Worst decision ever made!
Good news! China is getting a slew of new emergency orders
for "green tech" -- wind, solar and water power,
stuff that operates -- without oil!
Making China Great Again!
This might help actually things over the long run.
Oil is just nasty stuff for the environment, no question.
=================
I wrote this letter to Hridayananda Maharaj following his recent interview with Damodara das/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hva4rsXgqF8
Hare Krsna Hridayananda Maharaj,
I recently watched your interview and wanted to share some of my reflections. The interview contains a number of thoughtful observations and does acknowledge that serious failures took place in ISKCON’s handling of child protection.
Hare Krsna Hridayananda Maharaj,
I recently watched your interview and wanted to share some of my reflections. The interview contains a number of thoughtful observations and does acknowledge that serious failures took place in ISKCON’s handling of child protection.
At the same time, the explanations you offered for 50 years of gurukula crisis relies heavily on contextual factors such as amateurism and the general chaos of the early movement. While these factors likely played a role, they do not fully address the deeper institutional and structural dynamics that allowed abuse to occur and persist.
I am not raising these observations to attack you personally, nor to diminish the sincere service you have rendered to Srila Prabhupada’s movement. My concern is simply that the protection of children requires us to examine these issues honestly. If we do not, we risk repeating the same mistakes. If we want to understand what happened in a meaningful way, we have to look beyond individual mistakes and examine the organizational culture and authority structures that shaped decision-making during that period.
A central theme in your explanation is that the early movement suffered from amateurism and a lack of professionalism. According to this view, young and inexperienced devotees suddenly found themselves responsible for running schools, caring for children, and managing institutions without the training or expertise that such responsibilities require. This certainly describes an important part of the historical context.
PADA: Yeah there are millions -- or billions -- of young and inexperienced people -- all over the place -- covering the entire planet. Yet! There is never a SINGLE day of their lives that these folks EVER wake up and decide, "Hey I got an idee! Lets get our children to worship our pals, i.e. our sexual predators, homosexuals, pedophiles, drunks, perverts, porno swamis, illicit sex with men, women and children lusty dogs and hogs etc. as these children's 'messiahs from Krishna loka.'"
The ordinary young and inexperienced would never even dream of advocating such perversions and deviations, and placing children in peril. In short, worshiping homosexuals and pedophiles as messiahs is simply NOT DONE EVER by ordinary people, even the young and inexperienced. And to claim ordinary young people would advocate for such deviations is an INSULT to them.
However, as the main explanation it remains incomplete. Lack of experience may explain early mistakes, but it does not explain the persistence of an abusive culture after years of complaints and warning signs. At that point the issue is no longer simply one of inexperience, but of institutional negligence and responsibility.
PADA: Right, even if a young and inexperienced person made the mistake of advocating worship of sexual predators unknowingly, he would immediately try to correct the situations once rampant child abuse surfaced. And he would demand the removal of ALL the administration personnel responsible -- in this case -- the entire GBC. He would not tolerate having the enforcers and enablers of that process remaining in posts of authority, never mind as messiahs. In sum, he would correct his wrongs once his wrongs were known.
They say that: “If you cannot understand a person’s actions, look at the outcomes and infer the intentions”.
As someone who has spent a great deal of time trying to understand the systemic child abuse problem in ISKCON, I find it difficult to accept your extremely generous oversimplifications when the consequences have been so severe.
In recent years you have vigorously campaigned to discredit and undermine the credibility of the ICPO and its director. Your efforts contributed to the disbandment of what was, in my opinion, the most qualified CPO team ISKCON has had to date. What followed was the reappointment of Champakalata as CPO Director, despite her poor track record, and the creation of the CPOC.
Something that stood out to me in the interview is that you seemed unable to recognize your own bias. When speaking about your own mistakes or those of the ISKCON leadership in general, you were very understanding, you used the “royal we” and offered generous mitigating explanations. At times it was not entirely clear whether that “we” included yourself, the GBC body, or ISKCON leadership more broadly, this lack of clarity further dissipated responsibility. Yet when discussing Kamlesh Krsna’s alleged mistakes, the same generosity and understanding were notably absent.
To substantiate your position you assured viewers that you had conducted an in-depth investigation into the handling of the Laxmimoni case, and you stated that Kamlesh Krsna was “both the investigator and the judge.” This statement is simply not true. Kamlesh was neither the investigator nor the judge. But what is even more problematic is the fact that in making this statement you effectively implied a bias to Kamlesh Krsna. This is actually defamatory!
You have consistently maintained that your involvement in the Laxmimoni case was motivated exclusively by concerns about due process. In other words, we are asked to believe that your intervention was driven by a desire to correct institutional injustice.
