Not having first-person knowledge of the many events described in Tirtha's recent letter, we obviously can't formulate a detailed response like the one Janmastami dasa presented. We can, however, ask logical questions based on our reading of the letter, pointing out obvious questions or contradictions between the information contained therein and information provided by other writers. We address these points to Tirtha directly, and trust that he will respond in detail to our inquiries.

Tirtha dasa wrote:

I recently received one of the Janmastami blogs to review, "NV History, for the record," Janmastami, AKA John Sinkowski. What is disturbing to me is how many devotees are becoming confused and unsettled over these accusations.

We understand that you are incarcerated with few privileges: collect calls out, postal mail, and no Internet access. How is it that you've concluded that "many devotees" are becoming confused and unsettled? Who has given you this impression, and on what basis did they conclude this to be so?

Therefore, I'd like to present a more complete presentation of what I know to be the truth, presented from my own personal involvement of events. I encourage you to use on the various web-sites, to refute, point by point, these lies and wild accusations of Janmastami and others, who regrettably, appear to have lost their minds. You may quote me as you please.

From your letter we are able to ascertain which statements made by Janmastami you characterize as being "lies and wild accusations", but who are "the others", and specifically what lies and accusations have they made in this regard?

The internet gives facility to both the well wisher and the blasphemer. Unfortunately, poison words that spew forth from cyberspace into the minds of anyone who might read them act like a virulent disease. Such accusations, left unchecked for too long, can serve to erode the consciousness of not a few well meaning but impressionable devotees, with twisted words being accepted as fact.

This is the first in a long list of instances where, in our opinion, your tone and attitude are not befitting one incarcerated for the murder of a devotee, and dedicated to repentance. You have obviously been in prison, without Internet access, for a very long time, yet you attempt to sound like a seasoned pro about the communications milieu of the Internet. This rings no more true than your pontificating about poison spewing forth to contaminate the minds of the impressionable. Given your supposed remediation from chanting Hare Krsna, reading, taking prasadam, etc., one would expect a far greater degree of humility from you. Your bona fides hardly establish you as one reputable enough to judge almost anything or anyone, and your frequent willingness to do so makes all that you say very questionable. This mood greatly erodes the likeliness of your true sincerity, as a human being let alone a devotee.

I will say from the start that my presentation is not for personal vindication or mitigation of my culpability. While I shall always remain a villain to some, it is one thing for people to dislike me for my personal involvement in unpleasant activities, but quite another to unjustly label everyone who ever lived at NV as corrupted or suspect.

To the average reader - who has never met you, knows little of your personal story, and is only a little familiar with the circumstances leading to your incarceration - the statement above is a first glimpse into the pathology of a psychopath. Rather than express humility and an honest realization of the wrongs you have done, you instead minimize your crimes by characterizing them as "unpleasant activities". This may have sounded good to you when you wrote it, but to any discriminating reader it is simply pathetic.

With regard to your suggestion that it is unjust to "label everyone who ever lived at NV as corrupted or suspect", we would agree that it is rarely fair to paint any large group of individuals all with the same brush. In this context, however, it has been repeatedly suggested that many (not all) residents of New Vrindaban are suspect for having taken shelter of Kirtanananda for as long as so many did. Further, we would point out that this question is entirely a matter for philosophical conclusion. We have already provided philosophical arguments for why we believe that individuals who said they were followers of Srila Prabhupada, then allowed themselves to remain under the direction of the psychopathic criminal Kirtanananda for years on end, are in fact philosophically "suspect". We challenge you to rebut these assertions using the philosophy, not just with unsubstantiated personal remarks like those you've offered above. Please consider this an opportunity to demonstrate to the community of devotees that you have put your time in prison to good use, reading and studying Srila Prabhupada's books. We will enjoy seeing the fruits of your spiritual labors in the merit of your philosophical arguments on this matter.

Imagine if someone had ever physically attacked Srila Prabhupada. Practically to a person all of his disciples and well wishers would have wanted to see blood retribution. This point can't be overstated. Even though there would have been calls for calm, it would have been difficult to guarantee such a person's safety and destiny. Especially so if Prabhupada had been seriously hurt, as Kirtanananda (K) was. Therefore, it should come as no surprise that K's disciples and well wishers thought in similar terms. Yet even after the NV devotees caught and held Triyogi for the police, they did not harm him. But upon hearing of this supposed cowardice, Janmastami remarked, "That's the problem with Kuladri and these wimps. They have no backbone. He should have been killed immediately."

