writing that the individuals that they will put forward as their debaters will be bound by their statements, and the consequences, as well as the history of behaviors of their "gurus" since 1977.

Please refer to chapter three of "the Tradition of Debate" in this connection? Since the GBC now says that they are going to have to give us yet another paper on guru tattva, we might need that paper to be complete before we can start as well? Of course, we might ask why are they banning, beating and killing folks, if they do not even have authority to be gurus --by their own admission?

7) OUTSTANDING LITERATURES?

Another point is that this debate has been going on already for 20 years, especially since 1989. Many of us have already produced elaborate documentation to prove the philosophical positions we have taken. Sriman Krishna Kant dasa has produced many additional papers and booklets, which were never systematically, point for point refuted by anyone. One GBC guru even said these writings were "shit."

But it was the GBC who first asked us to present a paper summarizing our position. Sriman Krishna Kant Prabhu has produced "the Final Order." This has been submitted to the GBC, yet to this day, most of Krishna Kanta's major points have not even been dealt with by the GBC? Kapindra Maharaja, Hamsadutta dasa, Krishna Kantha dasa, Gauri das pandita dasa, Madhusudana das, Madhudvisa das Swami, Mahesvara dasa, Puranjana das, Karnamrta dasa, myself (ynd) and other authors have produced many articles and booklets on this issue and related topics which have never been replied to point for point? For 20 years?

Many other articles and discussions were produced in the late 1980s in the "Vedic Village Review" era, and more recently in the "Back to Prabhupada magazine," and yet the issues and points raised there have never been properly countered either?

So this debate HAS BEEN GOING ON FOR MANY YEARS. Where has the GBC been? They do not deal with the issues? They have been avoiding the issues and have instead used banning, threats and violence against the Lord's Vaishnavas. Gaudiya Matha part two. The GBC still has not satisfactorily replied to all the points raised by Sriman Krishna Kantha das in his paper. This paper was written at the request of the GBC, and still they avoid it! Before you venture with statements that you will "eat the ritviks alive," you may wish to read all the above literatures by these various individuals and familiarize yourself with their various arguments. Since, from your own admission, you have not even read, "The Final Order" I may safely assume that you may also be unfamiliar with "Our Living Guru," "The Betrayal," "Srila Prabhupada: Our Diksa Guru," "Srila Prabhupada is the Initiator," "Srila Prabhupada His movement and you," etc., and the various other literatures written by some of the above authors. It may be advisable for you to carefully read these, before you shoot from the hip. And before eating us Vaishnavas alive (which is the favored pastime of Rakshas?) please apply lots of ketchup, we are not that tasty.

8) MORATORIUM ON ONGOING HARASSMENT, BEATINGS, BANNINGS, AND THREATS.

It is no secret by now that hundreds, if not thousands of devotees have been harassed, driven away, beaten up, threatened, banned from entering the temples, etc. This pattern of G-oonda B-ully C-riminal Behavior is still continuing as we speak. Right here in Los Angeles a devotee was beaten at the Sunday Feast about 2 months ago. Just last week, a spanish speaking person called a respectable good standing devotee and verbally threatened him that someone was going to rape his little girl, just after that poor devotee had a confrontation with Govinda Datta dasa at the L.A temple.

Last year, a devotee was physically assaulted. In another incident a temple enforcer beat another devotee's head into the sidewalk. And the examples go on and on. If you are proposing a debate, then you must obtain from all the GBC members a written resolution that all theats, beatings, bannings, contrived excommunications and all other forms of intimidations are forbidden, and all past incidents of excommunications are rescinded immediately. Otherwise your proposal of a debate with any members or representatives of the Goonda Bully Commission [GBC] is like a farce.

9) REJOIN ISKCON?

I have never left ISKCON? But I categorically refuse to align myself with the current misrepresentatives of Miss-Kcon or the current leadership. To convince me to rejoin the current Miss-KCON you had better have some very convincing arguments and be ready to show that you have had a major internal clean-up of the corrupt leadership and the profoundly deviated philosophies which they still cling to.

10) ALL HISTORY IS ON THE TABLE.

If you want me to participate in any so-called debate or discussions with any representatives from Miss-KCon, then I reserve the right to bring up any past behaviors and history of any GBC or Iskcon Gurus and ask any relevant questions as I deem fit. And this has to be thread bare for as long as required. Otherwise do not call it a debate. Without this, your so-called debate has no basis. No one can avoid the history of their behaviors. Acharya means "perfect behavior," so why not discuss the beahvior?

CONCLUSIONS

We must commend our friend Sriman Puru dasa for his well intentioned ideas. However, there are serious doubts about the origin of his ideologies. It is a known fact that many of the GBC and Iskcon so-called guru reform attempts have been influenced by Gaudiya Math ideologies. As such, to claim neutrality and simultaneously argue and propagate deviant GBC ideologies is contradictory. The current need is to reunify the Vaishnava movement. To this end, we have to return to the fundamental basics of Srila Prabhupada's mission. We must return to His Divine Grace's original Books and His final order. Krishne matir astu. Sarve sukhino bhavantu.

Your eternal servant, Yasodanandana dasa (yasoda@artnet.net)

(also see: "Tradition of Debate" on Rocana's site: http://www.islandnet.com/krsna/)