It should be noted that the GBC were well aware of the attitudes and tendencies of notorious Godbrothers like Kirtanananda Swami and Hansadutta Swami to disregard Srila Prabhupada’s arrangements to have them isolated. Instead, they callously assigned them to thriving areas, then abandoned the Temple Presidents when the predictable outcomes manifested.
As the Temple President of Seattle in 1978, I was the one of the first victims of the zonal acarya system. By the order of a special meeting of the GBC, all of Srila Prabhupada’s disciples, along with the gurukula of 40 children, were ordered to leave the temple within days. The entire school and staff had to travel in over-loaded van’s all the way to Philadelphia in the middle of winter. The GBC members flew in from around the world to Detroit to attend this special meeting, and many of them were flying first class.
At the conclusion of the three day meeting, I was told by the GBC’s representative, Bhagavan Swami, that the GBC knew I was correct in my appraisal of Hansadutta’s psychological condition, and that they were aware of even worse tales of horror than I had recounted. But, he said, they had to “sacrifice the village to save the country”. In other words, they couldn’t pull Hansadutta Swami down now, because their disciples might become disturbed with doubts about the spiritual qualifications of the other zonal acaryas. This was November 1978, less than one year after their Coronation, in March 1978.
To this day, the Seattle Temple has never recovered. All of the so-called disciples of Hansadutta that we were forced to abandon in Seattle, eventually blooped. I was coerced into going to England, so that I could not report on what I knew about the insane activities of this alleged uttama-adikari, His Divine Grace Srila Hansadutta dasa Swami. All this disturbance, just to protect the image of the zonal acarya system. The GBC allowed this crazed mis-representative of the GBC body and Srila Prabhupada to infect the temples in the Pacific North West, the Philippines and Sri Lanka for years before anything was done. How many lives were affected? How many temples seriously set back? What were the repercussions suffered from the media exposure generated by documentaries and books like “Monkey on a Stick”?
Upon arriving in England, January 1979, I discovered a system of management in which I had never participated. I had always executed my service within Srila Prabhupada’s established temple format: Temple President, Temple Secretary, Treasurer, and Istagosti. But in England, Jayatirtha had introduced a centralized corporate structure. Prior to Jayatirtha’s takeover, Hansadutta had closed down many smaller temples throughout the U.K., centralizing everything at the Manor. The Temple Presidents (London and Bhaktivedanta Manor) were department heads. Along with the sankirtana program, the treasury, life membership, and bhakta programs were all run by department heads, with Jayatirtha as the CEO. I soon became the sankirtana department head. This experience was like what I imagined the Mafia to be. Sankirtana consisted of illegally selling deceptively labeled record albums, and lying about the artists playing on the record. This was a common technique in many other zones. You can imagine the public relation fallout after selling one million “ Day and Night Dream” albums.
After years as a Temple President, I found this service to be very unsatisfying. It soon became evident to me why Srila Prabhupada had insisted upon the decentralized style of management. Theoretically, the corporate system reduces the chance for mistakes, but the actual result was that we made much bigger mistakes, with far greater consequences. Jayatirtha’s unnecessary purchase of Caitanya College at Croome Court, soon became known to the struggling devotees as Kitcheri College at Doom Court. The building was finally sold at a great financial loss, along with the loss of the devotee’s time and efforts. The corporate concoction simply became a way to repose the ultimate power in one person, who in illusion conceived of himself as above the four defects, unaffected by the modes of nature, and a good manager.
Jayatirtha dasa had been publicly chastised by Srila Prabhupada for trying to introduce this centralized system in America, yet within a few months of Srila Prabhupada’s departure, he again introduced his own ideas of how ISKCON should be organized. What he established was certainly not Srila Prabhupada’s Plan. With few exceptions, each acarya created his own tailor-made version of a centralized system. They seemed to have forgotten the innumerable instructions of their Spiritual Master. Where were the GBC?
These situations could never have occurred had Srila Prabhupada been present. Every Temple President that I personally know has similar horror stories...and very few of these highly trained leaders are still serving in their Spiritual Master’s Mission.
It will require volumes to describe the incredible disturbances caused in each of these situations, and the unnecessary suffering visited on so many sincere disciples of Srila Prabhupada. With the support of my Godbrothers, I will endeavor to see that these experiences are written, that the proper questions are asked, an accurate history is maintained, and that all devotees, now and in the future, have an opportunity to hear the complete story. For now, suffice to say that the disturbance was so great for the Temple Presidents that many of them just gave up. My experiences represent just a fraction of the mayhem that was going on throughout the movement, and in this paper, I am only relating a small portion of what I personally went through.