Your statements above call into question the level of spiritual advancement you've gained while engaging in devotional activities behind bars. For you to suggest that we all imagine a scenario wherein the pure devotee, Srila Prabhupada, is attacked and hurt is in itself offensive. Were you a person of high spiritual standing, you might get by with it in this context, but that's not the case. We get a further glimpse of your psychopathology in the assumption that devotees would react to violence with violence. We are reminded of the fact that hundreds, if not thousands of devotees now believe that Srila Prabhupada was poisoned by his own disciples, but we have not seen violence perpetrated upon anyone as a result. Your remarks in this regard simply indicate your own moral barometer.

While you seem to suggest elsewhere in the letter that your own murderous behavior should somehow be understandable because you thought "the test of guru, sadhu and sastra had been satisfied", you don't hesitate to characterize Janmastami as a coward for having expressed a similar sentiment (which he may or may not have done).

It is no exaggeration to state that K was almost as revered at NV as Srila Prabhupada. Some magazines and books published at NV described K as, "Founder-Acarya of the New Vrindaban Community," even though other devotees had an equal hand in its founding, and as "Srila Prabhupada's first sannyasi disciple." Even before this time a strong personality cult began to evolve around K. His word was law. His power completely centralized and absolute. Still, it was not seen as a bad thing.

Earlier in your letter you argued that it's unjust to consider the residents of New Vrindaban suspect for having lived there. In the paragraph directly above, however, you describe in detail just how contaminated the atmosphere was at New Vrindaban with respect to the endemic lack of a proper understanding of Kirtanananda, the fallen conditioned soul purporting to be a follower, and Srila Prabhupada, the nitya-siddha Sampradaya Acarya he was supposedly following. If the mood at New Vrindaban is as you just described it to be (and we believe you're right, it was that bad, if not worse), than how do you rationalize your apologies on behalf of the residents there? From a philosophical standpoint, this is a complete contraction. Please explain your position in philosophical terms.

In the movement worldwide, devotees sought strong leadership from a central figure. NV was no exception to this mentality. At NV, it was either K's way or the highway. Dissenters were neither welcome nor tolerated. Should someone stray into that dangerous area, persons like Janmastami would heap scorn upon them, sometimes even physically threatening them. Not a few good people were sent packing simply for questioning K's tactics or motives.

In the movement worldwide, the devotees sought the merciful direction of Srila Prabhupada, the pure devotee. In no way can this be considered similar to the way in which a small percentage of the devotee population wanted to take shelter of a character like Kirtanananda. You state here that Kirtanananda's "my way or the highway" mood was the same as Srila Prabhupada's mood, but that's not remotely true. In fact, Srila Prabhupada rarely kicked anyone out of his transcendental movement, and then only for the most spiritually egregious behaviors. And again, it's the pot calling the kettle black as you denigrate Janmastami for behaviors that actually pale in comparison to your own. We do not read this as a sign of your current level of spiritual advancement, supposedly much higher than before your incarceration. In fact, just the opposite. It indicates that you have wasted, or been unable to take advantage of the opportunities for remediation that life in prison, accompanied by the ISKCON Prison Ministry program, affords you.

After Triyogi's attack on K, Janmastami openly bragged that if no one else had the stomach for defending the guru's honor, he would. What was worse, Sulocana foolishly intimated that he had a hand in coaching Triyogi's attack. That was akin to signing his own death warrant. Sulocana was already greatly disliked at NV due to his rambling expose, "The Guru Business." Plus he openly advocated the use of violence against all of the ISKCON gurus. Quite naturally, Sulocana became a prime target for NV's frustration and anger.

Here we have another good indication of your psychopathology. If it were true that you have actually been remediated by your stay in prison and the effects of your Krsna conscious practice there, then we would not be reading statements wherein you blame the victim you murdered. No matter what mistakes Sulocana might have made in his life, if you were truly contrite, humble and spiritually remediated, you would never be so foolishly bold as to criticize your victim in a way that infers he "had it coming". But this is exactly what you do in the paragraph above. You tell us Sulocana was even worse than Janmastami, who you have characterized as an unscrupulous liar who has apparently lost his mind. You say that Sulocana signed his own death warrant. There is no denying the fact that here you are laying blame at the feet of Sulocana and justifying your decision to kill him. "Quite naturally", you tell us, his behavior made him a target for New Vrindaban's frustration and anger. Of course, it wasn't New Vrindaban's frustration and anger that caused his death - it was you.

