>>>1975

By 1975 some of the "cheating techniques" for distributing
Prabhupada's books were already evolving and he became alarmed.
Prabhupada wrote in a letter to one of the leaders
named "Rupanuga," "Regarding the controversy about book distribution
techniques. You are right. Our occupation must be honest. Everyone
should adore our members as honest. If we do something which is
deteriorating to the popular sentiment of the public in favor of our
movement, that is not good. Somehow or other we should not become
unpopular in the public eye. These dishonest methods must be stopped.
It is hampering our reputation all over the world" (9 January
1975).<<<

Just wanted to add that when we chat the nondevotees, we chat
ourselves. It becomes habit, a way of speech, a way of life, and we
bring it back home to the ashrama.

These cheating philosophies found their way down the chain, with skp
devotees were cheating the regular devotees, folk members,
congregation and various visitors. But mostly, those who had fully
given their life to Srila Prabhupada and therefore lived in, or near,
a temple, very involved, they often received a lot of this cheating
double talk. Even to this day, because it has become a bad habit, and
even seen as a normal way of speaking the philsophy (!!!), this is
still going on. The simple minded, or the sweet, the trusting, the
innocent and so on, got it the worse. Now we have kulis, women, the
simple brahmacari and others who no longer trust, because so often
they go back and give it yet another try, when sooner or later
someone comes in with that trikster double talk. Only now it is
recognized by such devotees, who go home sad and not so sure they
want to come back again. At least not for another long spell. The
honest and sweet interactions Prabhupada gave by example seldom exist
anymore. We have a lot to put back together.

YS,
Prtha dd


--- In Vaisnavacouncil@yahoogroups.com, "angel108b" <angel108b@y...>
wrote:
> thanks Praghosa, yes we should have taken ISKCON back, a long time
> ago, good idea ys pd
>
> ==============================================
>
> The Windle Turley case will siphon off large amounts of money --
from
> the GBC -- and into the hands of some of the molested gurukulis.
And
> we think this is not a second too soon since some of the ex-kulis
> are, quite frankly, depressed and discouraged by the whole thing.
No
> kidding. Maybe this will uplift them as a group a bit, and since
some
> of them also have serious difficulties, and there has been some
> suicides, this will hopefully spread a little cheer throughout
their
> entire group. Again we hope so. We also think that if the GBC has
> this money instead of the kulis, the GBC will simply mis-use it, as
> we have seen, they simply keep their (hired) goondas on the side
walk
> to beat up "the Prabhupada devotees" whenever they can. So why
should
> we be happy to see these goonda acitivities funded -- anyway? And
> since some of the GBC goondas are simply "paid-up help" from South
> America and so on, many of them will leave their "service," if
> the "payment for service" is halted? One of these goondas even told
> me once that, if I was paying him, then he would protect me and
> attack the GBC? So that means, loyal to money. Hired goondas.
>
> Rather oddly there is still some sentimental attachment for the
> material shell corporation called "ISKCON," and as such there are
> still some dolts out there (such as Naranayana dasa) who are saying
> that current ISKCON, yes even in its current status being managed
by
> the GBC (i.e. the enforced cult ritulistic worship of homosexual
> pedophiles regime/ UMMM guru poisoners?) is "Prabhupada's body."
> WHAT! Thus, they say that suing the current corporation called
ISKCON
> is -- an attack on Prabhupada -- just like "Christian apologists"
are
> saying that "suing the Catholic Church is like suing Jesus," yes
this
> is the absolute truth at least according to these sentimentalists.
No
> wonder the molesting went on as it did with these apologists
fighting
> off any attempts to get justice as well? Don't ya get it, the
> Catholic Church was sued because they tried to protect the
> corporation -- and not the ideal? Form with no substance.