It is also important to consider that the Temple Presidents were generally next in line to the gurus, and that influence had significant consequences. The zonal acaryas greatly disturbed the temple situation by encouraging the Temple Presidents to be their promoters, supporters and recruiters, and the trainer of their disciples. Many of them even insisted that the temple authorities daily attend their guru puja. Consequently, if the Temple Presidents wanted to have a trouble-free life, they had no choice but to go along with the gurus.
At that time, the association of the zonal acaryas was very contaminating for the Temple Presidents. The zonal acaryas encouraged the Temple Presidents to cut a more opulent profile, compromising their austerity. Many of the Temple Presidents succumbed to the temptation of taking more perks, such as a better car, a better apartment, a bigger and nicer office, or more travel, all of which caused a great disturbance among the other disciples in the temple. In return for “laxmi” to finance their flagrantly opulent lifestyles, the gurus would motivate the disciples to participate in grueling “marathons”. The zonal acarya Rajas stood in great contrast to the austerities demanded of the other devotees. Naturally, the latent desires of the Temple Presidents quickly manifested, due to bad association.
This well known letter clearly points out Srila Prabhupada’s Policy:
January 12, 1975
My dear Kirtiraja das,
Our philosophy is “simple living and high thinking'' - not sense gratification. The temple presidents and leaders (elder students) must show this by example. Temple or asrama means for renunciation and renounced persons. If one is engaged in self-realization process, then his material necessities become almost nil. Persons who do not like this can work outside.
I hope this meets you in good health.
Your ever well-wisher,
Signed A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami
These zonal fly-boys would arrive in town with their big showbottle profiles, their silk clothes, their opulent fanfare, their expensive watches, their lap top computers, and in many cases a private servant, and would then encourage the Temple Presidents to participate in that mood. Previously, under the direction of Srila Prabhupada, Temple Presidents experienced little difference in terms of their material advantages from other devotees in the temple, other than perhaps traveling to Mayapura every year. Beyond that, theirs was not an enviable material situation. Gopal Krsna Swami proudly revealed to me that his airfare alone was greater than the entire yearly budget of the Montreal Temple - over $150,000 a year in the mid-eighties, not to mention his telephone bills (he once racked up $600.00 in long distance charges in one day). Was he worth that much? Certainly not to the Canadian Temples. I would have paid to have him not come at all.
THE BALANCE OF TEMPLE LIFE
Normally, the Temple Presidents enjoyed very close friendships with Srila Prabhupada’s disciples, who became like their family. This family mood was very conducive to keeping devotees engaged in the temple programs, and in service to Srila Prabhupada. During the pre-samadhi period, there was little distinction between the grihasta and brahamacari asramas, because everyone was simply striving to please Srila Prabhupada. The senior disciples tended to be grihastas, and the younger disciples, brahmacaries or brahacarinis. After a few years of celibacy, the desire to change asramas was inevitable for many. In the temple context, this didn’t pose much of a problem, because the atmosphere was surcharged with sankirtana spirit, and everyone cooperatively participated in producing the results.
With the advent of the zonal acarya system, many subtle but significant dynamics were disturbed, throwing off the balance needed to maintain the preaching mood. The “simultaneously one and different” mood set by the diksas has already been discussed, but because many of the zonal acaryas were also sannyasis, and cutting a very regal profile, the brahmacaries started to emulate the gurus and demanded more perks and indepen- dence. If their service was to help bring in the funds needed to meet the temple budget, many brahmacaries complained about the money that was being spent to support the women and children. This attitude was reinforced by the gurus, who often spoke disparagingly about those devotees who were not primarily fund-raisers. In fact, these gurus where supposed to be committed to protecting and, in fact, revering the women and children.
Another result of this attitude was that a disproportionate amount of the funds collected was sent off to the BBT. Even to say this was considered a great offense. But to please the gurus and a few brahmacaries, the Deities often did without flower garlands and nice prasadam, and the devotees did without basic necessities like medical and dental care. The spirit of hard-working devotees quickly deteriorates when you can’t heat the temple in the middle of a Canadian winter. To add insult to injury, the big guru would then fly into town and be presented with a nicely decorated, warm apartment, and more opulent prasadam than you could afford to give the Deities. In some cases, the watches these gurus were wearing would have heated the temple all winter.