In the statements above, you expose yourself as being unrepentant, having no sense of remorse or shame, let alone spiritual morals. In other words, you expose yourself as being a psychopath to this very day.

The devotees at NV weren't a bunch of brainwashed Moonies. They were thoughtful, if isolated devotees, who were loyal to a fault to their authority figure, K. They were all wonderful Vaisnavas who kept up a high standard of worship for Their Lordships Sri Sri Radha Vrindaban-Chandra. Prabhupada's Palace was a fabulous success and a growing tourist attraction. The kirtana's and other programs were enlivening. NV was a dynamic spiritual Tirtha.

Here you again show us how little you understand the philosophy. First, no "wonderful Vaisnava" would take shelter of a scoundrel like Kirtanananda, about whom a plethora of gossip permeated the community, suggesting his participation in all sorts of nefarious activities. Please don't feed us the lie that "no one at New Vrindaban knew". That has been patently disproved. Many, many people knew. Those who didn't, didn't want to.

You describe for us the wonderful, thoughtful Vaisnavas of New Vrindaban, who were capable of keeping a high standard of Deity worship. Of course, that would have to mean the Deity worship was philosophically 'high', not simply opulent to outer appearances. All of these individuals knew that Srila Prabhupada was the spiritual leader of the movement, and they had easy access to his books, regardless of whether or not they personally insisted upon taking the time to read them. However, if they had read those books and had even a neophyte understanding of what they were reading -- let alone the level of understanding a "wonderful Vaisnava" would have -- there is no way they could have justified remaining under Kirtanananda's shelter and direction. The "isolation" excuse does not wash. Thousands of Srila Prabhupada's followers from around the world came to visit New Vrindaban on a regular basis. Large festivals were held there. There was plenty of opportunity to intermingle and share perspectives with other devotees from the movement. The fact that the residents of New Vrindaban were "loyal to a fault" to Kirtanananda is not praise, but rather aspersion. And the fact that "Prabhupada's Palace" was a financial success is simply a material measurement, having nothing to do with the spiritual reality of what was going on there. We wryly note the statement that it was "a dynamic spiritual Tirtha"… like yourself, an oxymoron.

One must not forget that in KC, loyalty and submissiveness to the spiritual master is everything. Without pleasing the spiritual master one cannot make any advancement. If you wanted to please Srila Prabhupada at NV, you did so by first pleasing K. Love me, love my dog. There was no other way of looking at it. To many NV residents, K was everything. He was their living link to Srila Prabhupada. Accordingly, as K went, so did NV.

Here again you display your complete lack of understanding of the philosophy of Krsna consciousness. Loving the dog Kirtanananda had absolutely nothing to do with loving God or his pure representative. Nothing. Surrendering to a bona fide spiritual master as a way to serve the higher master, dasanudas, that is Krsna consciousness. Surrendering to the despot Kirtanananda, and pretending that somehow this is equivalent to surrendering to Srila Prabhupada, is lunacy. You say "there was no other way of looking at it," but your are wrong. Those who actually understand the science of Bhakti know perfectly well just how wrong you have it. Of course, you personally don't understand how bewildered you are about the philosophy, and apparently neither do your Prison Ministry mentors. If they did, surely they would have set you straight by now. Either they don't care about your spiritual welfare, or they are so neophyte themselves as to be unable to serve you in this capacity. Either way, we urge you to read Srila Prabhupada's books in a humble mood, for all the answers are there.

After Triyogi attacked K, Sulocana stepped up his rhetoric and verbal attacks on K and other persons at NV. As a publicity stunt he traveled to the Moundsville area and checked himself into the local jail, claiming his life was in jeopardy. From his cell he issued strange, rambling "Press releases." His publicity stunt was a bust. He returned to California.

On what basis do you call Sulocana's actions in this regard a "publicity stunt." Be specific, please.

A few months later, Sulocana returned to Moundsville area. He visited the US Attorney's Office of William Kolibash in Wheeling, WV, with "evidence" of wrongdoing by K and NV. The Feds weren't so sure. To them it looked like a lot of smoke, but no fire. Then Sulocana began telephoning NV, threatening to kill Kuladri and his children from a sniper's position in the woods. He threatened to kill his ex-wife Yamuna and her new husband. He declared war on NV. His threats were taken very seriously. The police were called.