>
> Of course the good news is that Srila Prabhupada was considered as
a
> deviant because he was opposed to the shell corporation of the
> Gaudiya Matha? And rather unfortunately this corporation pooja is
> also what Gaura Govinda, Sridhara and Narayana Maharaja said as
well,
> you have to serve (the empty corporation shell called) ISKCON. No,
> you have to serve the pure devotees? Hello! And now the IRM has
piped
> in as well, Srila Prabhupada will be worshipped, but only as long
as
> the corporation called "ISKCON" -- "is extant"? Hah what? That is
> what they said after 1977 as well, sure Tamal is a guru because he
is
> in ISKCON, so he is bona fide and you are out of ISKCON, so you do
> not count? Corporation pooja? Of course what happens to their idea
if
> the corporation goes bankrupt, then their theory also goes
bankrupt.
> Mahatma dasa (LA) of course says that this IRM corporation pooja
> is "brilliant writing" and their serving the GBC for 20 years as
they
> did is also brilliant? No, that is why the corporation is bankrupt,
> they served the wrong idea? Is bankrupting the
> corporation "brilliant"? Nooo!
>
> More oddly, even Sanat and Mukunda, they also said that current
> ISKCON should not be sued because whenever they visit ISKCON
centers,
> they do not see any of the ex-youth there? So they also link
> everything in their teeny blind universe to the status of "the
> current ISKCON." Of course why would the molested youth would want
to
> hang out there, they never explain? Not too surprisingly, these
guys
> are lovers of Naranarayan's ideas. So this is yet another example
of
> the same sentimentalism, "current ISKCON" is the axis point that
the
> whole world revolves around. Not! Sorry, this is all
sentimentalism,
> and besides, if the suicides had increased as they were, again, as
> they were increasingly occuring before the suit was filed (the
filing
> of the Turley suit reduced the suicides), then, would not your
> precious "current corporation shell of ISKCON" have been linked to
> that IN THE MEDIA and have been harmed, anyways? Yes. I am always
> surprised that folks say that children can get molested, and die,
and
> who cares, as long as the wonderful "current ISKCON" is not harmed?
> Well, what is ISKCON? And if you are not concerned for justice for
> molested children, what kind of ISKCON are you trying to build?
>
> ==============================================================
>
>
> ---------------------------
>
>
> 1975
>
> By 1975 some of the "cheating techniques" for distributing
> Prabhupada's books were already evolving and he became alarmed.
> Prabhupada wrote in a letter to one of the leaders
> named "Rupanuga," "Regarding the controversy about book
distribution
> techniques. You are right. Our occupation must be honest. Everyone
> should adore our members as honest. If we do something which is
> deteriorating to the popular sentiment of the public in favor of
our
> movement, that is not good. Somehow or other we should not become
> unpopular in the public eye. These dishonest methods must be
stopped.
> It is hampering our reputation all over the world" (9 January
1975).
>
> Prabhupada also spoke about the "cheating techniques" issue to
other
> leaders and he mentioned this point in a number of letters. The
> society had to be careful not to develop a bad reputation,
especially
> by using illegal tactics to collect funds. At the same time
> Prabhupada often repeated his idea that the Governing Body members
> take over the responsibilities of managing the movement so that he
> could be free from being concerned with these problems: "This is
the
> duty of the Governing Body, to see that all our members are
becomming
> fixed in Krishna's service." (12 Janurary 1975)
>
> "My Dear Gurukrpa Swami: Please accept my blessings. I am in due
> receipt of your letter addressed to Rupanuga das dated September
16,
> 1975 and have noted the contents. Why is there this politics? This
is
> not good. If politics come, then the preaching will be stopped.
That
> is the difficulty. As soon as politics come, everything is spoiled.
> In the Gaudiya Math the politics is still going on. My Guru
Maharaja
> left in 1936, and now it is 1975, so after 40 years the litigation
is
> still going on. Do not come to this. I hope this meets you in good
> health."
