In a Dec. 13, 1999 essay published on VNN.org (Story #5073), titled GBC Suppressed the Truth, Locanananda das of New York City revealed that the now famous questions and answers that came out of a GBC meeting with Srila Prabhupada in Vrindaban on May 28, 1977 were deliberately concealed (see Appendix
9 for the full report).
An omissive summary report of those May 27-29, 1977 GBC meetings, as prepared by
Satsvarupa, was sent to all temple presidents and listed the items discussed, all except for one item, namely the discussion about initiations in the future, “especially after Srila Prabhupada would no longer be physically present.”
This item was simply and glaringly omitted, not even mentioned, and blatantly concealed from the devotees. Satsvarupa was the GBC secretary at that time, and he deliberately left out this vital information in the GBC’s report to the rank and file devotees. It is not known how many of the 22 GBC members and leaders who attended these meetings were aware of or complicit in this concealment, but at least Satsvarupa, and surely others, was an architect of the decision to hide a key portion of the May 28 conversations from the
devotee society. How could he be alone in this? He could not be alone.
This is called CONSPIRACY and a corruption of ISKCON leadership, even while Srila Prabhupada was still amongst us on this planet. As early as May 1977, seven months before Srila Prabhupada’s departure, here is proof of GBC plans to skirt the actual instructions that Srila Prabhupada had given for future initiations.
These minutes were the work of Satsvarupa as the official 1977 GBC secretary; he was adored by many because he was supposed to be honest. But he was not honest- he concealed Srila Prabhupada’s replies about future initiations, and it is safe to conclude that he undoubtedly did so in collusion with at least some of the other GBC’s. Tamal, for sure, knew well how to have Satsvarupa act as the good, public relations front-man.
This is proof of the conspiracy to hide Srila Prabhupada’s instructions with the intent to assume illegimate guruship. Otherwise, why conceal this part of the discussions? Even though we see from the handwritten notes that they were taking Srila Prabhupada’s answers to be supportive of their understanding that they would become initiating gurus after Srila Prabhupada departed, still they felt it necessary to conceal this discussion
from the ISKCON devotees, who would likely approach Srila Prabhupada for clarifications. It would serve their purpose much better to keep these statements by Srila Prabhupada out of view and hidden.
Replies
18
CHAPTER 101:
MAY 28 DISCUSSIONS CONCEALED
INTRODUCTION
On May 28, 1977, many of the GBC members met with Srila Prabhupada in his Vrindaban quarters to
make arrangements for his departure. Discussion took place about the various bank accounts, adding new GBC
members, and how future initiations should go on without Srila Prabhupada’s physical presence. Srila
Prabhupada introduced a new concept, that of “officiating acharyas,” who would initiate disciples on his behalf
after his departure, and that these new initiates would also be Srila Prabhupada’s disciples. The short
discussion, however, quickly became confusing as the GBC members obviously were not understanding Srila
Prabhupada. Amazingly, there are no other recorded conversations available today on this subject which,
logically, must have been discussed at other times as well. We note that the May 28 tape was withheld from
the general devotees until the mid to late nineteen-eighties, kept strictly ensconced and hidden for years by
the order and arrangements of the ISKCON elite. There are also widespread suspicions of fraudulent editing on
this tape, although there is no firm proof that this is a fact. For a full study of the meaning and interpretation of
the May 28 talks, please go to Chapter 132. This chapter simply discusses how the tape was concealed and
hidden from the devotees.
LOCHANANANDA DISCOVERS THAT GBC SECRETARY CONCEALED MAY 28 DISCUSSIONS
In a Dec. 13, 1999 essay published on VNN.org (Story #5073), titled GBC Suppressed the Truth,
Locanananda das of New York City revealed that the now famous questions and answers that came out of a
GBC meeting with Srila Prabhupada in Vrindaban on May 28, 1977 were deliberately concealed (see Appendix
9 for the full report). An omissive summary report of those May 27-29, 1977 GBC meetings, as prepared by
Satsvarupa, was sent to all temple presidents and listed the items discussed, all except for one item, namely
the discussion about initiations in the future, “especially after Srila Prabhupada would no longer be physically
present.”
