IRAN
PADA: I saw a female ex-Navy helicopter pilot being interviewed. She was saying, "MAGA started their whole house on fire (Iran) -- and they think they can put it out with a bucket of water." Hee hee, wowsers pilgrims.
====
TULSI GABBARD
PADA: Thanks prabhu. Yes, various political commenters are saying that Tulsi was basically repeating Putin's talking points, and feeding that to our leaders. And if MAGA folks are making a lot of geo-political mistakes, could it be -- the "advisors" are giving the MAGA folks cherry picked or wrong info, so the leaders are not aware of the real issues?
I think that is possible. But yeah, some commenters are saying -- good riddance, she was not effective in helping the USA make the correct choices. Nor did she come out and publicly detail what the right choices would be. I agree. I still like her personally, but she has made some serious mistakes. ys pd
=================
That’s an Offense! by Gaura Gopāla Dāsa (disciple of BG Narasimha)
May 22, 2026
After last week’s article on loyalty to the guru versus loyalty to the institution, Gaura Gopāla reflects on some of the criticism he received — particularly the accusation that such ideas are somehow “offensive.” He argues that among many devotees, the word “offense” is often used simply to shut down disagreement, criticism, or even the acknowledgment that sincere devotees may exist outside one’s own institution.
On Offense and the Offended
The Kaniṣṭha-adhikārī Mentality
Where There Is Sincerity, There Is Kṛṣṇa. “That’s an offense!” You’ve heard it. Perhaps you’ve even said it yourself. In contemporary Vaiṣṇava circles it has become the all-purpose response to anything that unsettles the comfortable boundaries of one’s own worldview. To question an institutional decision – aparādha!
To disagree on a point of philosophy – aparādha! To acknowledge that sincere devotees might actually exist outside one’s immediate sanga – aparādha! The charge has been inflated to cover everything and, in being inflated, has become cheapened beyond all recognition.
Following the recent publication of ‘Never Leave ISKCON?,’ most of the responses were favorable, but a number arrived carrying exactly this charge. The article’s argument – that loyalty to the guru and the siddhānta is not the same as loyalty to any particular institutional framework – was condemned by some as offensive, divisive, and even ‘anti-Prabhupāda.’
I generally make it a point not to respond to most critics unless they show some genuine character, free from prejudice (internet trolls don’t factor into that!) What I would like to address is what their reaction reveals – the culture of criticism and lack of maturity within the Vaiṣṇava world, the widely misunderstood concept of aparādha, and why plurality in the Vaiṣṇava world is not merely tolerable but necessary.
On Offense and the Offended
One of the most common weapons wielded in the Vaiṣṇava world is the charge of aparādha. In Sanskrit, aparādha means offense – specifically, an offense against the holy name, against the Vaiṣṇavas, against the spiritual master, or against the Lord Himself. From a deeper understanding, aparādha means that which is against Śrīmatī Rādhārāṇī – the very embodiment of bhakti Herself.
These are grave matters, and the śāstra treats them seriously. But something strange has happened to this concept in certain contemporary circles – it has become simultaneously inflated and cheapened.
Inflated, because everything is now an offense. The word has become a blunt instrument, used not out of genuine concern for others, but as a means of social control.
Cheapened, because those who deploy it most aggressively are often the least careful about committing real offenses themselves. There is something ironic in someone launching a vitriolic personal attack on a devotee and in the same breath accusing that devotee of aparādha.
My Guru Mahārāja, Swami B.G. Narasingha, once said, “I don’t hate anyone. Hate is not a part of my life.” But for those who knew him, he was an intense personality, who guarded his gurus and the siddhānta with great care and attention. This was sometimes mistaken by others to be hatred or even envy.
Energetic argument and disagreement free from envy and hatred is 100% justified in pursuit of the Truth and in pursuit of clarifying the siddhānta – what is real and what is not real, and what will help us in our progress on this path towards becoming conscious of the reality of Śrī Kṛṣṇa.
In answering a question on how to balance wishing everyone well and staying strict to the teachings of one’s guru, my Guru Mahārāja said:
"We hate the sin, not the sinner. If we fall into the plane of hating the sinner then there is aparādha. We don’t hate the butcher we hate butchery. We don’t hate the pseudo-rāsikās, we hate the misrepresentation. If we allow ourselves to be consumed with hatred then even though we may be defending the conception of our gurus, that may be aparādha."