They say that: “If you cannot understand a person’s actions, look at the outcomes and infer the intentions”.
As someone who has spent a great deal of time trying to understand the systemic child abuse problem in ISKCON, I find it difficult to accept your extremely generous oversimplifications when the consequences have been so severe.
In recent years you have vigorously campaigned to discredit and undermine the credibility of the ICPO and its director. Your efforts contributed to the disbandment of what was, in my opinion, the most qualified CPO team ISKCON has had to date. What followed was the reappointment of Champakalata as CPO Director, despite her poor track record, and the creation of the CPOC.
Something that stood out to me in the interview is that you seemed unable to recognize your own bias. When speaking about your own mistakes or those of the ISKCON leadership in general, you were very understanding, you used the “royal we” and offered generous mitigating explanations. At times it was not entirely clear whether that “we” included yourself, the GBC body, or ISKCON leadership more broadly, this lack of clarity further dissipated responsibility. Yet when discussing Kamlesh Krsna’s alleged mistakes, the same generosity and understanding were notably absent.
To substantiate your position you assured viewers that you had conducted an in-depth investigation into the handling of the Laxmimoni case, and you stated that Kamlesh Krsna was “both the investigator and the judge.” This statement is simply not true. Kamlesh was neither the investigator nor the judge. But what is even more problematic is the fact that in making this statement you effectively implied a bias to Kamlesh Krsna. This is actually defamatory!
You have consistently maintained that your involvement in the Laxmimoni case was motivated exclusively by concerns about due process. In other words, we are asked to believe that your intervention was driven by a desire to correct institutional injustice.
However, if that were the case, I would have expected that you would have been at least as invested to make sure that the new CPO system and staff be objectively more qualified than the team you fought so hard to remove, but we haven't seen any such concerns from your part.
Your concern for justice was extremely high when your friend Laxmimoni was accused of child abuse, yet with regards to the invitation to offer your support and concern to the case of Sapna, you have said that you are now too tired and too old (I am paraphrasing) to take any meaningful interest in her case.
Somehow you have neither the time nor the energy to investigate the gross miscarriages of justice that have emerged under the new CPO system that you helped set up.
This contrast raises uncomfortable questions. The injustices perpetrated against Sapna are, objectively speaking, far more severe than the procedural concerns you raised regarding the handling of the Laxmimoni case, yet you have declined to offer her any meaningful help. As far as I am aware, your intervention in defense of Laxmimoni remains the most significant public involvement you have undertaken in the discussion of child protection in ISKCON.
You attribute past failures largely to collective amateurism. But that explanation does not account for why the GBC removed Kamlesh Krsna, who holds a Master’s degree in Advanced Child Protection, and replaced him with a team whose members possess significantly less relevant experiences or qualifications.
PADA: Well yep, the people with good understanding of child care are often removed and the compromised people who neglect to enforce GBC and perps misconduct are kept.
Over the past decade the GBC has received extensive reports describing extreme abuse taking place in the Vrindavana gurukula, yet they have repeatedly voted to keep the same individuals in charge without implementing meaningful changes. In July 2022 the GBC also voted to allow Lokanath, whom they publicly acknowledged they believe to be a child sex offender, to continue serving as a guru and sannyasi. In doing so, the GBC established the precedent that someone believed to have sexually abused a child can remain as one of the highest ecclesiastical authorities in Srila Prabhupada’s movement.
This demonstrates that the problem is not merely historical. It is ongoing, cultural and structural.
In the interview you stated that abusing children is asuric behavior, demonic and completely contrary to dharma. On this point I fully agree with you.
What remains unclear, however, is whether the same standard would apply to leaders who repeatedly fail to act decisively to protect children after receiving extensive evidence of abuse, or to those who publicly defend and honor known child abusers. It is difficult to argue that such gross negligence does not also constitute asuric behavior.
Another argument raised in the interview is that abuse was unfortunately common in many institutions during that era, including churches and boarding schools. While historically true, this comparison does not meaningfully reduce responsibility. Communities, such as ISKCON, that claim to operate according to higher spiritual principles should reasonably be expected to uphold higher standards of care and accountability.
You also emphasized the sincerity and good intentions of early leaders. Intentions do matter, but they are notoriously difficult to ascertain. More importantly, when the protection of children is involved, intentions cannot be the central issue.
It is not particularly useful to assess policies and institutions primarily by their intentions rather than by their outcomes. Results are a far more concrete basis for evaluation.
Leadership carries an ethical responsibility to protect vulnerable individuals. A well-meaning leader who fails to intervene in harmful situations still bears responsibility for negligence. When discussions focus primarily on intentions, attention inevitably shifts away from outcomes and accountability.