This item was simply and glaringly omitted, not even mentioned, and blatantly concealed from the
devotees. Satsvarupa was the GBC secretary at that time, and he deliberately left out this vital information in
the GBC’s report to the rank and file devotees. It is not known how many of the 22 GBC members and leaders
who attended these meetings were aware of or complicit in this concealment, but at least Satsvarupa, and
surely others, was an architect of the decision to hide a key portion of the May 28 conversations from the
devotee society. How could he be alone in this? He could not be alone.
This is called CONSPIRACY and a corruption of ISKCON leadership, even while Srila Prabhupada was
still amongst us on this planet. As early as May 1977, seven months before Srila Prabhupada’s departure, here
is proof of GBC plans to skirt the actual instructions that Srila Prabhupada had given for future initiations.
These minutes were the work of Satsvarupa as the official 1977 GBC secretary; he was adored by many
because he was supposed to be honest. But he was not honest- he concealed Srila Prabhupada’s replies about
future initiations, and it is safe to conclude that he undoubtedly did so in collusion with at least some of the
other GBC’s. Tamal, for sure, knew well how to have Satsvarupa act as the good, public relations front-man.
This is proof of the conspiracy to hide Srila Prabhupada’s instructions with the intent to assume illegimate
guruship. Otherwise, why conceal this part of the discussions? Even though we see from the handwritten notes
that they were taking Srila Prabhupada’s answers to be supportive of their understanding that they would
become initiating gurus after Srila Prabhupada departed, still they felt it necessary to conceal this discussion
from the ISKCON devotees, who would likely approach Srila Prabhupada for clarifications. It would serve their
purpose much better to keep these statements by Srila Prabhupada out of view and hidden.
Note below that item #2 (on the right side) is omitted in the final typed report, where, between 3a and
3b should be the answers Srila Prabhupada gave regarding initiations in the future, namely after Srila
19
Prabhupada departs. But they are not there. Instead of 1, 2, 3- there is only a and b. The report simply left out
any mention of this part of the discussion about future initiations.
LEFT: Satsvarupa’s handwritten notes before the GBC met
with Srila Prabhupada. BELOW: Satsvarupa’s notes after
the meeting with Srila Prabhupada.
20
NOTE THAT IN #3 ABOVE, THE POINTS ON INITIATIONS IN THE FUTURE ARE CLEVERLY OMITTED
Why was this done? Obviously, it was because they knew (or at least were very afraid) that Srila
Prabhupada did NOT want succeeding acharyas or initiating gurus, but instead wanted only officiating or ritvik
acharyas. There is deliberate concealment here. If the devotees were to know of the whole May 28
discussions, then many would ask Srila Prabhupada for clarifications, and they were very afraid of such
clarifications. They wanted the issue to be hushed, undiscussed, unclear, and then after Srila Prabhupada
departed, they could have the GBC body, which they controlled, falsely claim that Srila Prabhupada appointed
them as the new acharyas. Is this not a conspiracy ?
SOME DISCUSSION ON THE ABOVE DOCUMENTS
In the original GBC handwritten minutes by Satsvarupa, he says :
“Srila Prabhupada said he will appoint several devotees who shall perform initiation in the future, even
after his disappearance. The disciples they accept shall be their disciples and Srila Prabhupada will be their
grand spiritual master.”
This shows that the GBC either did misunderstand the May 28 talks completely, or Satsvarupa (and
probably Tamal plus others) conspired to enter deliberately “misunderstood” minutes and then be sure not to
include them in the newsletter. We can imagine the questions and investigative energy that would have been
aroused IF the full discussion became public. But it was censored, and it seems very obvious that this is a
premeditated conspiracy to keep secret the actual full May 28 discussions that do not support the idea of new
gurus with their own disciples. Tamal was on top of everything at this time: he was Satsvarupa’s
partner/participant in the discussion with Srila Prabhupada. Therefore we conclude that the conspiracy of
concealments involved at least Tamal and Satsvarupa, and likely some others, perhaps Hrdayananda and
Bhavananda, both of whom were very close to Tamal.
The concealment of the May 28 discussions on future initiations by Satsavrupa and Tamal is real proof
of a conspiracy to hide Srila Prabhupada’s instructions from the other leaders and general devotees. If there
was no public knowledge of what had transpired, there could be no discussions about it, no clarifications
sought from Srila Prabhupada, and then after Srila Prabhupada’s departure, claims could be made ( and they
were indeed made) about what Srila Prabhupada supposedly wanted, instructed, etc.