The misuse of the word aparādha reveals a deeper spiritual immaturity. A genuinely advanced devotee is kṛpā-sindhu – an ocean of mercy. Such a devotee does not run to condemn; they run to help and correct. The urge to pronounce that someone else is going to hell, that a fellow practitioner has condemned themselves to 10,000 koṭi kalpas in Kumbhīpāka, generally says more about the speaker’s own false ego than about the spiritual condition of the accused.
The senior devotees, preachers, sannyāsīs, and especially gurus must approach spreading the word of Caitanya Mahāprabhu with energy, enthusiasm and a desire to help others through correction – not pass sentence as judge, jury and executioner.
The Kaniṣṭha-adhikārī Mentality
The kaniṣṭha mentality says: “Kṛṣṇa is here, in our group, with our guru, in our temple. He is not there.” And yet Kṛṣṇa Himself declares in the Bhagavad-gītā that He pervades all of existence – every atom of every living being. Every sincere seeker is animated by Paramātmā within the heart. How can a devotee simultaneously believe in the omnipresence of Kṛṣṇa and insist that He is absent from sincere practitioners in other Vaiṣṇava communities?
The tragedy is not that kaniṣṭhas exist – the tragedy is when the kaniṣṭha mentality hardens into a permanent state. A devotee who has spent years in practice but never grown beyond “we are right and everyone else is wrong” has missed something essential about the magnanimity of Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu and misunderstood what proper discrimination is for.
This same mentality produces the strange phenomenon of devotees judging fellow practitioners more harshly than they judge non-devotees. A complete stranger who has never even heard of Kṛṣṇa is met with enthusiasm and compassion – “Come, chant, take prasādam!” But a devotee from a different community, or with a different guru, is immediately treated with suspicion and contempt.
Plurality Is Not a Problem to Be Solved
My original article argued that loyalty to the guru and the siddhānta is not the same as loyalty to a particular institutional framework. Some read this as an argument for abandoning structure, anarchy, or some form of spiritual relativism. It was none of those.
All this goes to reinforce the essential nature of the guru-disciple relationship. The guru is diagnosing the individual patient, and according to their necessity, he is giving them the medicine they need. The path of bhakti is highly personal and individualistic, and while there are many aspects that all devotees follow, there are always gradations within that. What is good for me may not be good for someone else. What is good for others may not be beneficial for me.
As the practitioner grows in their own spiritual awakening, they also begin to help others in the same way that their guru helped them. However, it is important to note that following in the footsteps of the guru is not the same as imitating the guru. To follow in the footsteps means to follow the example of the guru according to one’s capacity and adhikāra. Imitation of the guru, on the other hand, means that strong statements made by the guru to correct others may be taken by the immature disciple as a free pass to say whatever they want for ‘preaching.’
If we understand this material world and all of our activities to be a reflection of the spiritual reality, then we can see that plurality is not only a consequence of this material cosmos – it is part of our spiritual identity. Light has no meaning without darkness. Compassion has no meaning without a fit recipient, love without a lover, or service without an object of worship. Kṛṣṇa means infinite spiritual variety; He is an ocean of rasa – so many personalities are taking part according to their nature, and there is competition, disagreement, play, argument and service, all aimed at the origin of everything – the Sweet Absolute Truth, Śrī Kṛṣṇa.
This is all free from envy, hatred, and the anarthas of this world.
What the original article argued – and what I wish to reinforce here – is that the Vaiṣṇava world is inherently plural, and that this plurality is not a deviation to be corrected. It is the natural expression of how Kṛṣṇa works in the world.
What the original article argued – and what I wish to reinforce here – is that the Vaiṣṇava world is inherently plural, and that this plurality is not a deviation to be corrected. It is the natural expression of how Kṛṣṇa works in the world.
Where There Is Sincerity, There Is Kṛṣṇa
Kṛṣṇa is not static. He does not wait in one place to be found by only those who have chosen the correct organizational affiliation. He is dynamic, present, and responsive. Where there is sincerity of search, there is Kṛṣṇa. This is not a philosophical novelty. It is the testimony of every ācārya from Brahmā to the present.
The ‘foam at the mouth’ critic, the institutional zealot, the devotee who cannot disagree without descending into personal attacks – these are not enemies. They are, most often, souls who have found something precious in Kṛṣṇa consciousness and are trying, in their own limited way, to protect it. That impulse is understandable, but it is a sign of weakness and immaturity. When you don’t know how to deal with something or someone, the reaction is, “Ban it! Excommunicate them! Throw them out! Attack!”