At some point, the outcome of prolonged incompetence becomes indistinguishable from malice. In the interview you also framed the crisis within the broader chaos of the early movement: rapid expansion, cultural experimentation, communal living, and a general lack of structure.
While these factors undoubtedly contributed to the situation, this explanation again risks diffusing responsibility by attributing failures to an atmosphere of disorder. Many of the decisions that allowed abuse to continue—keeping abusive staff in positions of authority or ignoring repeated complaints—were not inevitable consequences of chaos. They were the result of specific administrative choices.
There is something particularly pernicious about selective retelling of events. By omitting certain details it becomes possible to create a misleading picture. In gurukula we called that these the 'Ashvattama lie' which can be more destructive than an outright lie, because it is disguised with half truths.
In describing the Laxmimoni case, for example, you stated that Akuti, a key witness, was not personally interviewed by the CPO. Presented in isolation this sounds extremely troubling. What you did not mentioned is that Akuti submitted a written statement to the CPO, she was given the opportunity to share her testimony, which was included in the case file. When that additional piece of information is included, the portrayal of a rogue and vigilante CPO becomes far less convincing.
You also shared an example in which you took decisive action after being informed that a teacher was mistreating children, presenting yourself in a positive light.
What you did not mentioned is that during the period when you served as GBC for Latin America, devotee children were sexually abused in at least three countries.
Over the past decade the GBC has received extensive reports describing extreme abuse taking place in the Vrindavana gurukula, yet they have repeatedly voted to keep the same individuals in charge without implementing meaningful changes. In July 2022 the GBC also voted to allow Lokanath, whom they publicly acknowledged they believe to be a child sex offender, to continue serving as a guru and sannyasi. In doing so, the GBC established the precedent that someone believed to have sexually abused a child can remain as one of the highest ecclesiastical authorities in Srila Prabhupada’s movement.
This demonstrates that the problem is not merely historical. It is ongoing, cultural and structural.
In the interview you stated that abusing children is asuric behavior, demonic and completely contrary to dharma. On this point I fully agree with you.
What remains unclear, however, is whether the same standard would apply to leaders who repeatedly fail to act decisively to protect children after receiving extensive evidence of abuse, or to those who publicly defend and honor known child abusers. It is difficult to argue that such gross negligence does not also constitute asuric behavior.
Another argument raised in the interview is that abuse was unfortunately common in many institutions during that era, including churches and boarding schools. While historically true, this comparison does not meaningfully reduce responsibility. Communities, such as ISKCON, that claim to operate according to higher spiritual principles should reasonably be expected to uphold higher standards of care and accountability.
You also emphasized the sincerity and good intentions of early leaders. Intentions do matter, but they are notoriously difficult to ascertain. More importantly, when the protection of children is involved, intentions cannot be the central issue.
It is not particularly useful to assess policies and institutions primarily by their intentions rather than by their outcomes. Results are a far more concrete basis for evaluation.
Leadership carries an ethical responsibility to protect vulnerable individuals. A well-meaning leader who fails to intervene in harmful situations still bears responsibility for negligence. When discussions focus primarily on intentions, attention inevitably shifts away from outcomes and accountability.
At some point, the outcome of prolonged incompetence becomes indistinguishable from malice. In the interview you also framed the crisis within the broader chaos of the early movement: rapid expansion, cultural experimentation, communal living, and a general lack of structure.
While these factors undoubtedly contributed to the situation, this explanation again risks diffusing responsibility by attributing failures to an atmosphere of disorder. Many of the decisions that allowed abuse to continue—keeping abusive staff in positions of authority or ignoring repeated complaints—were not inevitable consequences of chaos. They were the result of specific administrative choices.
There is something particularly pernicious about selective retelling of events. By omitting certain details it becomes possible to create a misleading picture. In gurukula we called that these the 'Ashvattama lie' which can be more destructive than an outright lie, because it is disguised with half truths.
In describing the Laxmimoni case, for example, you stated that Akuti, a key witness, was not personally interviewed by the CPO. Presented in isolation this sounds extremely troubling. What you did not mentioned is that Akuti submitted a written statement to the CPO, she was given the opportunity to share her testimony, which was included in the case file. When that additional piece of information is included, the portrayal of a rogue and vigilante CPO becomes far less convincing.
You also shared an example in which you took decisive action after being informed that a teacher was mistreating children, presenting yourself in a positive light.
What you did not mentioned is that during the period when you served as GBC for Latin America, devotee children were sexually abused in at least three countries.
To be clear, as far as I know, at the time you were not made aware of those incidents. Nevertheless, in any institution leaders bear responsibility not only for their personal actions but also for establishing systems capable of detecting and preventing abuse and for failing to do so!