This is a primary example of the future zonal acharyas concealing Srila Prabhupada’s instructions from
the devotees.
TAMAL CONCEALS THE MAY 28 INSTRUCTIONS JUST NINE DAYS LATER
Amazingly, on June 6, 1977, just nine days after the May 28 instructions from Srila Prabhupada about
his making arrangements for future initiations, particularly for after his departure, Tamal wrote as Srila
Prabhupada’s secretary to Kirtanananda Maharaja the following:
“I approached His Divine Grace Srila Prabhupada regarding the initiations recommended by your good
self. Srila Prabhupada said that for now he will not be initiating anyone new until his health improves. His
Divine Grace did not suggest any alternative at this time but simply said that everyone should wait. This is true
for both first and second initiations. Kindly inform Ramesvara Maharaja to inform all the GBC men throughout
the world that until further notice no new recommendations for initiation should be sent to Srila Prabhupada.
Srila Prabhupada’s health has not at all improved. Dr. Ghose, who we were waiting for, has finally arrived, but
he is not very hopeful of Srila Prabhupada’s condition.”
Tamal is not disclosing to Kirtanananda about the announcement that Srila Prabhupada made on May
28 about arrangements for future initiations, and this must be seen as a concealment of critical instructions
from Srila Prabhupada. Kirtanananda is listed as a signator on the May 28 GBC minutes, but it is almost sure he
did not attend the meeting (only about 6 of the 24 GBC members attended) and his name was attached to the
minutes as a formality. It is amazing that such a novel and crucial discussion involving officiating acharyas was
not mentioned to Kirtanananda by Tamal. This is extremely suspicious and telling- why would Tamal not
mention such a major event such as this? Th
SATSVARUPA DRESSES UP THE TRANSCRIPT OF THE MAY 28 TALKS
In 1983 Satsvarupa published the final volume of Srila Prabhupada Lilamrita, a biography of Srila
Prabhupada. It included a grossly adulterated and fraudulently embellished version of the May 28 discussions
transcript (pg. 324-5), the modifications to which were done to support ISKCON’s post-1977 unauthorized guru
system. The deceitful fudging of the transcript and his very “politically-convenient” interpretation of the May
28 talks in his Prabhupada biography reveal and identify Satsvarupa to be a primary contributor to the false
justifications of ISKCON’s bogus system of successor acharyas after Srila Prabhupada’s departure. His transcript
is so far off what was actually spoken that it can only be speculated that he must have thought the actual tape
recording would never be released, thus exposing his deceit. Or maybe he knew that most blind followers
would never cross-check his version with the actual discussions. Thus Satsvarupa was a primary participant in
the gurujacking of ISKCON by falsifying the instructions Srila Prabhupada had given regarding gurus and
initiations after Srila Prabhupada’s departure.
Meanwhile the actual May 28 tape and an accurate transcript remained unavailable publicly for
several more years, and the GBC was successful in fully concealing these conversations for eight years, long
enough to establish their version in the indoctrinated minds of their followers and the ISKCON societal fabric.
Decades later their false version and interpretations still remain entrenched as a dominant axiom of ISKCON
dogma, stubbornly resisting all attempts to correct this basic falsehood: that Srila Prabhupada appointed or
wanted new gurus in ISKCON after his physical departure.
FIRST ACCURATE BUT UNAUTHORIZED MAY 28 TRANSCRIPT WAS IN 1985
The first accurate publication of the May 28 conversations transcript was included as an attachment
or annexure to Ravindra Swarupa das’ doctrinal paper, Under My Order in 1985. This transcript was said to
have been "edited and checked by Jayadvaita Swami," a senior Bhaktivedanta Book Trust editor. Ravindra
Swarup had challenged the GBC-approved successor guru system and by 1987 some partial so-called reforms,
which were in actuality not reformative but creatively inclusive, were implemented in ISKCON at least in part
due to his writings.
The point here is why did Ravindra Svarupa das admit in his 1985 paper that he had to obtain a copy
of the appointment tape from 'unauthorized sources'? Why could he not obtain a copy of it from
authorized sources? The answer is that the GBC, officially or unofficially, had ordered Rameswara Swami,
who was in charge of the Los Angeles Bhaktivedanta Archives until 1987, to lock up various documents and
letters to keep them unavailable to the devotee community. Unauthorized sources means someone found a
back door opportunity to get a copy of the appointment tape. Sulochan das also got letters from Srila
Prabhupada and an appointment tape copy in such a way from the Archives, despite the restraining orders of
Rameswara, who was the uncontested guardian and controller of the Archives.