There is a distinct lack of maturity in the broad Vaiṣṇava world. I am not so bold as to say that I know exactly why this is, but I would guess that the modern Vaiṣṇava world has brought in so many people in the last fifty years that the predominating voice is one of immaturity. In other words, the majority of devotees fall into the category of kaniṣṭha, not necessarily by how long they’ve been around, but by how they behave.
My Guru Mahārāja was not an advocate of increasing the numbers of kaniṣṭha devotees in the world, but for “boiling the milk” as Śrīla Prabhupāda himself said. What does that mean? “Boiling the milk” means devotees becoming mature, diving deep into the understanding and feeling of Kṛṣṇa consciousness – it means the process of anartha-nivṛtti is happening. When the kaniṣṭha mentality petrifies into a rock, it is very difficult to break in this lifetime. Let us not allow our hearts to remain hard as stone and our heads even harder.
It gets so bad in the comments section of any slightly controversial social media post by devotees that it practically resembles medieval peasantry coming with pitchforks and torches to burn a heretic. It is shameful and embarrassing to see this type of mentality shown to the broader world – the pinnacle of theistic thought and practice coming from the most magnanimous personality of Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu being misrepresented so badly.
I am not advocating for the kicarī principle of unity with everyone together harmonized on a superficial basis, nor am I advocating for division based on false ideas. Maturity means, “What I know is by the grace of my gurus; what is good in my life is the grace of Kṛṣṇa and His devotees; what is bad is my own fault, and I discriminate with sincerity of purpose for my own good and the good of others.”
Disagreement is not aparādha. Robust discussion is not aparādha. Kṛṣṇa is present in the heart and already knows who is sincere and who is not – we just need to understand what is most beneficial for ourselves and act on that.
Disagreement is not aparādha. Robust discussion is not aparādha. Kṛṣṇa is present in the heart and already knows who is sincere and who is not – we just need to understand what is most beneficial for ourselves and act on that.
PADA: First of all, the only reason that Paramadvaiti, Aranaya, Sudhir, Pancadravida, BG Narasimgha and others went to Sridhara Maharaja in the first place is -- the GBC and people like Ramesvara were sending ISKCON's sannyasas to Sridhara "to take advice." No one even knew who Sridhar Maharaja was before he became the darling consultant of the GBC. And Sridhar was the GBC guru's biggest cheer leader and ghost writer of many of the early post 1978 GBC documents.
But Srila Prabhupada warned us that Sridhar Maharaja is the leader of the "severe offenders" Bagh Bazaar party, and thus we should NOT consult with him. And Srila Prabhupada told us the history of Sridhara Maharaja: after the departure of Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati on Jan 1 1937, some of the leaders of the Gaudiya Matha -- especially BR Sridhara Maharaja, Professor Sannyal, Madhava Maharaja -- and others -- decided to artificially designate Ananta Vasudeva as the next acharya.
They wanted to make some sort of institutional conditioned soul figurehead as the acharya, something like the Pope. Srila Prabhupada says "they violated the order of Guru Maharaja to make a Governing body." After 1978 the Sridhar Maharaja people were also big time against us Prabhupada devotees, because we did not want to promote worship of their conditioned soul figurehead acharyas.
Later on, Sridhar's false prophet messiah Ananta Vasudeva was exposed as writing love letters to a female with a dubious reputation -- and some of the dissenters who exposed those letters were beaten with bricks, had their faces pushed into dog stools, and some were terminated -- and they lost their lives. And that is because Sridhar makes very fanatical personality guru cults that are -- dangerous -- if not deadly -- for anyone who disagrees.
So when we are discussing heated debates among "kanistha" Vaishnavas, descending into criminal mayhem, violent behavior, and / or terminating the lives of dissenters, Sridhara Maharaja is one of the original pivotal past masters / founder fathers of that entire process. He engineered that to happen after 1937 already. A devotee said, "Let us make barking dogs into gurus and then make pretend we do not know where all the barking comes from."
Did I forget to mention bona fide kanisthas do not engage in cat and dog fighting because they all agree to promote the bona fide acharya, and not promote themselves as the acharya? Yep, "If you convince a dog he is the master, he will bite the actual master."