>
> ------------------------
>
> 1976
>
> In 1976 Tamal was emerging as a sort of imperious leader of "the
> biggest book distribution party." Essentially, his "Radha Damodara"
> traveling bus program was visiting Prabhupada's temples all across
> America where Tamal would "steal the temple's manpower." In other
> words, while visiting the temples Tamal would try to convince the
> innocent rank and file temple members, especially the unmarried
male
> students, to leave the temples and join his project. Tamal would
> say, "Living in the temple is a big illusion. The temples are
mainly
> managed by the householders, who are inferior to us sannyasas." In
> other words Tamal was generating a sort of artificial class
> designation system, Prabhupada's temples were "places of illusion,"
> whereas his program was "fully transcendental." Tamal also had
> powerful allies such as Dristadyumna swami, a person who by the way
> has never recovered from Tamal's false "pedigree pecking order
> system" even to the present day. This is why Dristadyumna is
> currently working with Narayana Maharaja of Mathura, another big
> supporter of the false sannyasa clique especially after 1977. Even
at
> the time in 1976, the sannyasa clique was sometimes jokingly
referred
> to as "the false designation party," since they thought of
themselves
> as great renunciates although they were regularly being exposed in
> scandals and so on. Later on, after 1977, the same sannyasa group
was
> sometimes referred to as "the orange (clad) MAFIA." In other words,
> these leaders were not always trusted by the rank and file all
along
> and as such behind the scenes jokes were being made about them.
>
> The problem in 1976 was that "Tamal's personal project" had drained
> away significant portions of the manpower and income that
Prabhupada
> had wanted, and indeed he had ordered to maintain his temples and
> farms. The temple managers thus began to complain, "Tamal is
> hijacking Prabhupada's Krishna movement." Prabhupada confirmed this
> saying, "Tamal is ruining my movement." Certainly Tamal was placing
a
> stranglehold on the movement's finances and manpower, since
the "men
> and money" were shifting away from Prabhupada's control and into
> Tamal's control. Many of the temples were already running on a
small
> scale manpower base. And when Tamal removed (hijacked?) even a few
> people, as he often did all in one day, the result could be
> devastating for a temple. Therefore, to counteract Tamal's program
> the temple presidents gathered together at Mayapura and essentially
> petitioned Prabhupada jointly, stating that thanks to Tamal their
> task of running the temples was nearly impossible. Prabhupada
agreed
> with the assessment of the temple presidents and he began to
> criticize Tamal. As we shall see this was a recurring problem,
> Prabhupada had already said the same type of things starting in the
> early 1970s, "Why is Tamal exercising his absolute authority, he
> should not disturb the temple presidents," and so on.
>
> Prabhupada was very upset and he summed, "Tamal is making
everything
> topsy turvy." Prabhupada decided to exile Tamal for the time being
> and he said, "Tamal must go to China," which was his method of
> solving the crisis, essentially placing Tamal in exile. However,
> Tamal balked at this and he argued with Prabhupada, "The Radha
> Damodara program is my program, the members are all my men, you
> cannot take them away from me, and I will not got to China." Tamal
> vociferously argued with Prabhupada, exactly as we had seen
> Shyamsundara and other leaders argue with Prabhupada. In any event,
> shortly after this a sort of compromise was reached where Tamal
would
> spend some of his time in China and still keep control of "the
Radha
> Damodara bus party," but Tamal promised not to continue his policy
of
> draining away the manpower from the temples.
>
> Thus, at this time an important precedent was established by
> Prabhupada. The rank and file devotees and especially the
> (householder) temple presidents could oppose and veto a Governing
> Body member. They could even veto the entire Governing Body and
> discount their resolutions, if they united. This was Prabhupada's
> method of creating a sort of "checks and balances" against the
> sannyasa clique. Unfortunately, it appears that Prabhupada's
allowing
> this system to evolve may have merely angered Tamal and members of
> his clique. By this process also notice, Prabhupada was placing
more
> control into the hands of the householders, and taking power away
> from the sannyasa clique. In any case "the troubles" within the
Hare
> Krishna Movement lies not solely with the sannyasa clique leaders.
> Temple presidents and even the rank and file could have acted to
> curtail the machinations of the leaders, especially if they united
in
> protest, and Prabhupada had encouraged that process.