IS THE MAY 28 TAPE CONFUSING DUE TO FRAUDULENT SPLICES AND EDITS?
Ever since the first copies of this tape began to finally appear in the private homes of devotees (it was
generally not available in the temples), there have been repeated allegations and suspicions of it being edited,
spliced, or tampered with. Devotees noted strange clicks, noises, voice distortions, amplitude drops, and a
strange double syllable when Srila Prabhupada said "they are dis...disciples of my disciples..." There also have
been many allegations of differing transcripts in the past, implying editing of transcripts as well. The level of
trust in the authenticity of the May 28 tape amongst the majority of devotees in or out of ISKCON is very low.
If the May 28 tape was edited or changed, the most likely way would have been via physical cut and
splicing of the magnetic tape with a razor and tape, by removing and adding portions to create a different
message than the original conversation, one that would better suit the designs of ambitious disciples who
wanted to become gurus very quickly. Some words or phrases would be taken out and some from other
conversations might also be patched in. Then a new copy of the revised conversation would be made on one of
24
the spare and available BBT blank tapes that matched the other tape recordings of that time, namely the black
SONY HF-S90 that is pictured above. Thus the tape would appear original and not have cuts or taped splices.
A poorly-arranged, GBC-funded study of a copy of the May 28 tape by Norman Perle in Los Angeles in
1997 cost only $500. Perle was not apprised of how Srila Prabhupada’s tapes were recorded, namely by
repeated stop-starts as the conversation stopped and started, and he identified these points as possible
editing points, unnecessarily alarming devotees and fueling speculations. Unfortunately the study did nothing
at all to prove or disprove the tape’s authenticity. Another study by Jack Mitchell at CAE in New Mexico in 1998
found no evidence of tampering, but this did not entirely rule out tampering. It must be noted that the
“original” Archives May 28 tape could possibly be a copy of an edited or spliced tape, and determining
tampering is possible but yet undone.
HOW TO FINALLY SETTLE WHETHER THE MAY 28 TAPE IS TAMPERED WITH?
The original May 28 tape is held by the Bhaktivedanta Archives, which is semi-independent of the BBT,
and its soundtrack is now included on their audio Vedabase (publicly available audio archive). Perhaps one day
soon an expert audio forensic laboratory can examine and test this supposedly original tape to see if there was
editing or splicing. Study of a copy would not settle whether the tape was tampered with. Authenticity of the
original Archives-held May 28 tape can be verified by tests on and technical examination by any of many very
technically advanced forensic firms that now operate as commercial and trusted services to the public, such as
Primeau Forensics in Rochester Hills, Michigan.
On July 31, 2018 Ed Primeau, with 35 years experience in audio forensics, spoke on CNN Live about
why he believed that the tape recording of President Trump and his lawyer Cohen was tampered with and
spliced. Primeau’s website www.primeauforensics.com details various methods by which any audio recording
can be determined as bona fide or tampered/edited. We contacted Ed Primeau in 2017 and he was willing to
be engaged on this project, but funding is needed.
In Book One we detailed how James Reames began (but never completed) his determinations of
authenticity of the Nov. 8, 1977 “poison” tape. Reames explained how by examination of “tank tracks” on the
edge of the magnetic tape made during the original recording, as well as by other technical means understood
only by the most advanced audio labs and technicians, a magnetic tape can be verified as real and original or
false and edited. Reames never completed his work, but the more important tape to study is the May 28 tape,
and history awaits the one who will do this to settle the perennial and ultimate question: Is the May 28, 1977
tape really edited or not? Examination of the “tank tracks” and other advanced technical forensic testing
should definitely be undertaken, and this may be very fruitful in this issue. Cost: perhaps $5,000-10,000…
OPEN ENDS:
The original May 28 tape at the Bhaktivedanta Archives should be further tested for authenticity to
determine possible tampering or editing.