You described the child abuse problem as a problem pertaining India or to some dark past of ISKCON in the west that has now been adequately tackled. You offered the example of the Dallas Gurukula as an exemplary school. You did not mention that there was a relatively recent incident of child abuse in the Dallas gurukula that exposed egregious negligence from the staff and temple management.
You described the child abuse problem as a problem pertaining India or to some dark past of ISKCON in the west that has now been adequately tackled. You offered the example of the Dallas Gurukula as an exemplary school. You did not mention that there was a relatively recent incident of child abuse in the Dallas gurukula that exposed egregious negligence from the staff and temple management.
PADA: Yep, a friend of mine saw a sexual predator sitting in a big seat in Dallas, and as soon as he complained, he was banned from the temple and a legal restraining order was placed on him. The predator gets to stay however.
Something conspicuously absent from the interview was any substantial discussion of what proactive steps you have personally taken to prioritize child protection within ISKCON during the past fifty years. The anecdotal example you provided is not very substantial.
Considering the many years you served as a GBC and senior leader, it is reasonable to ask what concrete actions you have personally taken to make child protection a priority.
You would also have voted on a number of GBC resolutions during your time in leadership, including:
1977 – “There will be no marriages of girls until they are 16 years old.”
1980 – “That the previous resolution which required that young girls wait until 16 years old to be married be rescinded.”
1981 – “That ISKCON’s standard policy is to send all of its young boys (from outside of India) to the Bhaktivedanta Swami Gurukula in Vrndavana from at least the age of 9–10 until at least the age of 12.”
I wonder whether you feel any responsibility for the devastating consequences these resolutions had for so many devotee children...
Something conspicuously absent from the interview was any substantial discussion of what proactive steps you have personally taken to prioritize child protection within ISKCON during the past fifty years. The anecdotal example you provided is not very substantial.
Considering the many years you served as a GBC and senior leader, it is reasonable to ask what concrete actions you have personally taken to make child protection a priority.
You would also have voted on a number of GBC resolutions during your time in leadership, including:
1977 – “There will be no marriages of girls until they are 16 years old.”
1980 – “That the previous resolution which required that young girls wait until 16 years old to be married be rescinded.”
1981 – “That ISKCON’s standard policy is to send all of its young boys (from outside of India) to the Bhaktivedanta Swami Gurukula in Vrndavana from at least the age of 9–10 until at least the age of 12.”
I wonder whether you feel any responsibility for the devastating consequences these resolutions had for so many devotee children...
The narrative you present appears to assume that the theological and institutional framework of ISKCON itself is fundamentally sound, and therefore explains the crisis mainly through human factors such as immaturity, chaos, or lack of professionalism. This assumption limits the scope of the analysis and discourages examination of structural features that may have contributed to the problem, such as strong hierarchical authority, intense reverence for leaders, and a widespread reluctance to question spiritual authorities.
The unfortunate reality is that ISKCON as an institution has repeatedly prioritized protecting its reputation, avoiding public scandal, and preserving confidence in leadership over transparency and the protection of victims.
In ISKCON the culture of blind obedience is often framed as surrender, and described as a virtuous spiritual quality, while questioning leadership can be treated as a serious offense. This dynamic dis-empowers individual devotees and encourages a structure in which abusive authorities may face very few effective checks.
Abusive environments often involve extreme power imbalances. In gurukulas children have been geographically isolated, dependent on authorities, taught absolute obedience, and separated from their parents. These conditions create an environment where abuse can remain hidden for long periods of time. These are structural realities, and many of them continue to exist today.
Ultimately your explanation leaves an unresolved tension. On the one hand ISKCON leaders are believed to be spiritually advanced and morally exemplary. On the other hand the systemic child abuse crisis is explained primarily through immaturity, incompetence, and administrative confusion.
Reconciling these two narratives requires deeper reflection on the relationship between spiritual authority, institutional structure, and accountability. Effective safeguarding would require independent oversight, professional safeguarding expertise, mandatory training for leaders, and serious attention to conflicts of interest.
As long as ISKCON’s leaders continue to be spiritually revered, institutionally powerful, not subject to independent oversight, and lacking adequate safeguarding training, the structure itself will continue to facilitate abuse and hinder effective child protection.
Aspiring to serve Sri Guru and the Vaishnavas,
SR das
PADA: Yup. When we were helping the victims of the child mistreatment with a lawsuit, Hrdayananda was giving me the stink eye in the Watseka sidewalk. He never once asked me anything about all the testimony he knew I was collecting. And his legal team assistant told me "we have to vigorously defend ISKCON from these greedy and grubby hands gurukulis who want to fleece and exploit ISKCON."