>
> Today some think that when Tamal lost this power struggle he merely
> became very angry with Prabhupada and he thus held a grudge against
> Prabhupada after this incident. Clearly, Tamal was trying
> to "takeover Prabhupada's movement" by usurping most of the
manpower
> and control of finances for his own program. He even argued with
> Prabhupada that the manpower and assets he was taking (hijacking)
> away from Prabhupada's movement were "his." So Tamal may have
thought
> that he was the de facto or main proprietor of the Krishna Movement
> since he assumed he was "the brains" or "the mastermind" behind
some
> of the preaching efforts. This same psychology evolved in the 1930s
> Gaudiya Matha, one of the deviant leaders there named "Tirtha
> Maharaja" had tried to take over the assets of the whole mission
> after the departure of their guru (Srila Saraswati) in 1936. And
> Prabhupada said that Tirtha did this because he thought he was his
> guru's "business partner." The butler sometimes thinks he has "a
> right" to use or inherit the assets of the master as well.
>
> Of course Tamal's party was distributing large quantities of
> Prabhupada's books and millions of dollars was being collected
> monthly which somehow or other was used to produce hundreds and
> thousands of Prabhupada's books. Thus many devotees thought that
the
> friction between Tamal and Prabhupada was all "transcendental." Yet
> for those of us who heard about the way Tamal had vociferously
argued
> with Prabhupada, this made us feel very uneasy about the situation.
I
> suppose, in the back of the minds of some of us, we had some
concern
> for Prabhupada's physical safety since some of these leaders had
> argued so vociferously with him and seemed to have very little real
> respect and concern for him. There was the unspoken thought amongst
> some of us, "These leaders are envious of Prabhupada."
>
> Why Prabhupada had kept Tamal as a servant is perhaps why Jesus had
> kept such a dubious person as Judas as his servant. This phenomena
> has occurred with other saints in the past. Saints often extend
their
> mercy to those who least deserve it. In short, some of
> Prabhupada's "big leaders" had talked to him in a challenging
spirit,
> and this was going on even at the beginning in 1968 with
> Kirtanananda's takeover attempt. Some of us viewed these incidents
> differently. Some the rank and file thought, "They (the Governing
> Body) are vastly spiritually advanced, never mind that they are
> speaking in such an odious manner even to Prabhupada." Meanwhile,
> people like myself were thinking, "Some of these leaders have no
> respect for Prabhupada as evidenced by the manner in which they
talk
> to him, as evidenced by the way they are trying in various ways to
> takeover his mission, as evidenced by the way they belittle the
other
> devotees as insignificant, and so on, and as such: they have little
> or no spiritual advancement." Time has proven our assessment to
have
> been correct, and this was also what Prabhupada himself had been
> saying behind the scenes, "I am very depressed by the recent
> incidences in Germany. It is now evident that some of our top men
are
> very much ambitious and there has been so many fall downs" (27
> January 1975).
>
> In other words Prabhupada said openly that he was "depressed with
the
> ever increasing ambitions of some of the leaders." Prabhupada also
> said that in 1936 his own guru (Srila Saraswati) had also concluded
> that his top leaders were ambitious, so his guru became depressed
at
> the end of his life. He would not eat when given food, and he
> sometimes threw the food on the floor. He grew a beard in protest,
> and indeed he "would have lived for many more years, but he left
the
> planet in disgust." This is a rather remarkable paralell, that this
> same types of events evolved in Prabhupada's guru's mission in the
> 1930s, and now he was having the same "troubles" with his own
> ambitious disciples in the 1970s. "History repeats." Prabhupada
also
> never approved of the ambitious leaders of the Gaudiya Matha in the
> 1930s and he said not only did they disturb his guru greatly, they
> caused his guru to leave the planet early. You could say, they made
> Srila Saraswati die. They also gave Prabhupada himself "depression,
> repression, compression."