EXCERPTS FROM AN ARTICLE ABOUT MAY 28 TAPE TAMPERING POSSIBILITIES
From an article by Paul Howard (Caitanya das), March 2010, we have these interesting excerpts:
“Actually Prabhupada never appointed any gurus. He appointed eleven ritviks. He never appointed
them gurus. Myself and the other GBC have done the greatest disservice to this movement the last three years
because we interpreted the appointment of ritviks as the appointment of gurus.” (December 3, 1980)
“To bypass the ritvik system Srila Prabhupada established and institute a zonal acharya system instead,
any relevant instructions Srila Prabhupada may have given would have needed to be suppressed. Don’t believe
for a moment that Tamal Krishna’s confession was entirely honest. He could not have misinterpreted what Srila
Prabhupada was saying. If he were fully honest, he would have said ‘fraudulently interpreted.’
COMMENT: Yes, this is a very interesting point. Tamal sometimes used apparent honesty in pursuit
of his schemes to highjack the assets of the transcendental mission.
“Considering Srila Prabhupada’s obvious frustration with his Godbrothers’ failed attempt to appoint
gurus independent of any order from Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati, it is completely unbelievable that Srila
25
Prabhupada would be negligent in the matter of giving clear orders on the subject of guru succession in
ISKCON. Sometimes devotees say that the matter of guru succession was obvious, and that everyone knew
whatever that particular devotee thinks. But it was certainly not obvious, and the proof of this was the fact that
Satsvarupa, speaking on behalf of the GBC, felt the need to ask Srila Prabhupada directly:
Satsvarupa: …Then our next question concerns initiations in the future, particularly at that time when you’re no
longer with us. We want to know how first and second initiation would be conducted. (May 28, 1977)
“If the GBC already knew the answer to this based on Srila Prabhupada’s prior teachings, then they
would not have wasted his time asking that. I’ve read the complete conversation on that topic many times, and
for a long time I just found it incomprehensible. My impression was that the discussion seemed like their
communication was broken, almost incoherent, like Srila Prabhupada and his disciples had different ideas in
mind and could not bridge the gap. I remember when I would get to the point where Tamal Krishna said “That’s
clear,” and I would practically exclaim “What?! That’s not clear at all!” Then last year I finally got a clue about
this and it all made sense.
“I don’t know how it happened, but in 1997 the GBC passed a resolution to have this tape examined by
a forensic specialist, and they employed Norman Perle for the job. It was the same year that Mr. Perle was
recognized as “NAIS High Tech Investigator of the Year.” (http://www.pimall.com/nais/n.perl.html)
Mr. Perle had this to say about the tape:
“’In conclusion, this recording exhibits strong signs suggestive of falsification. I do not believe that these
deficiencies might possibly be the product of some mechanical process or problem within the recording or
duplication process and I believe that they exist at what is considered to be a higher degree than that of a
coincidence. I strongly recommend that an independent Forensic Analysis be conducted of the Master recording
in order to determine the authenticity and originality of the evidence. This analysis requires what is represented
as the original recording and the original tape recorder upon which this recording was represented to be made.’
(September 22, 1997)
“This was the so-called “Appointment Tape” that the Zonal Acharyas claimed gave them the seats as
Srila Prabhupada’s authorized successors. It should be no great surprise that the tape was not made available
to the devotees until several years after the so-called Zonal Acharyas had taken their thrones, nor is it a surprise
that the GBC did not heed the investigator’s advice to provide the ORIGINAL tape and equipment for a more
conclusive analysis.
“Despite the fact that serious doubt about the integrity of the tape has been raised through
professional forensic analysis, it still has some validity in the sense that an impeached witness can still
incriminate himself. In other words, ‘anything you say can be used against you,’ although a criminal suspect’s
words in their defense are not necessarily trustworthy. Even though this tape that GBC apologists have called
the ‘appointment tape’ has been disqualified for supporting their position, they continue to quote from it out of
context as if it were reliable. Still that is not a problem for their opponents, as Srila Prabhupada’s begins by
indicating that initiations after his disappearance were to be conducted by ritviks and concludes by saying that
they could become regular gurus only on his order, an order which he apparently never gave.