The unfortunate reality is that ISKCON as an institution has repeatedly prioritized protecting its reputation, avoiding public scandal, and preserving confidence in leadership over transparency and the protection of victims.
In ISKCON the culture of blind obedience is often framed as surrender, and described as a virtuous spiritual quality, while questioning leadership can be treated as a serious offense. This dynamic dis-empowers individual devotees and encourages a structure in which abusive authorities may face very few effective checks.
Abusive environments often involve extreme power imbalances. In gurukulas children have been geographically isolated, dependent on authorities, taught absolute obedience, and separated from their parents. These conditions create an environment where abuse can remain hidden for long periods of time. These are structural realities, and many of them continue to exist today.
Ultimately your explanation leaves an unresolved tension. On the one hand ISKCON leaders are believed to be spiritually advanced and morally exemplary. On the other hand the systemic child abuse crisis is explained primarily through immaturity, incompetence, and administrative confusion.
Reconciling these two narratives requires deeper reflection on the relationship between spiritual authority, institutional structure, and accountability. Effective safeguarding would require independent oversight, professional safeguarding expertise, mandatory training for leaders, and serious attention to conflicts of interest.
As long as ISKCON’s leaders continue to be spiritually revered, institutionally powerful, not subject to independent oversight, and lacking adequate safeguarding training, the structure itself will continue to facilitate abuse and hinder effective child protection.
Aspiring to serve Sri Guru and the Vaishnavas,
SR das
PADA: Yup. When we were helping the victims of the child mistreatment with a lawsuit, Hrdayananda was giving me the stink eye in the Watseka sidewalk. He never once asked me anything about all the testimony he knew I was collecting. And his legal team assistant told me "we have to vigorously defend ISKCON from these greedy and grubby hands gurukulis who want to fleece and exploit ISKCON."
OK many of those kids were already mistreated, a number had PTSD and other trauma issues, some were ending their lives due to all the trauma, and now the -- victims -- are being branded as greed and grubby exploiters. Sorry, this is making a bad situation worse, and Hrdayananda as only talking to the lawyer's team, and not us. The Jayapataka people later complained that my helping various lawsuits was costing ISKCON $100,000,000. OK this begs the question, why wasn't that $100,000,000 spent on facilitating children, instead of buying Luis Vuitton suits for lawyers? Who decided we should invest in lawyers and not children? And why does no one ever ask that to Hrdayananda and his pals? ys pd
GPD: Yes, why don't people ask iskcon gurus why they spend big money on their top notch lawyers and spend small amounts on children. I think the answer will be as always. "That's an offensive question to ask us! Who are you to be our authority, get out of here etc."
A Dasi: Seriously, was there ANY of the 11 gurus, or any gurus after, that treated you or the victims with respect? I'm hoping you could PLEASE tell me there was at least 1 who understood Prabhupada's actual mood...
BW: Amazing and eloquent letter, I hope Maharaj takes it to heart. SR is the voice of our generation.
A Dasi: Agree, but let's not be part of historical reframing, please.
Even if it was "amateurish"... the lawyering up & partitioning of ISKCON properties to avoid paying the Turley lawsuit was professional Machiavellianism at its finest.
The opportunity to be unlike other established religions was fumbled extraordinarily.
There is zero doubt in my soul, Srila Prabhupada would've sold every single temple, brick by brick if he had to, to help ease the pain caused to Krishna's children. Yes, the majority of the money would've gone to the Turley law firm, but healing would've started. The PR and healing would've helped other faiths to look at themselves in the mirror, too.
Instead, we have a corporate entity of Good Ol' Boys Club continuing to refuse accountability, dismantling CPO to another bed of lawyers, and continue to fumble the faith to their non-taxed benefit.
MM: Good points and analysis!
L Dasi: He will only accuse you of attacking him and will never give any proper and reasonable answers to anything. Waste of time, but it's a very good letter.
C Dasi: Thank you for this brilliant counter analysis.
MB: Karma, that is what it is! Everyone is under the spell of Maya's forces. Karmis, for example, are subject to Epstein-style gaslighting and blackmail. Devotees, however, are under the influence of the same forces. Followers of Krishna Consciousness live in a dream where they believe that purification is the main driving force of the movement, especially in our case, when it comes to addressing child abuse, when in reality, that dynamic is unproven, and the belief in it is reinforced by --hypocrisy (we are brahmanas).
What I am writing here, is the core of what I wrote a long time ago in an article for Priti-lakshanam, edited by Pranada. So, please don't take it personally.
Hope, it is clear enough for you.
M Dasi: Anyone who accepts the title "Maharaja" would have to be suss.
