APRIL 14, 2012
By His Grace Krishna Dharma Dasa
KDD: A third problem is that we set ourselves up for institutional embarrassment. There can of course never be any guarantee that a particular devotee will not fall down or experience difficulties, as we have sadly seen many times.
[PADA: OK, first of all the GBC was saying they were appointing "acharyas" and "Vishnupadas" etc. now they are saying they are only appointing fallible rank and file sadhaka "devotees." That means they are adopting the ritvik idea.]
KDD: And again, in all fairness it has to be pointed out that ISKCON Law states that the 'no objection' should not be taken as 'a statement about the degree of God realisiation of the guru.'
[PADA: Of course then the GBC flip-flops back to saying they are appointing gurus.]
KDD: But by giving an institutional approval to a guru we offer an assurance, at least partially, that the institution finds this person qualified.
[PADA: Good, Now they are admitting that their guru system amounts to a guru certification or an "institutional rubber stamp for gurus."]
KDD: There is a six month period of deliberation undergone by the entire GBC body. They have published in their resolutions a list of qualifications to be expected from gurus.
[PADA: Good, now they are saying they are appointing gurus and that they only examine the prospective guru for only six months. That means they are making a minimal examination of their acharyas.]
KDD: The law itself, quoted above, states that the guru "measures up to the standards and guidelines given in ISKCON law." It is difficult for them to therefore 'approve' a guru and then also say 'we are not saying he is qualified.' If not then why say anything at all? If a guru who is approved by the GBC later proves to be unqualified, it will certainly reflect adversely upon the institution, at least to some degree.
[PADA: Right, appointing bogus gurus reflects adversely on ISKCON, and has done so ever since 1977. Of course where is "the law" that the GBC was ordered by Srila Prabhupada to appoint gurus?]
KDD: The above problem is made particularly acute by the fact that problems with individuals may take some time to register on an institutional level.
[PADA: Not really. We have seen major problems with these GBC gurus right from the start, for example Jayatirtha was falling down and when I reported this to the GBC, they kicked me out of ISKCON. And this has been the pattern all along, people who complain about these gurus are shunned, banned, beaten and assassinated because the main attempt is to cover up the failures of these GBC appointed gurus.]
KDD: In other words, if a guru experiences spiritual difficulties it may be some time before he loses his institutional backing or 'post' (which is another embarrassing problem in itself, i.e. how to announce to the Society that this person is now not qualified?).
[PADA: No, he never was qualified to be a guru, he was certified artificially from the start.]
KDD: We have seen many times in ISKCON that it was not until a guru became flagrantly unqualified that the institution finally had to denounce him. Meanwhile, however, individual disciples, who may have their doubts about the guru, are faced with the dilemma of wondering if something is wrong with their guru, while at the same time the institution continues with its support.
[PADA: Right, the GBC as an institution was called "a gutless wonder" in the book Monkey On A Stick for failing to take action against Kirtananda even after it was known he had all kinds of problems.]
KDD: By questioning his guru the disciple effectively questions GBC authority.
[PADA: Exactly, the GBC appoints these gurus and then backs them, so its almost impossible to "question the guru" without questioning the entire GBC body, with dire consequences, such as being shunned, banned, beaten and even assassinated. In other words the GBC is spawning violent cults.]
KDD: But it is hardly possible for the institution to intervene in such a private matter of faith.
[PADA: No its not a private affair, the GBC publicly promotes these gurus all over their media and also general public media, openly, in documents and so forth. For example the GBC promotes Radhanatha in all of their news sites and so forth.]
KDD: A disciple may feel that the specific instructions given him by his guru are just not proper, given the particular situation. Bali Maharaja rejecting his guru, Shukracarya, is a good example. Bali quite rightly rejected Shukracarya on the basis of one particular instruction he gave to Bali. In fact Shukracarya was not grossly fallen and was not rejected by his other disciples. The disciple has a God given individual right to accept or reject a guru; after all it is that disciple who will accept the consequences of either decision, good or bad.
[PADA: Not really, anyone who "questions the guru" is often shunned, banned, beaten and sometimes worse, it is simply not allowed to question these gurus.]
KDD: A graphic example of this problem is seen here in the UK, and indeed in many other parts of the world. We are experiencing quite some difficulties in ISKCON with detractors who point to the now fallen 'ISKCON gurus' and thereby find much fault with our Society. 'How could ISKCON have authorised such fallen persons?' they ask, comparing these persons to the many highly exalted descriptions of gurus given in our scriptures. It is undoubtedly embarrassing.