Then later Ananta Vasudeva's female lover administered poison to the son, because the son was on the verge of exposing that she had continued her prostitution business activities, even after becoming "the guru mother of the Math." And when Ananta Vasudeva found out that their son was terminated "to save the mission," he took the same poison and terminated himself.
Srila Prabhupada said, that is how the scandal was ended. Of course Srila Prabhupada also said Ananta Vasudeva was heterosex, homosex, sex and sex, so he was for sure -- a loose moral standards debauchee. In other words, Sridhar Maharaja was unable to distinguish a pure devotee acharya -- from a conditioned soul non-acharya. He does not understand how they are different. So he juxtaposes these platforms together artificially.
And when Sridhar Maharaja was later asked by some news media folks about the problems his program generated, he answered -- there is a lot of violence and death in the Bhagavad Gita, we have to expect that result. WTF? We have to expect that Vaishnavas will be beating and terminating one another, because someone like Sridhar Maharaj wants to make conditioned souls -- if not debauchees -- into Krishna's acharyas?
Yep, we should make conditioned souls into messiahs, and when the wheels start to come off our program, we blame Krishna for giving (bad?) advice to make violence in the Gita. What does Krishna and His Gita have to do with their debauchee acharya's program? This is how Sridhar tries to shift the blame for his mistakes onto God, which is very misleading -- to say the least. Yeah God says violence is a good idea, so we are going to spread it among Vaishnavas. That is insulting God, for starters.
So when the GBC came to Sridhar in 1978, he was one of the world's leading living eye witness experts to the tragic and odious history of what happens when we artificially make conditioned souls into acharyas. He knew more than anyone else on the planet at the time; conditioned soul gurus will create fall downs and scandals. And then there will be violence, even more -- and much worse scandals, dissenters being terminated, bad public news media, because that is how false messiah cults tend to end up repeatedly.
And worse, we could likely end up with children getting severe problems as well, which happened to Ananta Vasudeva's child. False guru programs place children into peril. He knew that -- in spades.
GBC pictures on altars.
This was another boondoggle invented by the GBC and their "advisor" Sridhara Maharaja. Srila Prabhupada personally told me -- we cannot change the bhogha offering system or it will NEVER be ACCEPTED by Krishna. But right away Sridhara helped the GBC come up with their bogus system of offering bhogha to the photos of conditioned souls.
I said at the time, offering food to intoxicated womanizers will give people the intoxicated womanizer beeja (desire) and not the bhakti beeja. And worse, this will make a loose atmosphere by giving people the lusty and intoxicated desire beeja or seed. I said worshiping predators will attract more or same.
And just as I predicted, this created a mass child mistreatment problem because the lusty beeja was fanned and encouraged. Worship of lusty and intoxicated people is even condemned in mundane mleccha society.
Did I forget to mention that my ex-witch lady friend says -- offering food to contaminated people -- contaminates the food, which she says -- is why so many Krishna devotees are getting sick and dying of CANCER. She said this is a well known Satanic principle, offering food to the contaminated, contaminates the food, and this is making devotees fall down, get sick, and die. And BG Narasimgha himself got cancer and died.
When was ANY of this "offering bhogha to conditioned souls" system authorized by Srila Prabhupada? It was not, he condemns such systems.
Acharya of the zone.
Sridhar said there will be "the acharya of the Zone." Srila Prabhupada said -- when he was once checked from entering a country -- there are no geographical restrictions on a pure devotee. And the people who make geographical restrictions on pure devotees are making offenses to pure devotees. In short, there is no such thing as pure devotees having physically restricted geographical Zones.
That makes the acharya a mundane business franchise operator and not a guru. The acharya is called Jagat guru, which means he is the acharyas all over the universe, never mind a small GBC Zone. OK the whole Zonal Guru idea is a deviation, a scam, and against the Vedic principle of Jagat Guru.
Jayatirtha.
Sridara was told that Jayatirtha is taking intoxicants and is having affairs with female followers. And yet Sridhar said -- Jayatirtha has to stay in the guru post or "we will disturb the faith of the sisyas (followers)." We want people to "have faith" in worshiping lusty intoxicated debauchees? And why would we force little children to worship contaminated, lusty debauchees as their messiahs?
Again, even in mleccha society no one wants their children to worship lusty and intoxicated debauchees as their messiahs. That is never accepted even in mleccha society.
Hansadutta.