They were too busy cutting the Acarya profile and could not perform their primary duties as GBC, which required humility, patience and other Vaisnava qualities. Instead of meeting with devotees, they now had “Darsana”. What was created was a reverse of the varnasrama system. After attending all the morning programs and serving over 60 hours a week, grihasta’s were left feeling guilty about having to take a bare minimum allowance, and neglected children had to beg from the rich bachelors in saffron silk.
THE GURU REFORM REVOLUTION
Myself in Eastern Canada, along with Bahudak dasa in Western Canada, were two of the most active participants in the so-called Guru Reform Revolution. In fact, it was the failure on the part of the GBC to bring about the necessary expected changes that resulted in my decision to leave my service as Regional Secretary in Eastern Canada. At the time I departed, I admit I was not certain about what Srila Prabhupada intended to have take place after His disappearance, but I was convinced that the zonal acarya system was terribly wrong and should be completely dismantled.
The powerful power brokers within the GBC conspired with some of the “forgiving and merciful” reformers, promising them a piece of the action, namely guruship and a position on the GBC in exchange for their compliance. In that way, they managed to hold on to their territories and manpower, with only a slight adjustment in the level of their power.
Due to the intoxicated condition of most of these big gurus, we knew that there was little hope they would see the light, and that they would do everything in their power to maintain their positions.
Their guru reform scheme consisted of a mock trial in Mayapura, where the GBC (most of whom were zonal acaryas or their sychopants) were instructed to select two candidates from each zone. They carefully made sure that these representatives would vote in favor of whatever “wise” decisions had been made behind closed doors by the all-knowing elite. Needless to say, radical Temple Presidents like myself were not invited to the Mayapura meeting, although it was due to our long struggle that the reform issue was being dealt with at all. Instead, the “rational, brahminical, compromisers” were permitted to attend and to benefit. In Canada, Jagadisa Swami’s choices were Bhakti Marg Swami, who never showed any interest or attended any of the meetings, and Tarknatha dasa, a raving homosexual, who didn’t even bother to attend.
Naturally, the original reformers had a clearer understanding of the circumstances surrounding many of the problems than most of the representatives who actually attended the Mayapura meeting. These circumstances included the threats being made by the biggest players to leave with money, men, and copyrights to Srila Prabhupada’s translated books if their demands were not met. The GBC obviously felt that it was wiser to surrender to these demands rather than face the difficult task of completely dismantling this oppressive regime.
Many of the long-standing Temple Presidents, who had practically experienced the effects of the zonal acarya system, were of the opinion that the disciples of these so-called guru’s should have been fully informed of the ramifications of their guru’s Big Mistake. We felt that their disciples should be told that their initiations were nullified due to the fact that the most important principle of loving devotional service had been transgressed - namely, Free Will.
These bewildered zonal acaryas should have at least been removed as diksa gurus by the GBC, until it was felt that they had become purified from the intoxicating effects of false pride. The many victims should have had their grievances properly addressed by the GBC. They did not, and as a result, the zonal acarya mentality is still alive and well today within ISKCON. In fact, these same offenders are still very powerful leaders in the movement, and wield tremendous influence within the GBC. Harikesa Swami, with his huge zone and BBT concerns, was just made co-GBC of France and Mayapura. It is interesting to note that this successful leader is the one who is still the most outspoken exponent of the powerful zonal acarya technique. There are still many areas within ISKCON which are almost exclusively the domain of one ex-zonal Acarya, now a regular diksa guru with thousands of disciples. We can only imagine how successful ISKCON would be today if Srila Prabhupada had remained the only Founder Acarya in ISKCON, and the diksa guru of all the Hare Krsna devotees.
Following the Mayapura Reformation Court Hearing, we were expected to believe that by the removal of a few inappropriate titles, big seats, and a little prestige, and with the introduction of a bit more competition, the problem was solved. The solution was to strengthen the GBC by expanding its numbers with members whose qualifications were primarily those of bureaucrats and scholars. Srila Prabhupada’s opinion of bureaucracy has been made patently clear in the letter to Karandara dasa presented earlier.
“Krishna Consciousness Movement is for training men to be independently thoughtful and competent in all types of, departments of knowledge and action not for making bureau- cracy. Once there is bureaucracy the whole thing will be spoiled.”