[PADA: At least they are starting to feel embarassed for promoting all their false gurus, that is a good start.]
KDD: A fourth and, in my view, far more serious institutional problem, is the disparity we create amongst devotees. If some devotees are given the 'no objection' certification to be gurus in ISKCON (and again it should be noted that according to ISKCON Law, this no objection is required if one wishes to be a siksha or instructing spiritual master even without giving initiation), then the clear inference is that there must actually be some objection to others without the certification.
[PADA: Good point, those who have the "GBC official guru rubber stamp" are backed by the GBC, even when they deviate into illicit sex and drugs or worse, and anyone who does not have the official rubber stamp (like us) is beaten with shoes and kicked out the door.]
KDD: In fact there is presently no objective measurement made of any approved gurus; no training or examinations are required, it depends entirely upon the subjective analysis of a number of devotees.
[PADA: Good, subjective is the key word, it means they are speculating. We could have told them beforehand that these people are not fit to be gurus, they just do not allow our input.]
KDD: There are over 5000 direct disciples of Srila Prabhupada who could all potentially be spiritual masters. However, as at the time of writing there are only 69 who have been approved by ISKCON. The other 5000 or so are just not validated as preachers by the institution for no apparent reason. This effectively disempowers a very large part of our potential senior manpower in ISKCON.
[PADA: Fantastic point, the 69 flourish whereas the 5,000, ok once again, are shunned, banned, beaten and assassinated.]
KDD: In fact we effectively disempower any devotee who is trying to preach but is not an approved guru. As this approval is required before one can even be seen as a siksha guru, then the institutional position is that even though new devotees may be forming a relationship with a preacher in their locality, if that preacher is not approved then the new devotee will at some point think, 'Now I need to find a bona-fide guru.' He or she will then begin contemplating the possibilities from the list of authorised gurus given by the institution. The existing relationship with the devotee who actually is acting as a guru, being not 'authorised' by ISKCON, will not be seen as being sufficient. It is hardly encouraging for 'non-authorised gurus' to preach, to say the least. Not being empowered by ISKCON to even give instructions to others, it seems to be a waste of time trying to preach as ISKCON’s representative, as by doing so one immediately falls foul of ISKCON law.
[PADA: Right, this is also what the Gaudiya Matha did, they said only the approved elite can preach within the institution, all the rest of the devotees have to leave, so their temples were empty.]
KDD: WHAT DO OUR SCRIPTURES SAY? I believe that our assumptions and practices regarding the guru in ISKCON are not compatible with our scriptural teachings, and are therefore giving rise to the above problems.
[PADA: Wow, great progress. Yes their whole idea of appointed gurus, gurus falling into illicit sex, gurus smoking pot, gurus drinking beer, and so on, its all speculation, this is not what happens with gurus, ever.]
KDD: Returning to my three assumptions stated above. The first assumption made about the power of the guru need not be a consideration at all. Looking again at Ravindra’s statement: "How do gurus, who are God's direct representatives and according to fundamental vaisnava theology to be worshiped by their disciples 'on an equal level with God,' fit within an organisation functioning through modern rational and legal modes under the direction of committee?" (7)
[PADA: Right this was the first nonsense idea, that the acharyas are subordinated to a committee (with members who are often engaged in illicit actions).]
KDD: I would suggest that, even within his statement here, Ravindra provides us with a critical clue as to how we can deal with the problem. He states that gurus are worshiped on an equal level with God 'by their disciples.' They are not so worshiped by others who are not their disciples; at least there is no scriptural injunction that they should be.
[PADA: No, the GBC gurus are being worshipped within the ISKCON institution -- as gurus of the institution. These gurus are not worshipped in an independent and separated institution by their independent followers, they are worshipped as representatives of the institution. They current 69 gurus are not viewed as independent agents being worshipped by independent disciples, they are being promoted as gurus of ISKCON and by ISKCON.]
KDD: As I have discussed above, 'Initiating Spiritual Master' is not a post which carries with it any universal power. The only legitimate power of a guru, conferred on him by virtue of his guruship, is that over his own disciples, or in other words, it is over those who choose to accept him as guru.
[PADA: There is no choice allowed? You either have to worship the guru of "the zone" or get out of ISKCON. Anyone who does not accept the local authority of the local guru, ok as we said before and now once again, is shunned, banned, beaten and sometimes assassinated.]