Hansadutta himself told Sridhara he was taking intoxicants and having affairs -- with half dozen ladies (or more?). But he was told by Sridhar to -- stay in the guru post -- repeatedly. And this went on and on and on, all the way up to 1985 when Hansadutta finally realized, I am going to die following this person.
Hansadutta later told me, Sridhar's telling me to stay in the guru post when I was near SUICIDE was the WORST advice anyone every gave me in my whole life. I could easily have DIED from all the intoxicants (and he almost did die a number of times, and required doctor's treatments). I am lusty, I am intoxicated, what should I do? There is only one thing to do, be worshiped as good as God! WTF?
Vote in the envious.
When Sridhara was told some people were envious of Ramesvara, he said "then vote them in as acharyas" so they will be appeased. We need to vote for the envious as acharyas?
Mahajanas.
Around 1980 Sridhara was helping the GBC write "The Mahajanas Have Difficulties" -- which compares the failures of the GBC gurus -- with alleged failures of the Mahajanas. What do fallen down conditioned souls have in common with the Mahajanas? So this is another means of insulting the Mahajanas in order to prop up their false guru system.
Taking Karma.
We also argued with the GBC in 1979 that none of us are authorized to take karma (as diksha gurus). Srila Prabhupada told us never to even have people touch our feet. But they all disobeyed this order, and Sridhar encouraged them to take disciples and take karma.
BG Narasingha was himself totally defying this order for us NOT to take karma, and he eventually suffered from CANCER. Sridhar Maharaja has no idea how the process of pure devotees helping resolve sins operates, he thinks any conditioned soul can take the post of Jesus and take sins. That is not possible. Srila Prabhupada says a false guru will go to hell and so will the followers. The process of conditioned souls taking sins like Jesus is not even done in mleccha society, they know only a person like Jesus is qualified to take the post of diksha guru.
None should protest.
When we challenged the GBC early on, they began to flash copies of conversations they had with Sridhara in my face to shut me down. "The acharya is an absolute monarch." "The acharya should not be questioned -- or it disturbs the faith of the sisyas." "The acharya must be seen as the highest realm, rati keli siddha (serving the gopis)." ETC!
And as for us dissenters? "None should protest." OK so all the banning, beating, molesting, lawsuits and murders -- should not be protested by anyone. How is that going to end up? Well lots of people are going to be banned, beaten, molested, sued and -- killed, because we cannot protest any of that. And there were thousands and thousands of victims as a result, including evidently thousands of children. But -- none should protest?
So we would argue that when Vaishnavas are being systematically banned, beaten, molested, sued and killed we have A DUTY to protest and try to salvage the situation from getting worse. And even the karmis have a law, if you know about crimes (especially against children) it is YOUR DUTY to protest. But Sridhar says, we should not. OK that makes us targets for violence if not assassination.
None should protest! So, lets go stop these aparadha protesters! The good news is the karmi laws enforcement and FEDS saved me from Sridhara's violent cult program. But yeah, the followers of Sridhara are advocating for violent cult gurus, and at the same time asking for everyone to cooperate.
OK anyone who cooperates with a program of banning, beating, molesting, suing and killing devotees of God -- shares in the karma with the perps, orchestrators, enablers, facilitators, advisors (like Sridhar) and "gurus." It is the duty of all human beings to stop evil acts from be committed upon God's devotees.
That is not only our duty to God, but our duty to human society as a human being. Sridhar says no, our duty is to help the program that is banning, beating, molesting, suing and killing. He is wrong.
And as far as the kanistha problem, sorry the people who saved me from Sridhara's guru program are the meat eating karmi police and FEDS, they are many times more advanced than Sridhar and his violent personality cult guru process. If I had lived in the 1940s, Sridhar's program would have eliminated my life and taken me to the morgue. He wanted that same thing to happen to us dissenters again after 1978, because he either never learned, or he knows what happens and he wanted that.
So if we want to know who created all the banning, beating, lawsuits, murders and overall violence against us "aparadhis," it is Sridhar and his followers, which includes the GBC who all followed him and made him their "senior most Vaishnava consultant on the planet." We want to stop the violence among Vaishnavas, and keep our deviants and conditioned souls in the guru seat which is the root source of the "aparadhi" labels being thrown around, that will never work. We have to re-establish the worship of the bona fide acharya so we can UNITE everyone under one flag.
ys pd angel108b@yahoo.com
YEP!