E Dasi: Excellent reflection...this is the on-going trend, to go after their statements.
GSD: Thank you for your comments Prabhu. Seems to me it will be hard to argue with any of your points.
GC: Excellent reply.
S Dasi: Very well written, it's a shame it will be lost on the recipient.
SDD: Yes. What a shame!
MB: Karma, that is what it is! Everyone is under the spell of Maya's forces. Karmis, for example, are subject to Epstein-style gaslighting and blackmail. Devotees, however, are under the influence of the same forces.
Followers of Krishna Consciousness live in a dream where they believe that purification is the main driving force of the movement, especially in our case, when it comes to addressing child abuse, when in reality, that dynamic is unproven, and the belief in it is reinforced by --hypocrisy (we are brahmanas).
What I am writing here, is the core of what I wrote a long time ago in an article for Priti-lakshanam, edited by Pranada. So, please don't take it personally.
Hope, it is clear enough for you.
======
GITA CHANGES
Mahesh Raja says:
Note: Jayadvaita ADDED this in the CHANGED Bhagavad Gita it is NOT there in the Original: “nor by independent study of books of knowledge can one progress in spiritual life” (Bg. 4.34, purport)”.
“Srila Prabhupada cannot be a diksa guru now since “nor by independent study of books of knowledge can one progress in spiritual life” (Bg. 4.34, purport)”.
Note: Here you will see some of the changes Jayadvaita made and ADDED his OWN words:
*Unauthorised changes to Srila Prabhupada’s Bhagavad-Gita made by Jayadvaita swami*
Note: spot the difference between the old version and the new concocted manipulated by Jayadvaita.
Here he has inserted **souls** and **they**
Bg 4.34 (new version by Jayadvaita swami)
Just try to learn the truth by approaching a spiritual master. Inquire from him submissively and render service unto him. The self-realized **souls** can impart knowledge unto you because **they** have seen the truth.
Note: here he has ADDED a text which was NEVER there in the original.
**Nor by independent study of books of knowledge can one progress in spiritual life.**
PURPORT Bg 4.34 (new version by Jayadvaita swami)
The Bhagavatam (6.3.19) says dharmam tu saksad bhagavat-pranitam: the path of religion is directly enunciated by the Lord. Therefore, mental
speculation or dry arguments cannot help lead one to the right path. **Nor by independent study of books of knowledge can one progress in spiritual life.** One has to approach a bona fide spiritual master to receive the knowledge.
Bg 4.34 ( Srila Prabhupada’s ORIGINAL untampered version)
Just try to learn the truth by approaching a spiritual master. Inquire from him submissively and render service unto him. The self-realized **soul**can impart knowledge unto you because **he** has seen the truth. (Bg 4.34)
PURPORT
The Bhagavatam (6.3.19) says, dharmaṁ hi sākṣād-bhagavat-praṇītam–the path of religion is directly enunciated by the Lord. Therefore, mental speculation or dry arguments cannot help one progress in spiritual life. One has to approach a bona fide spiritual master to receive the knowledge.
The changes made are **very significant** because they change the **entire** meaning of the text.
Diksa (transcendental Knowledge) is imparted by one self-realized person–the acarya (Srila Prabhupada)
It is **one singular** person uttama-adhikari (Srila Prabhupada) that transmits diksa (see antya 4.192-4.194) into the madhyama-adhikaris heart.
Krishna’s pastimes reflected in the heart of Prabhupada are transmitted (televised) in the Madhyama-adhikari’s heart when he chants offenselessly —this is transcendental knowledge (diksa).
Therefore the concocted plural words “The self-realized **souls** can impart knowledge unto you because **they** have seen the truth” are totally incorrect. The clever manipulation OF WORD JUGGLERY “they” means Jayadwaita swami wants to IMPOSE a new breed of so called INITIATING gurus in ISKCON—in spite of Srila Prabhupada’s clear instruction of July 9 1977 letter to the society of order to institute a Ritvik system (which incidentally was NEVER revoked by Srila Prabhupada). The bogus initiating gunda “guru” brutes dismantled Srila Prabhupada’s Ritvik system.
Adi 1.35
A devotee **must** have only **one initiating spiritual master** because in the scriptures acceptance of more than one is always forbidden.