KDD: In that sense then, it was quite natural that Prabhupada should have had all institutional power; after all, during his time all the members of ISKCON were his disciples. (Although we also find that even Prabhupada himself humbly submitted to GBC authority in the latter part of his time with us). Thus Srila Prabhupada was and is the only genuine 'ISKCON Guru.'
[PADA: This is the ritvik idea, good progress.]
KDD: With a plurality of gurus the situation is quite different. The mere fact of being a guru now cannot give one pervasive institutional power; any power applies only to the guru’s own disciples. In fact we create the problem of institutional power by giving institutional approval. Thus we need to write disclaimers in our laws which state that ISKCON gurus have no managerial power simply by virtue of their being gurus.
[PADA: Now you are saying they are gurus, after just saying it is a mistake to rubber stamp them as gurus? He is a guru, but he is not a manager? No, the GBC are supposed to be managers and not gurus? If the GBC is not going to manage, who is, Santa Claus?]
A PERSONAL AFFAIR. Regarding the second and third assumptions I mention; choosing a guru and accepting a disciple are, according to scripture, entirely the responsibility of the parties involved, i.e. guru and disciple. Here’s the famous and seminal statement given by Lord Krishna Himself in the Bhagavad Gita:
[PADA: But you already admitted that the GBC interferes with that choice by making a rubber stamped 69 gurus, and not allowing the 5,000 to preach.]
'Just try to learn the truth by approaching a spiritual master. Enquire from him submissively and render service unto him. The self-realised soul can impart knowledge unto you because he has seen the truth.' (8)
[PADA: But you already admit these gurus are prone to fail because they have not yet seen the truth?]
KDD: This statement is asking us to find a self realised soul and approach that soul in the mood of a disciple. There is a method to that approach given here by Krishna. This means that in this instruction there is guidance to both guru and disciple in regards to both how the relationship should be formed as well as the qualification of guru and disciple. The guru should be self realised and the disciple submissive. However, it is clearly a two way relationship. In his purport Srila Prabhupada makes this very clear:
[PADA: Yet you already established that the gurus the GBC selects are not self realized and are failing?]
KDD: "One must be able to pass the test of the spiritual master, and when he sees the genuine desire of the disciple he automatically blesses the disciple with genuine spiritual understanding" (9)
[PADA: How can people who are failing all the time give genuine spiritual understanding, when they have not even understood basic spiritual life themselves and they are failing all the time?]
KDD: It is not indicated either in the verse or in the purport that any third parties need to be involved in this relationship. This point is given further elucidation by Lord Chaitanya who says: "guru lakshana sishya lakshana donhara parikshana." "In your book there should be the characteristics of the bona fide guru and a bona fide disciple. Then, before accepting a spiritual master one can be assured of his position. Similarly, the spiritual master can be assured of the disciple’s position" (10)
[PADA: This is not allowed in ISKCON, as soon as we point out that the guru is taking drugs and having illicit sex, ok once again, I repeat, then one is shunned, banned, beaten and sometimes assassinated. Disagreeing is not allowed.]
KDD: Again, it is clearly enjoined here that the testing should be done by guru and disciple, not by any third party. If we read the purport to this verse we find Srila Prabhupada giving us much guidance in the matter. If he was expecting that we would not be able to properly select a guru due to our poor discrimination, then this is where we might expect to find some instructions to that effect. But there is not any slight indication anywhere in this purport that the disciple should even seek advice, never mind that he must, institutionally, depend upon a third opinion.
Indeed, we are speaking about faith here. The faith of the disciple in his guru and the faith of the guru in the sincerity of his disciple. Faith is a personal affair. It cannot be institutionalised or legislated; i.e. we cannot say that you 'must' have faith in a given person, or list of persons. Conversely, we cannot say 'now you must give up your faith in this person,' which is another thing covered by our present laws – i.e. when one 'must' reject his guru.
[PADA: Then you are admitting you are making a cult that worships illicit sex? When a person says he no longer wants to worship the local guru who has fallen, "the institution cannot say he must stop"? That means the institution is de facto endorsing the worship of illicit sex.]
KDD: It is our personal choice as the scripture clearly indicates.
[PADA: No its not a personal choice, as soon as a person objects to the local guru, dare I repeat myself again, one can be shunned, banned, beaten and sometimes assassinated, ... personal choice is not allowed.]