>
> Not too surprisingly, a leader in the Gaudiya Matha named Narayana
> Mahraja said in 1990 that the same "ambitious people" who drove
Srila
> Saraswati away, actually they caused his death in 1936, and they
were
> later giving Prabhupada "depression, repression, oppression" were
his
> idea of bona fide gurus. And Narayana Maharaja also supported that
> the "ambitious leaders" of Prabhupada's movement are gurus after
> 1977. So there is a sort of clique or club of these false gurus
that
> support one another. Indeed Narayana Maharaja recently cited
> that "there is nothing wrong" with these motivated leaders taking
> over their guru's seat, even if they are homosexuals who
orchestrate
> murders of dissenters. In other words, a mutual respect club for
> false gurus existed in the 1930s, and so Prabhupada's leaders were
> now following in their footsteps. Not surprisingly, the Governing
> Body leaders declared that the Gaudiya Matha leaders were
> their "advisors" after 1977. The question being begged now is, were
> these Gaudiya Matha deviants already consulting with Prabhupada's
> leaders in the 1970s, inducing them to behave as renegades as they
> were? Prabhupada had already said that some of his leaders were
> indeed consulting with some of these Gaudiya Matha folks in 1970,
and
> that the ill behaviors of his leaders, which Prabhupada said
was "the
> poison," was coming from them. The real question being begged now
is,
> were some of these Gaudiya Matha folks involved in the "poisoning
> with arsenic plot" to assassinate Prabhupada?
>
> Anyway, in 1976 Prabhupada also did not approve of the constant
> harassing of the householder class by Tamal and his sannyasa
clique.
> At the time we were glad that the system of managing was being
> changed so that the householders could "veto" the "resolutions" of
> the sannyasa clique, yet Tamal was not happy with this arrangement.
> He would eventually plot methods to overthrow this order as well,
and
> revive his sannyasa clique. Again, this was part of the
> whole "householder" problem where Tamal's clique had previously
> wanted to ship off all the householders to Australia and have the
> temples exclusively manned by unmarried males, a sort of cloistered
> monk's program. He was preaching that the temples were places of
> illusion since they were being run by householders. So this was a
> chronic problem, Tamal and his clique were trying to erode the
> position of the householders while Prabhupada was trying to build
up
> and encourage the householders. For example Prabhupada used to say
> that his householders were far better preachers than the sannyasas
of
> the Gaudiya Matha.
>
> Perhaps the main practical reason that Prabhupada tolerated Tamal
and
> his club was that some of them were in fact a good organizers, and
as
> such Tamal was at least funding the publication of Prabhupada's
> books. Prabhupada often said that his most important project was
> that, "I want to see all of my books printed while I am still
alive."
> He used to warn ominously, "As soon as I depart the book publishing
> will stop." In sum, Prabhupada was worried that his books would
never
> be printed, especially if he did not see that being done while he
was
> here, and he was quite elderly. Thus, there was very little time
for
> him to organize all of this: to get his books translated; to have
the
> translations polished; to have the texts placed into the elaborate
> pre-press process; to have the sanskrit transliterations added; to
> have the illustrations painted; then to have the books printed,
> shipped out, and distributed. Prabhupada summed up his idea to
bring
> back Tamal as a manager on May 4, 1976. "I have met with Tamal and
it
> appears impratical to send anyone to China at this time. I am
> requesting him to resume his old position as manager of the Radha
> Damodar party. Book distribution is my most important concern and
> these devotees should be given facility to distribute books
profusely
> thoughout America."
>
> Thus Prabhupada's main concern at the time was to get his books
> printed and distributed. It is now evident that these were indeed
> bona fide concerns on his part since after he departed many of his
> books became "out of print" and some of the Governing Body members
> began to instead use the Hare Krishna movement's funds to print
their
> own totally bogus publications, or they simply squandered funds on
> their own personal extravagant lifestyles instead of publishing the
> society's books. Book distribution went down drastically after
> Prabhupada departed. Similarly, the distribution of Prabhupada's
> flagship magazine "Back To Godhead" dwindled from millions of
copies
> being circulated per year in 1976 to only a few thousand nowadays.
> Prabhupada also said that his worse concern was that "my books will
> be changed" after he departed. Thus he wanted to see unedited
> editions of his books printed so at least copies would be extant.
> Sure enough, as soon as he departed the Governing Body commissioned
> Jayadvaita swami (Jay Israel) to immediately begin to alter all of
> Prabhupada's books, and create false interpretations of his
> instructions. For example Jayadvaita has been a big leader and
> supporter of the Governing body's enforced cult ritualistic worship
> of homosexual pedophiles regime, which he claims is established
> through Prabhupada's books.