It is sadly ironic to see all the rules, laws, departments, offices, committees, sub- committees, secretariats, zonal secretaries, ministries, corporate headquarters, etc., that are now required to manage less devotees and less temples than there was when Srila Prabhupada’s ISKCON lila was manifest for 12 years. Nineteen years later, ISKCON should have expanded by at least 3 times what it had been in 1977, even by material calculations. Considering how quickly we were expanding prior to 1977, ISKCON should be at least 10 times what it is today. In North America, most temples are now a perverted reflection of what they had been when Srila Prabhupada handed the responsibility over to His disciples, the majority of whom are no longer participating.
After the aborted attempt in 1986 to change the direction of deviation, some of my Godbrothers took the bait of becoming diksa gurus themselves. Many of them did so out of frustration, due to having had their programs during the zonal acarya era seriously disturbed. They felt that the only option was to have their own disciples, so the big gurus could no longer interfere with their programs.
So many felt that they would become very successful and attract multitudes of disciples, as their predecessors had done. But by then, the momentum within ISKCON had slowed down significantly, which resulted in these second and third tier gurus acquiring only a handful of disciples. The original zonal gurus, due to their expert showmanship, were still much more attractive to the new bhaktas. Due to the GBC policy of downplaying the effects of the philosophical deviation of the zonal acarya system, and censoring the horrific details of abuse, as well as the reality of having the temples staffed predominantly by disciples of the big diksa gurus, who naturally promoted their guru as the best choice, correction of the imbalance was not forthcoming.
I recently meet with a very old friend, Bhakti Marg Swami, who opted for this alternative. I was the Temple President in Toronto when Bhakti Marg joined, in 1972. He was always a conscientious, pleasant, hard working devotee and almost single-handedly supported the temple for years prior to becoming Temple President. When I saw him recently, he was just beginning a cross-Canada walk (3000 miles). He emotionally described the frustration that he experienced while trying to serve his spiritual master, Srila Prabhupada, as President of the Toronto Temple. We talked about the atmosphere of love and trust we had enjoyed during the pre-samadhi era, and how it has been replaced by a mood of bickering and non-cooperation amongst disciples of the various gurus. This mood helped to create problems that made his service very difficult. Bhakti Marg Swami’s twenty-four years of service ended recently, when a GBC committee removed him from his service. Bhakti Marg Swami felt that he was handled impersonally by the four man committee (a recent concoction of the bureaucratic GBC), and pointed out that the local GBC, Bhakti Ragava Swami, was not even present to help him at a time of great crisis.
As I understand it, Suba Vilasa dasa, who was at the root of the problem, was unhappy about the fact that Bhakti Marg Swami prevented him from becoming the GBC after Jagadisa Swami’s resignation. There is a long history behind this story, known by the local Prabhupada disciples. Bhakti Marg Swami felt that the delegated four-man GBC committee was unnecessary overkill, and that their investigation was hampered by concocted stories and politics coming from the different guru’s disciples. Bhakti Marg Swami’s future service is still unclear. He is bitter, and his walk is more therapy than a preaching mission. In typical form, the GBC’s technique for resolution of the problem was to give Bhakti Marg Swami a brief mention in their GBC Resolutions. That should cheer him up. Maybe he should walk to Achula, Florida, so the GBC can create another bureaucratic post for him.
Here is an except from the News letter, Issue 1, September 1995, of Bhira Krsna Swami, Srila Gurudev...
“JET-AGE PAIVRAJAKACARYA Srila Gurudeva ...was named Secretary for North America of ISKCON's Governing Body Commission this year. He has been to Toronto six times in the last five months. Most recently, after a wonderful Janmastami celebration here, at New Goloka, he hopped on a plane and celebrated Janmastami again and Srila Prabhupada's Appearance Day at the home of Suba Vilasa, a Prabhupada disciple, along with his wife, Ashalata, and children, Minakshi and Indresh. About 1500 people came to take darshan of Sri Sri Radha Syamasundara and participate in the festivities.”
The fact that the GBC Secretary/representative sided with Suba Vilasa, a perpetual trouble maker, and relieved Bhakti Marg Swami of his long held post as Temple President, was of great agitation to Bhakti Marg Swami and the Prabhupada disciples in Toronto. It certainly keeps the jet-age Paivrajakacarya Srila Gurudeva busy. I wonder who pays his airfare? It would be of interest to know the total cost of airfare accrued yearly by all the gurus, GBC bureaucrats, and committee members. Shocking no doubt. No wonder the temples are impoverished. The Toronto Temple gave Bhakti Marg Swami so few funds for his walk, which started on the west coast, that he had to send out a plea for money before he reached the Rockies.