KDD: I may see in a particular person the qualities of a guru as they are described in the scripture, but someone else may think my vision is completely wrong. But it is my choice. I am the one who is going to accept that person as guru, so it is me and nobody else who needs to be satisfied of his qualifications. And for the guru it is his prerogative to accept or not accept the disciple, as he is the one undertaking the responsibility to act as guru.
[PADA: So if a bunch of fools want to worship illicit sex gurus, that should be allowed in ISKCON because it is the personal choice of fools? Well, then what happens to ISKCON when it allows people to worship illicit sex within its corporate institution? It becomes tinged with that offense, and the entire institution is branded as a bogus cult (as KKD implied was happening to ISKCON earlier).]
KDD: The assumption that disciples may lack sufficient discrimination to properly select a bona fide guru is also challenged by the following: Krishna helps a sincere person; as stated in the Caitanya Caritamrita: guru-krsna-prasade: by the mercy of the spiritual master and Krsna one attains the path of salvation, devotional service. If one sincerely searches for spiritual salvation, then Krishna, being situated in everyone’s heart, gives him the intelligence to find a suitable spiritual master. (11)
[PADA: Jayadvaita swami writes that in ISKCON people are worshipping illicit sex with men, women and children as their gurus, how can people attain salavation by doing that?]
KDD: In this connection also the scripture indicates that, rather than an uninitiated devotee finding someone from amongst the list of 'authorized ISKCON gurus' and beginning a relationship – as is practiced in ISKCON – the procedure should be the other way round. In other words one will first develop a relationship as disciple with someone and then later receive initiation from that person: "Generally, a spiritual master who constantly instructs the disciple in spiritual science becomes his initiating spiritual master later on." (12)
The instructing of new devotees by those older is a daily business which is critical to the life of ISKCON. Practically everyone is acting as a siksha guru to someone else. This is quite in accord with our scriptures: There are two kinds of instructing spiritual masters. One is the liberated person fully absorbed in meditation in devotional service, and the other is he who invokes the disciples spiritual consciousness by means of relevant instructions. (13)
Even if we accept that siksha guru is something we cannot institutionalise, we are still left with the following problem: There is no difference between the shelter giving Supreme Lord and the initiating and instructing spiritual masters. If one foolishly discriminates between them he commits an offense in the discharge of devotional service. (14) I would question whether any institutional system can ultimately succeed if it is not aligned with scriptural instructions.
CAN WE DE-INSTITUTIONALISE THE GURU IN ISKCON
I feel that the problems I describe above will largely disappear, along with the need for all the guru disciple legislation, if we deinstitutionalise the guru, or cease having any system which effectively creates a separate class of devotee known as 'ISKCON gurus.'
[PADA: Their bogus guru system needs to be dis-mantled, best news we have heard all year!]
KDD: For example, the question of bogus gurus giving initiation. Speaking from my personal experience I am now very much more discriminatory in my search for a spiritual master. I have studied the scripture carefully and I know what to look for; at least I have a much better idea than when I was initiated by either of my other two 'gurus.'
[PADA: This porr guy already had two gurus who failed, now he is looking for a third, i.e. a person who was voted in as guru by the first wave of failing people.]
KDD: I now realise that the institutional approval of those gurus meant very little. Perhaps if I had thought more carefully and known more scripture I might not have accepted either of them. Certainly with number two I would not have taken initiation. I had no relationship at all with the guru, as it is described in scripture. But, after some argument with ISKCON authorities who practically pushed me into it, I finally accepted the institutional stamp of approval.
[PADA: Pushed into it, told ya!]
KDD: If we stop the institutional approval of gurus the first effect will be that new devotees will be forced to use their discrimination much more carefully. They will carefully study scriptural references about the qualifications of a guru. They will look for a natural relationship rather than trying to create one with an institutional guru who they may have never known. They will obviously be very careful before surrendering to a guru – and that is the instruction of scripture.
De-institutionalising the guru would not mean that the GBC, or anyone else for that matter, could not be consulted on the question of whether or not a guru or his disciple are qualified. But, in accord with scripture, it must remain the decision of the parties involved whether or not they seek advice and whether or not they want to take it seriously.