ISKCON's ATHEIST ACHARYA
WAYNE BOYD (Vipramukhya Swami)
I went from being deeply religious to being an atheist, but it was not a quick emotional reaction or a desire to rebel. I joined ISKCON in 1973 after a failed marriage and dropping out of physics at college. I spent nearly three decades in the Hare Krishna world. I was initiated, later accepted sannyasa, served as a teacher and leader, and lived inside a religious framework about as completely as a person can.
I had my own disciples, served as the Regional Director for Washington State and Western Canada, ran the U.K. Bhakta Programme, and served as temple president of both London’s Soho Street temple and Bhaktivedanta Manor. I collected Salagram Silas from the Kali Gandaki river bed in Nepal, climbed the Himalayas up to Muktinath, prayed to Krishna many times a day, always chanted my 16 rounds daily, and used to coach others who “fell behind” to “catch up.”
So for me, religion was not something I only knew from the outside. It was my identity. My name was Vipramukhya Swami. The name Prabhupada gave me was Vipramukhya dasa Brahmachari.
What changed me was the slow realization that sincerity and devotion do not make a belief true. I began to see the difference between powerful religious experience and reliable evidence. People in every religion have profound experiences, deep convictions, answered prayers, miracles, scriptures, saints, and traditions. They cannot all be right in their specific claims, but they can all feel completely certain from the inside.
Over time, I became less willing to accept claims simply because they were traditional, scriptural, emotionally meaningful, or supported by a community I loved. I wanted beliefs that could survive honest questioning. The more I looked at religion through evidence, history, psychology, and science, the less reason I had to believe supernatural claims were true.
For me, it was not only one claim. It was a whole pattern.
Humans walked on the Moon. Life evolved gradually through common descent. The Earth is not arranged according to ancient sacred cosmology. The Moon is not farther away than the Sun in any ordinary astronomical sense. Disease is not cured by ritual purity. Cow urine is not divine medicine. Karma, reincarnation, demigods, subtle bodies, heavenly planets, and hellish planets may be meaningful religious beliefs to those who hold them, but they are not supported by empirical evidence in the way scientific claims must be.
That distinction became impossible for me to ignore. I could still respect sincerity, devotion, discipline, and service, but I could no longer treat scriptural claims as true simply because they were traditional, emotionally powerful, or central to the life I had lived. I still value compassion, honesty, discipline, humility, and service. I am still a lacto-vegetarian. I just no longer think those things require belief in God.
PADA: Right, so Vipramukhya and Danavir once confided to me, they would never have joined ISKCON and worshiped a person like Jayatirtha themselves. They would not be part of ISKCON if they had to accept these people as gurus. But everyone who is coming now has to accept Jayatirtha, like it or not.
Anyway Vipramukhya went on to become a guru and he was acting like a goofball, getting his feet massaged by his favorite female devotee, riding horses -- and falling off and breaking both arms -- and lecturing really silly mundane examples and materials. However, Srila Prabhupada said we cannot take sins or we would have to suffer. To his credit, Vipramukhya later complained that he was hesitating to take more disciples because -- everytime I initiate someone it makes me sick (by taking karma).
So fast forward to now, and he is an atheist. OK this is one of the results of making offenses and taking karma and so forth. It makes a person lose faith, as has happened here. What is remarkable is how the GBC takes people who have very weak faith, not far from being atheists, and they make them into their "shaksat Hari" (good as God) sin absorbing newly minted Jesus like saints, acharyas and gurus. Then when their guru leaves (bloops) the ISKCON GBC wonders why his followers lose faith in the religion, and also leave. If the GBC is making borderling atheists into God's successors, they are not doing a good job of testing their would be messiahs. ys pd angel108b@yahoo.com
====
BHAKTI TIRTHA WAS A KIRTANANANDA CLONE
May 29, 1991: On this date in history 35 years ago, Bhakti Tirtha Swami, the ISKCON guru for most of Africa, defends his sannyasa guru (who was convicted for racketeering two months earlier at the Martinsburg, West Virginia courthouse):
“Swami Bhaktipada’s position is like that of Gandhi and Martin Luther King. All three of these men dedicated their lives very selflessly in trying to bring peace to mankind, but in the process they were often misunderstood and even violently attacked. The Swami is a man of the stature of these two great stalwarts of peace.”
For more, see, Gold, Guns and God, Vol. 9, p. 17.