ISKCON continues to labour under a lack of deep understanding of Srila Prabhupada’s plan. The Ultimate Managing Authority is still unable to provide adequate support to the disciples it purports to serve. The offenses continue, and the GBC discourages yet another experienced man.
AN INSTITUTION IN TROUBLE
One of the classic symptoms of an institution in trouble is that the leaders attempt to excessively control everyone around them, and are unable to regulate themselves or their bureaucracy. They become lost in maya, thinking themselves in control. Under the strong influence of this illusion, the power structure, and the relationships that operate within it, become increasingly artificial. The leaders begin to feel out of control. In fear of losing what they covet, they develop a sense of hyper-vigilance, intuitively sensing the impending crisis. But by now, they’re so absorbed in trying to maintain an impossible balance, that they’re unable to focus their vision inward, and cannot see the real source of their difficulty.
The following statement, taken from the February 1996 GBC Resolutions, perfectly illustrates the dynamic described above. It is easy to see which of the two doctrines the GBC considers to be more dangerous, especially to the bureaucrats who composed this ridiculous paper:
1996 ISKCON Guru and Initiation Paper.
1.5.6. Specifically Outlawed Doctrines and Practices
188.8.131.52. "Zonal-Acarya" System:
No guru should declare himself or allow himself to be declared an "acarya" or "present acarya" for ISKCON or
for a geographical area of ISKCON. There should be no
use of the word "acarya" as a title of office.
184.108.40.206. "Posthumous Rtvik" Doctrine
The doctrine that Srila Prabhupada continues to initiate direct diksa disciples after his departure
from this world through officiating priests (rtviks) is
a dangerous philosophical deviation. It is totally
prohibited in ISKCON. No devotee shall participate in
such posthumous rtvik initiation ceremonies in any
capacity including acting as rtvik, initiate,
assistant, organizer, or financier. No ISKCON devotee
shall advocate or support its practice.
This very brief and mildly worded description of the zonal acarya philosophy indicates the lack of understanding within the GBC of how spiritually dangerous the effects of false prestige have been upon the aspiring transcendentalist and the institution that he represents. The many terrible experiences witnessed by everyone during the zonal acarya era did not seem to make much of an impression on these GBC members.
The GBC would now have us believe that the rtvik philosophy of having Srila Prabhupada remain the diksa guru, is far more dangerous than even the zonal acarya system. Would someone kindly explain to us why this is so much more dangerous? What possible reactions can we expect to incur from recommending that someone take diksa initiation from Srila Prabhupada? The above Resolutions illustrate the attitude we are up against.
Having read the original recommendations made by the committee who drew up
this document and presented it to the GBC for ratification, I was interested to note that one particular recommendation is conspicuous by it’s absence. It stated that the gurus, sannyasis, and GBCs submit a certified set of financial records documenting the source of their yearly income, and where they spent it.
ULTIMATE AUTHORITY MEANS ULTIMATE RESPONSIBILITY
It is interesting to observe that the GBC have never presented an explanation on how twenty of the most senior disciples could ratify such an offensive policy as the Zonal Acarya System. Mistakes of this devastating magnitude must have their roots in a major philosophical misunderstanding. Even within the relative material world, leaders who make mistakes that cause such devastating results know it is more honorable to resign, rather than wait to be thrown out by their constituents. Not the case with ISKCON. They have been allowed to continue without explanation or apology, leaving everyone to speculate as to their motives and the degree of their integrity. As a result, many sincere devotees left in hopelessness and disgust.
So many difficulties can be attributed to the fact that the GBC involved itself in “managing”, instead of doing as Srila Prabhupada instructed - traveling and preaching, looking out for impurities rather than creating them. It is no surprise that when Srila Prabhupada went into samadhi, these big managers were compelled to grab the power, rather than take on the humble, pure position of rtvik. If they had embraced Srila Prabhupada’s orders years before, I believe they would have been purified enough to at least follow His last instruction, and to humbly cooperate in pushing on Krsna consciousness. It takes a far more advanced devotee to participate in the GBC system than in the zonal acarya system. In the final analysis, the GBC system has never really been implemented as Srila Prabhupada planned. Maybe some day we will be advanced enough to realize it.