>
> Simultaneously in 1976, some of the big sannyasas began to increase
> their "preaching" that it was bona fide to cheat people out of
their
> money by giving them less change when selling them a book. For
> example, female devotees distributing books at the airports were
> trained to get a large denomination of money, at least a twenty
> dollar bill, and then to run off to the bathroom and not come out
for
> quite some time, while the man who gave her the money had to leave
to
> catch his airplane. And many other similar illegal techniques were
> evolving to extract money from the public. Indeed, some of the
> leaders made a video tape to teach the devotees how to cheat the
> public with these various tricks. Needless to say, this was
creating
> quite an obnoxious perception of the movement and quite a back lash
> from the public. These "cheating" activities were already giving
the
> movement a very bad reputation in 1975 and it was getting worse by
> 1976.
>
> Simultaneously, in May of 1976, one of the most famous sannyasas at
> that time named Madhuvisa swami resigned from the Governing Body
> while he was being investigated for various improprieties. A big
> scandal came out shortly after this, that he was having illicit sex
> with a number of his young female students and so on. Meanwhile,
> another type of scandal was brewing, some of the Laguna Beach
> temple's devotees were allegedly selling drugs from the temple
> property and some of them were being exposed, and so this too would
> soon blossom into a major publicity scandal. Thus, while the books
> were being printed, other elements of the society were fraying at
the
> edges and this was even being noticed by the general public.
>
> Therefore in the summer of 1976 I had felt that things were not
going
> as they should be. Some of the sannyasa clique were becoming more
and
> more imperious and callous to the rank and file devotees. The
public
> perception of the movement was, in the words of Prabhupada
> himself, "deteriorating." Some of the sannyasa clique were opposed
to
> the second echelon of leaders, namely the temple presidents.
Vigorous
> debates were going on all over, "Who would wield more control, the
> housholders or the sannyasas"? Some of the other sannyasas had
tried
> to back Tamal's attempt to overthrow the temple presidents. All of
> this was only solved, or actually held back for the time being,
when
> Prabhupada himself intervened in this crisis. Once again Prabhupada
> he had to tell everyone they were simply disturbing his translation
> work. Worse, some of the sannyasas were openly disrespectful to
> Prabhupada. Overall, it was clear that the sannyasas as a group
were
> not listening to the wishes and needs of the householders, indeed
> they were alienating the householders. And now they were alienating
> the public. Nor did they seem to be listening to Prabhupada either?
> In other words, simultaneously there was the combined effect of an
> increase in criminal activity, an increase in dubious book
> distribution tactics, an increase in spectacular failures from the
> sannyasa class, an increase in attempts to exploit women, and
> simultaneously, a dramatic decrease in the public chanting
> (samkirtana) which had given the movement a favorable public
> perception -- in the first place?
>
> So I started to think of a means to counteract all of this
> negativity. In early 1976 I started a small group of devotees who
> were going out on Hollywood Boulvevard in Los Angeles to conduct
the
> Hare Krishna movement's traditional "samkirtana," or public singing
> and chanting, which was the process used to start the movement in
the
> first place in the early 1970s. "Sam" means: a group of people,
> and "kirtan" means: to sing, or actually to sing mantras that
glorify
> Krishna. We used musical instruments and chanted in the way that
the
> movement had done previously. And right away people on the street
> were asking us, "What happened to you people, where did you go"? So
> the public was already aware that "the public chanting" had more or
> less ceased. The "public samkirtana" had been featured favorably in
> news media starting in the early 1970s, so I thought we should
revive
> the process of gaining favorable public image. Simultaneously, I
> thought we should start a "reading class" of Prabhupada's books,
> particularly his most recently published books called "Chaitanya
> Charitamrita." In other words, we were indirectly criticizing the
> heavy handed cheating tactics and lack of public chanting that was
> giving the movement a negative public image.