Next change, the ADDED text in the purport:
**Nor by independent study of books of knowledge can one progress in spiritual life.**
Devotee: Srila Prabhupada when you’re not present with us, how is it possible to receive instructions? For example in questions that may arise…
SRILA PRABHUPADA: Well the questions are answ… answers are there in my books. (Morning Walk, Los Angeles, 13/5/73)
SRILA PRABHUPADA: So utilise whatever time you find to make a thorough study of my books. Then all your questions will be answered. (Letter to Upendra, 7/1/76)
SRILA PRABHUPADA: Every one of you must regularly read our books at least twice, in the morning and evening, and automatically all questions will be answered. ( Letter to Randhira, 24/01/70)
SRILA PRABHUPADA: If I depart there is no cause for lamentation. I will always be with you through my books and orders. I will always remain with you in that way. (BTG 13:1-2, December 1977)
74-11-22 Letter: Bahurupa
In my books the philosophy of Krishna Consciousness is EXPLAINED FULLY so if there is anything which you do not understand, then you simply have to read again and again. By reading daily THE KNOWLEDGE WILL BE REVEALED TO YOU AND BY THIS PROCESS YOUR SPIRITUAL LIFE WILL DEVELOP.
Note: This clearly indicates that Srila Prabhupada’s books are understood through their own potency, and that there is therefore no need for a physically present guru to understand the books. Our Srimad Bhagavatam is unique because the verses of the Bhagavatam are directly complemented with the purports of Srila Prabhupada, who is the bonafide maha-bhagavata; therefore, the book Bhagavata and the person Bhagavata are combined in Srila Prabhupada’s Srimad Bhagavatam.
Therefore, there is no need for a third party, “the so called current Iskcon links” to (mis)interpret what Srila Prabhupada “really means to say”. sic
Srila Prabhupada’s books are not ordinary books of knowledge. Therefore this change is totally meaningless and unjustified. This are**NOT** Prabhupada’s words in the Bhagavad-Gita. Here it appears Jayadwaita is trying to manipulate the devotees into searching for a CONDITITIONED SOUL “guru” of the concocted
2/3 majority votes.
SRILA PRABHUPADA AND HIS BOOKS ARE NOT DIFFERENT.
Adi-lila 1-35
There is **no difference between the spiritual master’s instructions and the spiritual master himself**. in his absence, therefore, his words of direction should be the pride of the disciple.
Note: Srila Prabhupada’s words of direction—-Srimad-Bhagavatam there is no difference between Srila Prabhupada’s Instruction and himself the uttama-adhikari is powerful to give Diksa from his books:
SB 1.7.22
The spiritual master, **by his words**, can penetrate into the heart of the suffering person and **inject knowledge transcendental**, which alone can extinguish the fire of material existence.
SB 2.9.8
….the potency of transcendental sound is **never minimised** because the vibrator is **apparently absent**.
Watch this :
ISKCONspiracy Envious Jayadvaita vs Srila Prabhupada
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1C6RUmW0YQQ
ISKCONspiracy – Jayadvaita Swami Campaigns to Remove the Chanting of Prabhupada’s Name
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pRTtkGMAg8Q
Hope, it is clear enough for you.
======
GITA CHANGES
Mahesh Raja says:
Note: Jayadvaita ADDED this in the CHANGED Bhagavad Gita it is NOT there in the Original: “nor by independent study of books of knowledge can one progress in spiritual life” (Bg. 4.34, purport)”.
“Srila Prabhupada cannot be a diksa guru now since “nor by independent study of books of knowledge can one progress in spiritual life” (Bg. 4.34, purport)”.
Note: Here you will see some of the changes Jayadvaita made and ADDED his OWN words:
*Unauthorised changes to Srila Prabhupada’s Bhagavad-Gita made by Jayadvaita swami*
Note: spot the difference between the old version and the new concocted manipulated by Jayadvaita.
Here he has inserted **souls** and **they**
Bg 4.34 (new version by Jayadvaita swami)
Just try to learn the truth by approaching a spiritual master. Inquire from him submissively and render service unto him. The self-realized **souls** can impart knowledge unto you because **they** have seen the truth.
Note: here he has ADDED a text which was NEVER there in the original.
**Nor by independent study of books of knowledge can one progress in spiritual life.**
PURPORT Bg 4.34 (new version by Jayadvaita swami)
The Bhagavatam (6.3.19) says dharmam tu saksad bhagavat-pranitam: the path of religion is directly enunciated by the Lord. Therefore, mental
speculation or dry arguments cannot help lead one to the right path. **Nor by independent study of books of knowledge can one progress in spiritual life.** One has to approach a bona fide spiritual master to receive the knowledge.
Bg 4.34 ( Srila Prabhupada’s ORIGINAL untampered version)
Just try to learn the truth by approaching a spiritual master. Inquire from him submissively and render service unto him. The self-realized **soul**can impart knowledge unto you because **he** has seen the truth. (Bg 4.34)
PURPORT
The Bhagavatam (6.3.19) says, dharmaṁ hi sākṣād-bhagavat-praṇītam–the path of religion is directly enunciated by the Lord. Therefore, mental speculation or dry arguments cannot help one progress in spiritual life. One has to approach a bona fide spiritual master to receive the knowledge.