The fear that unqualified gurus will create havoc need not be entertained, in my view. What institutional charisma or influence will any guru have if there is no institutional approval? Gurus will only be able to attract disciples on the strength of personal qualities and by their own personal preaching. ISKCON can offer education to instruct devotees in what are the qualities of a bona fide guru. It is then up to the disciple to make his own informed decision. If someone is foolish enough to accept an unqualified rogue posing as a guru then what can be done? That is going on anyway. The worst thing is when it appears to be going on with the approval of the ISKCON institution, as it does now with our present system when gurus fall down. With a deinstitutionalised guru there is no fear that the institution will be in any way implicated if gurus fall down or do anything abominable. It is entirely the decision of the disciple who he or she accepts as guru and thus the consequences of that decision belong entirely to the disciple. The institution makes no judgement in regard to whether or not any guru is qualified.
And as far as the huge scriptural power of the guru not being harnessed; again, without the institutional charisma lent by approval what institutional power will they have? Of course, the guru is all important in a disciple’s life, but that does not preclude the acceptance by the disciple of other authority. To work within ISKCON we have to accept GBC authority no matter who our guru may be. That is the case now and it will remain the case if we de-institutionalise the guru. In fact ISKCON Law already clearly states that the GBC authority supercedes that of gurus with the following:
18.104.22.168. Follows and upholds the GBC
(ISKCON Gurus) Must recognize the GBC as the ultimate managing authority in ISKCON, support the GBC system, and follow the GBC. (15)
CAN WE MAINTAIN OUR STANDARDS?
Of course, maintaining standards in ISKCON is a very important consideration, and no doubt one which was a prime mover in the creation of our guru laws in the first place. But let’s think about it carefully. When is initiation and the qualification of guru and disciple an issue in regard to standards? There are certain times when it is important to know if a person is actually properly initiated. For example, deity worship. Before one can perform deity worship one must be twice initiated by a bona fide guru. Also leadership. Here in the UK our constitution requires that before one can be accepted on our management bodies he must be properly initiated. And one should not give classes in ISKCON centres unless properly initiated. Perhaps there are other institutional instances where initiation is an issue. But does our present system do anything to help in this regard? If someone desires to occupy an institutional post which requires that they are properly initiated, then before they are offered the post there will be a selection process undergone by ISKCON authorities. This will undoubtedly involve references for the applicant. Amongst the various consideration may be the question of who is the applicant’s spiritual master. But still, whoever is the applicant’s guru will not be any guarantee at all that the applicant is properly qualified for the job. Nor is there any guarantee that the spiritual master himself is qualified. As ISKCON law itself states, ‘the ‘no objection’ is not a statement about the degree of God realisation of the guru’. In other words, it will be up to the careful discretion of the ISKCON authorities as to whether or not they accept the applicant. Our lines of accountability can provide protection for everyone, institution and individual. The identity of the applicant’s guru is hardly relevant, whether they are ‘approved’ or otherwise. Even if someone is a disciple of Srila Prabhupada he may well be disqualified on so many other counts. Obviously the decision of the ISKCON authorities will be influenced if they discover that the initiating guru of the applicant is a rogue or rascal of some sort, but it is ultimately all down to the careful discretion of those authorities as to who they accept for any position or responsibility.
This is also the case when it comes to giving classes in ISKCON, obviously another major concern in ISKCON. We do not want to have classes given in our temples that are against our philosophy. But again, the discretion of the ISKCON authorities in our centres must be exercised in determining whether or not a person should be allowed to give class. The person’s initiating spiritual master is a secondary consideration. Just because a person is initiated by a certain guru does not mean they are necessarily going to speak good philosophy. Again, the institution has offered no guarantee of the guru’s God realisation, what then to speak of his disciple?
Basically then, I would suggest that, rather than legislating relationships, it is strong and vigilant management that is required to maintain the integrity of ISKCON. I am suggesting a change of paradigm, where we view the term guru simply as a relationship one person has with another, not with the institution. How we relate with the institution should be defined by our management structure, in which there should be no such thing as a post of ‘guru’. Ultimately, we need a constitution which sets forth the rights and responsibilities of all individuals who partake of the institution of ISKCON. Here’s Srila Prabhupada himself speaking:
Bhavananda: There will be men, I know. There will be men who want to try and pose themselves as gurus.
Tamal Krishna: That was going on many years ago. Your Godbrothers were thinking like that. M.Maharaja…
Bhavananda: Oh yes. Oh,ready to jump.