>
> Needless to say, our effort infuriated Tamal and his sannyasa
clique
> members. They realized that we were indirectly undermining their
> plans and so they devised a means to counteract us. So Tamal and
his
> allies began to spread rumors that members of our group: were
> accepting another guru from India other than Prabhupada, were
working
> with deviants like Nitai dasa, were smoking marijuana, were having
> orgies, were making women pregnant in our meeetings, were
advocating
> the "sahajiya" philosophy that mixes illicit sex, drugs -- and
> Krishna's pastimes, and so on and so forth. Thus, one morning
> Revatinandana swami approached me and he asked, "Purajnana, are you
> really smoking marijuana, accepting another guru, wearing saris,
and
> having orgies"? I said, "No, why do you ask"? And Revatinandana
> said, "Well that is what Tamal was telling Prabhupada that you were
> doing this morning during his morning walk. So I think Tamal is
> making a smear campaign against you, and I have seen enough of
this,
> I am leaving the movement."
>
> So I decided to write Prabhupada a letter to clarify some of this.
A
> few days later Pusta Krishna swami, who was Prabhupada's secretary
at
> the time, approached me and he said, "Wow, how did you like that
nice
> letter you got from Prabhupada"? I said, "What letter, I never got
> it"? Therefore, Prabhupada had recived my letter, he had dictated a
> reply to me to be typed, the reply was duly typed and then signed
by
> him, and he had ordered that it should be delivered to me, but it
was
> not? Moreover the reply was favorable to me. The transparent
> conclusion was: some of the leaders, and probably Tamal, had
> intercepted my letter and he had hid, lost or destroyed it. This
was
> for me a very good lesson, now it was clear that some of the
leaders
> were intentionally giving misleading information to Prabhupada,
they
> were altering Prabhupada's statements, or they were hiding or
> destroying his statements. In sum, they were still trying to hijack
> his movement, hijack his letters, hijack his devotees, hijack his
> statements and orders, and -- take over his mission for
> themselves.
>
> A few days after the "missing letter" incident, I was in the Los
> Angeles temple for the morning program and I felt that someone was
> staring at my back. Sure enough, I turned around and it was Tamal
who
> was giving me a very icy glare. Tamal came up and snapped at me
> angrily, "I know you Puranjana, you are just waiting for Prabhupada
> to die so you can sit in his seat." This is rather amazing when we
> consider that about one year later, it was Tamal who was in fact
> sitting in Prabhupada's seat? Again this was another good lesson
for
> me, some of these big leaders were thinking, "Prabhupada is going
to
> die soon and some of us will be fighting to be sitting in his seat,
> as the next guru"? At the same time I would not let Tamal depress
or
> upset me, since he had a tendency to harass other devotees and
drive
> them to depression. Supposedly, Tamal had already made Vishnujana
> commit suicide a few months eariler. So I said to myself that since
> Tamal was expert at driving people to depression, and Prabhupada
had
> recently said Tamal was making the whole movement topsy turvy, I
was
> not going to let him make me upset. As it turns out, Tamal was
later
> linked to talking to Gopijana balabha, and making him commit
suicide,
> and then there are supposedly three or four other cases of suicide
> and one attempted suicide, all linked to "talking to Tamal."
Besides,
> I knew that Prabhupada had wrote me a favorable letter so it really
> did not make much difference what Tamal said or did?
>
> A few days after this, Prabhupada abruptly left Los Angeles and he
> failed to perform some scheduled ceremonies. As it turns out, on
his
> way out the door Prabhupada stopped and let his servants go forward
> to the car. A woman was sitting on the garden wall in front of the
> temple. Prabhupada turned to her and said, "I have to get out of
> here, these people want to kill me." A few days after this,
> Prabhupada's secretary Pusta Krishna left the movement. He had
looked
> very upset at the "missing letter" incident and perhaps this is
what
> convinced him to get away from the association of Tamal and the
> sannyasa gang.
>
>
> August 1976 Letter: All GBC Secretaries. "Under no circumstances
can
> any GBC or Temple President accept any money from these devotees.
> This business has to be stopped at once. A business profession must
> be very honest -- above all suspicion. His Divine Grace said 'I am
> trying to retire from management to translate but if these things
> come then how can I translate. I have set up the framework and
> everything should be done within the framework. Kindly see that
this
> business is stopped at once.'" Your servants, Gargamuni Swami GBC