For now, I believe it is necessary for us to study the underlying philosophical assumptions that lead one to engage in the type of activities that the GBC participated in, and to understand how this offensive mentality effected the management of the movement, particularly life in the temples. As I’ve studied the ongoing controversies, I find that they are woven together by a common thread. And this thread, I believe, leads us to the root of the problem.
SRILA PRABHUPADA’S LILA
Underlying all the controversy currently faced by Srila Prabhupada’s devotees is an essential philosophical question: was His Divine Grace A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada a Nittya-siddha, Maha-Bhagavata, Shaktavesa Avatara? Or was He a Sadhana-siddha Pure Devotee attaining perfection in this lifetime, as the GBC depicted Him shortly after His departure?
Was the early part of Srila Prabhupada’s life not really of much significance, except in that He had a pious birth, which allowed Him to come into contact with the nittya-siddha, Srila Bhaktisiddanta Saraswati Thakura? Was it only after this meeting that Srila Prabhupada began making spiritual advancement? Did the purification that He underwent culminate in His achievements after He ended up in New York City, and ISKCON began? At what point in His life did Srila Prabhupada attain the status of pure devotee? Although many devotees within the now-existing society claim to accept that Srila Prabhupada is nittya-siddha, how do they answer these questions? Since Srila Prabhupada’s departure, what have the existing leaders in the GBC led everyone to believe?
After taking control of the GBC in 1977, the first major project of the zonal acaryas was their commissioning of the “authorized” biography of His Divine Grace Srila Prabhupada, commonly known as the “Lilamrta”. A great deal of money was made available by the BBT to send researchers all around the world, taping and transcribing interviews so that Satsvarupa dasa Goswami Maharaja, the GBC’s official zonal acarya spokesman, could present his conception of Srila Prabhupada’s life.
The Lilamrta certainly describes Srila Prabhupada in terms of one who has achieved perfection through sadhana. Details on the exact statements presented in the Lilamrta that verify this claim may be found in a scholarly research paper currently being prepared by Yasoda nandana dasa.
It is important to note that Satsvarupa dasa Goswami was the primary philosophical spokesman on the zonal acarya take-over theory, which was presented as the official 1978 GBC Position Paper. Satsvarupa has also authored a number of more recent philosophical concoctions justifying the actions of the zonal acaryas. Many devotees set aside their initial doubts about the zonal acarya system simply because Satsvarupa dasa Goswami was in agreement with the actions being taken by the GBC. In fact, he was depicted as the “Krsna das Kaviraj” of ISKCON. It was on the order of Raghunatha dasa Goswami that Krsna dasa Kaviraj wrote the Caitanya-caritamrta, and Srila Prabhupada writes in His concluding words in the first paragraph that he has translated Caitanya-caritamrta in accordance with the authorized order of His spiritual master, His Divine Grace Bhaktisiddanta Sarasvati Thakura Goswami Maharaja. Did Satsvarupa dasa Goswami have authorization from Srila Prabhupada to write His Biography?
There is a critical question that has never been answered by the GBC. Ten years after the inception of the zonal acarya system, they finally admitted that they had allowed a very serious philosophical deviation to infest the entire movement. Yet they have never given an explanation of what the serious misconceptions were, or what the contamination in consciousness was that resulted in the GBC’s implementation of a system that was clearly not what Srila Prabhupada authorized.
The zonal acarya system was not changed due to some great realization on the part of the GBC. It was changed because the rank and file devotees demanded that something be done. When we consider Satsvarupa dasa Goswami’s position as the author of the Lilamrta, we must ask how someone with so little understanding of the Spiritual Master’s plan for the management of His Society, as evidenced by Satsvarupa dasa’s support of the zonal acarya system, could be qualified to present a nittya-siddha, maha-bhagavata, Shaktavesa Avatara properly to the human society for the next ten thousand years. Three quarters of a million Lilamrta’s have been distributed. How much more might humanity have benefited if the same quantity of Srila Prabhupada’s Bhagavad-Gita As It Is had been distributed, instead? How has the misrepresentation of Srila Prabhupada affected the spiritual lives of it’s readers?
Does the following letter indicate that Satsvarupa dasa Goswami realizes that the guru puja offered to Srila Prabhupada is exclusively for a Nittya-Siddha Shaktavesa Avatara? While this letter was written at the tailend of the Big Hoax, Satsvarupa dasa Goswami does not indicate that he philosophically understood what the mistake was.