Srila Prabhupada: Very strong management required and vigilant observation. (16)
For maintaining our standards we can use control and management, i.e. legislation, but I feel it is inappropriate to apply control directly to relationships. Returning to my ‘ISKCON Husband’ example: we have made some legislation in ISKCON which is aimed at protecting the integrity of the institution, by preventing persons guilty of irresponsibility towards their spouses from occupying leadership posts. But if we tried to protect ISKCON’s integrity by imposing laws which laid down who was a qualified spouse (‘Authorised ISKCON Husband/Wife’) then quite likely we would soon have a very chaotic and quite unmamageable situation. But laws are there which make it clear that the consequences of irresponsibility in marriage are that one cannot be an ISKCON leader.
[PADA: CHAOTIC AND UN-MANAGE-ABLE! RIGHT ON!]
KDD: Similarly we can protect ourselves from irresponsible guru disciple relationships by having, if we so decide, legislation which makes it clear that a person initiated by a fallen guru, or one outside parampara, may be disqualified from occupying certain positions in ISKCON. And so on. It simply requires a little thought.
In other words, we can protect ourselves from the consequences of bad decisions made by individuals, rather than try to control the decisions they make right from the outset. We can make it clear to devotees what will be the consequences of their decisions in terms of their relationship with the institution. We can say what are our acceptable standards. Then, if one wishes to serve within ISKCON, one can carefully take this into account when making decisions. But attempts to control people’s decisions are fraught with problems, as we can see from the sheer volume of ISKCON Laws dealing with guru disciple relationships. In any event, is it even desirable to take away an individual’s free will in making his own important life decisions? Will this create independently thoughtful people, which Srila Prabhupada made clear is the aim of ISKCON?
(The) 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 bureaucracy. Once there is bureaucracy the whole thing will be spoiled. (17)
Of course some beaurocracy is unavoidable in managing an institution. Laws are required, but by moving into the tricky area of personal relationships we tend towards over-legislation.
Obviously with any system of management there is a certain amount of underlying trust required. Discretionary decisions are always inevitable and, as I say above, the best protection for everyone is found in having an equitable constitution which provides adequate lines of accountability, with lines of recourse and appeal for any aggrieved parties.
Bearing in mind all the above, I would therefore argue that, based upon certain assumptions which are incompatible with our scriptural teachings, we have institutionalised in ISKCON the post of ‘Initiating Spiritual Master’. By so doing we have simply created problems. It is clear that we need lines of accountability in order to maintain the standards and integrity of ISKCON, but the post of guru is an unecessary creation and does not fit into those lines. I suggest that the only ‘ISKCON Guru’ who can be universally accepted as such is Srila Prabhupada. ISKCON can and I believe should provide systematic education so that, as far as possible, we may not be bewildered by any bogus gurus. But it should not present certain individuals as bona fide gurus. It should have effective managerial procedures which ensure the integrity of all its representatives, and allows for the possibility of any of them taking the responsibility of guru, whether siksha or diksha.
I present this only as a discussion paper from another perspective from that generally seen by the GBC and ISKCON law makers. Being in the position of having to carefully search for a guru in ISKCON, I have become convinced that institutionalising the guru is not necessary and does nothing to assist the prospective disciples. I would like to see all institutional controls in this regard lifted and much more education in the matter of gurus and initiation offered by ISKCON. I think ISKCON would only gain from such a move, but perhaps there are problems which I cannot see from my perspective and maybe in response someone might like to point to those.
‘Siddhanta baliya citte na kara alasa
iha haite krsna lage sudrdha manasa
A sincere student should not neglect the discussion of such conclusions, thinking them controversial, for such discussions strengthen the mind. Thus one’s mind becomes attached to Krishna (18)
Krishna Dharma das 1995 All Rights Resserved
1) Srimad Bhagavatam 4.22.24
2) ISKCON Law Revised and Approved 1995
3) ‘Cleaning House and Cleaning Hearts’. Ravindra Svarupa das
4) ISKCON Law Revised and Approved 1995
7) ‘Cleaning House and Cleaning Hearts’. Ravindra Svarupa das
Bhagavada Gita 4.34
9) Ibid (purport)
10) Caitanya Caritamrita Madhya Lila 24.330
11) Srimad Bhagavatam 3.20.4 purport
12) Ibid Adi Lila 1.35 (purport)
13) Ibid Adi Lila 1.47 (purport)
15) ISKCON Law
16) Srila Prabhupada Conversation May 27 1977
17) Srila Prabhupada letter to Karandhara 22 December 1972
18) Caitanya Caritamrita Adi Lila 2.117