The changes made are **very significant** because they change the **entire** meaning of the text.
Diksa (transcendental Knowledge) is imparted by one self-realized person–the acarya (Srila Prabhupada)
It is **one singular** person uttama-adhikari (Srila Prabhupada) that transmits diksa (see antya 4.192-4.194) into the madhyama-adhikaris heart.
Krishna’s pastimes reflected in the heart of Prabhupada are transmitted (televised) in the Madhyama-adhikari’s heart when he chants offenselessly —this is transcendental knowledge (diksa).
Therefore the concocted plural words “The self-realized **souls** can impart knowledge unto you because **they** have seen the truth” are totally incorrect. The clever manipulation OF WORD JUGGLERY “they” means Jayadwaita swami wants to IMPOSE a new breed of so called INITIATING gurus in ISKCON—in spite of Srila Prabhupada’s clear instruction of July 9 1977 letter to the society of order to institute a Ritvik system (which incidentally was NEVER revoked by Srila Prabhupada). The bogus initiating gunda “guru” brutes dismantled Srila Prabhupada’s Ritvik system.
Adi 1.35
A devotee **must** have only **one initiating spiritual master** because in the scriptures acceptance of more than one is always forbidden.
Next change, the ADDED text in the purport:
**Nor by independent study of books of knowledge can one progress in spiritual life.**
Devotee: Srila Prabhupada when you’re not present with us, how is it possible to receive instructions? For example in questions that may arise…
SRILA PRABHUPADA: Well the questions are answ… answers are there in my books. (Morning Walk, Los Angeles, 13/5/73)
SRILA PRABHUPADA: So utilise whatever time you find to make a thorough study of my books. Then all your questions will be answered. (Letter to Upendra, 7/1/76)
SRILA PRABHUPADA: Every one of you must regularly read our books at least twice, in the morning and evening, and automatically all questions will be answered. ( Letter to Randhira, 24/01/70)
SRILA PRABHUPADA: If I depart there is no cause for lamentation. I will always be with you through my books and orders. I will always remain with you in that way. (BTG 13:1-2, December 1977)
74-11-22 Letter: Bahurupa
In my books the philosophy of Krishna Consciousness is EXPLAINED FULLY so if there is anything which you do not understand, then you simply have to read again and again. By reading daily THE KNOWLEDGE WILL BE REVEALED TO YOU AND BY THIS PROCESS YOUR SPIRITUAL LIFE WILL DEVELOP.
Note: This clearly indicates that Srila Prabhupada’s books are understood through their own potency, and that there is therefore no need for a physically present guru to understand the books. Our Srimad Bhagavatam is unique because the verses of the Bhagavatam are directly complemented with the purports of Srila Prabhupada, who is the bonafide maha-bhagavata; therefore, the book Bhagavata and the person Bhagavata are combined in Srila Prabhupada’s Srimad Bhagavatam.
Therefore, there is no need for a third party, “the so called current Iskcon links” to (mis)interpret what Srila Prabhupada “really means to say”. sic
Srila Prabhupada’s books are not ordinary books of knowledge. Therefore this change is totally meaningless and unjustified. This are**NOT** Prabhupada’s words in the Bhagavad-Gita. Here it appears Jayadwaita is trying to manipulate the devotees into searching for a CONDITITIONED SOUL “guru” of the concocted
2/3 majority votes.
SRILA PRABHUPADA AND HIS BOOKS ARE NOT DIFFERENT.
Adi-lila 1-35
There is **no difference between the spiritual master’s instructions and the spiritual master himself**. in his absence, therefore, his words of direction should be the pride of the disciple.
Note: Srila Prabhupada’s words of direction—-Srimad-Bhagavatam there is no difference between Srila Prabhupada’s Instruction and himself the uttama-adhikari is powerful to give Diksa from his books:
SB 1.7.22
The spiritual master, **by his words**, can penetrate into the heart of the suffering person and **inject knowledge transcendental**, which alone can extinguish the fire of material existence.
SB 2.9.8
….the potency of transcendental sound is **never minimised** because the vibrator is **apparently absent**.
Watch this :
ISKCONspiracy Envious Jayadvaita vs Srila Prabhupada
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1C6RUmW0YQQ
ISKCONspiracy – Jayadvaita Swami Campaigns to Remove the Chanting of Prabhupada’s Name
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pRTtkGMAg8Q
====
Dive into this beautiful Bhajan By Srila Prabhupada! pic.twitter.com/8gMmHonG9U
— Krishna Connect (@krishnaconnect8) March 9, 2026