“Considering all these facts along with many others too numerous to mention, I find it impossible to
believe that the Zonal Acharyas erroneously thought Srila Prabhupada had appointed them as his successors. It
was fraud and an almost unimaginable offense against the parampara. As stated by Visvanatha Cakravarti
Thakur, ‘apujya yatra pujyante pujyanam ca vyatikramah’. (In the place where those who are not to be
worshiped are worshiped, there is offense to those who are actually worshipable.) and ‘pratibadhnati hi sreyah
pujyapujya-vyatikramah. (Improperly understanding who is to be worshiped and who is not to be worshiped
will impede one’s progress in life.)’ Ref. VedaBase SB 10.74.30
“They say there was reform, and many devotees want more reform so that anyone can become guru if
they can somehow get an aspiring disciple, but none of it was authorized by Srila Prabhupada within ISKCON.
Srila Prabhupada’s order was abandoned practically as soon as his body stopped breathing, just as leaders
ignored many of his orders even before. Said Tamal Krishna, ‘Guru, oh wonderful! Now I am guru, and there is
only eleven of us.’ (December 3, 1980) So now there are many gurus, and many have fallen, but none were
appointed by Srila Prabhupada. Nor is the GBC authorized to appoint or vote for them. ‘A guru can become
26
guru when he is ordered by his guru. That’s all. Otherwise nobody can become guru.’ (Srila Prabhupada Bg.
Lecture. October 28, 1975) Hare Krishna.”
CONFUSION ON THE TAPE DELIBERATELY CREATED BY TAMAL AND SATSVARUPA
The portion of the tape dealing with the future of initiations in ISKCON is very short and is found to be
confusing by some devotees. In Chapter 132 the case will be made that the confusion in the conversation is
created by Tamal and Satsvarupa’s leading and pre-rehearsed questions that seem designed to elicit support
for senior men taking their own disciples after Srila Prabhupada’s departure. Senior men later did exactly that,
but a careful study of the May 28 talks and the intelligent subsequent discussions about them will show that
Srila Prabhupada was not speaking confused, garbled contradictions after all. Tamal himself says in the
conversation, “That’s clear,” and he explicitly confessed on December 3, 1980 that it was very clear to him in
May 1977 that Srila Prabhupada was not appointing new gurus, but only ritviks who would initiate disciples for
Srila Prabhupada after his departure.
Was the May 28 tape tampered with? We do not know absolutely for sure yet, but we doubt it.
Otherwise why would the tape have been concealed and kept unavailable to devotees if it was doctored into
something that supported the ISKCON unauthorised guru system? The fact is that once it is understood that
Srila Prabhupada was being asked questions by GBC men who were confused (or who were trying to confuse),
and that Srila Prabhupada was answering in the third person, as he usually does due to his great humility, the
conversation is quite clear. Other GBC’s in attendance such as honest Rupanuga das confirm that the tape
matches what they remember of the conversation. And even if the tape was tampered with, it still fully
supports the conclusion that Srila Prabhupada was going to later choose ritviks to initiate disciples for him
after his departure.
The more important evidence is the July 9 Order, which was a written order and signed by Srila
Prabhupada, contrasting with the voice recording of May 28, although it should be noted that there are no
conflicts between the May 28 talks and the July 9 directive.
CONCLUSION
The May 28 taped discussions about how initiations will be done after Srila Prabhupada’s departure
was hidden and concealed from the devotees by the top ISKCON leadership. Just as the East German Stasi
secret police records became publicly available after the collapse of the communist government in 1990, so
the May 28 tape leaked out after the decade-long zonal acharya system collapsed in 1987. The reason the
ISKCON GBC kept this tape recording hidden was because, in spite of Satsvarupa and Tamal asking misleading
questions, the conversation does not give any authority to either an appointment of full gurus after Srila
Prabhupada’s departure nor does it mention anything about a GBC vote-approval of initiating gurus. It
discusses an appointment of proxy or officiating initiators, and the only conceivable question may be whether
they could eventually become gurus in their own right if they became qualified. The July 9 Order and other
letters from Srila Prabhupada clarify this with the use of words such as “future,” “continue,” and
“henceforward,” as described in the next chapter.
Concealment of this tape shows that the hijackers of the institution were substituting their own
interpretations for the instructions contained in the tape. And because of the general devotees’ faith in their
leaders and their claims that Srila Prabhupada had appointed them as successor acharyas, the collosal
successor guru ruse succeeded for a decade. When this failed, a new ruse was foisted upon the devotees: that
the GBC was authorized by Srila Prabhupada to invent a system of approving new initiating gurus by votes and
political procedures. How they have been cheated and misled will be a great shock to devotees once they
understand the actual history of ISKCON