How do you know what "evidence" Sulocana took to Mr. Kolibash's office? Please describe this evidence. How do you know that "the Feds weren't so sure", and saw it as "smoke, but no fire"?

At that juncture a legitimate, legal surveillance was initiated at the suggestion of the Marshall County Sheriff's Department under Sheriff Donald Bordenkircher. It was done with their authorization and assistance.

What by means was this "legal surveillance" initiated? Please give us your proof of this assertion.

In this there were actually two phases of organized, authorized surveillance of Sulocana, conducted as a combined effort of the police and NV. Its purpose was to keep a close, detailed surveillance of Sulocana, to both track his movements and observe if he was engaged in any illegal activity. It was during this first authorized phase that Kuladri and others at NV played a logistical role.

Who from New Vrindaban participated in this "combined effort", and what others at New Vrindaban played a "logistical role"?

The surveillances in Detroit and California were initiated after the Sheriff's Department shared certain portions of Sulocana's personal diary wherein numerous addresses were written.

With whom did the Sheriff's Department share portions of Sulocana's diary?

It was in California where I met Janmastami, who was already looking around in the area of the LA temple. He openly spoke of the need for killing Sulocana, and volunteered to assist in killing him. He never said that he was under orders from anyone to kill Sulocana, but rather, insisted it was his duty as a disciple of K. In his van he kept a large metal strong box where he stored several guns, knives, and even a vial of cyanide for his avowed purpose. He flatly stated that the surveillance exercise was merely a prelude to killing Sulocana.

If Janmastami was in Los Angeles looking for Sulocana, wishing to kill him simply out of an undirected, personal motivation -- a 'disciple's duty' - then your last sentence above makes no sense at all. To say that Janmastami "flatly stated" the surveillance was merely an exercise prefacing Sulocana's murder is a contradiction in terms. First, "flatly stated" indicates firm knowledge of a thing - it's a bottom line, not a casual, off-the-cuff remark. Second, in order for him to authoritatively characterize the "surveillance exercise" as a mere prelude to the killing, he would have had to know what the surveillance exercise was about: why was it established, what did it intend to accomplish, and why. Without knowing this, how could he authoritatively state what it was (what it's value was) in relation to the actual killing? And third, if he was in Los Angeles searching for Sulocana as a free agent, why would Janmastami characterize the surveillance exercise as a "prelude" to a killing that he was planning, independently and without direction from above by those who had planned the surveillance? Saying that one is a prelude to the other infers that the organizers of one also know about the organization of the other. So this appears to be a contradiction in your version of the story.

As it happened, Sulocana was eventually arrested in West Virginia and sentenced to one year in jail for carrying a concealed, unlicensed weapon. With Sulocana locked up he no longer posed a threat to NV, and the entire matter was defused. Months later when Sulocana was released from jail, a second unauthorized surveillance was begun by myself, Randall Gorby, and persons from the LA temple. I took steps to secure approval for dealing with Sulocana.

Given the kinds of threats Sulocana was said to be making against the New Vrindaban devotees, why would anyone think that just because he was spending a few months in jail the matter was "defused", and things would be any different when he got out of jail? You, Randall Gorby and the LA individuals obviously decided the matter wasn't defused at all, since you began a second surveillance upon Sulocana's release. If you had previously decided the situation was defused, why the second surveillance campaign? What changed? Who were the individuals from LA that were involved? And please tell us exactly what steps you took to "secure approval for dealing with Sulocana": what were the steps, whom did you approach, what approval was given, how was it communicated to you, etc. Please provide all the pertinent details.

Even before the first surveillance was completed, Janmastami dasa, AKA Barney, AKA John McPherson, AKA John Sinkowski, was a coconspirator to murder. Later, with the exception of myself, Janmastami and Randall Gorby, who was a West Virginia resident, all other persons who were part of this conspiracy were devotees of the Los Angeles temple.

As we understand it, you indicate that the first "authorized" surveillance was in West Virginia and Ohio, and phase two was in Detroit and California. A second "unauthorized" surveillance also took place. In the paragraph above you say that even before the first surveillance was completed, Janmastami was already a co-conspirator. With whom? Please give us the names of all the other co-conspirators involved with him at that point in time.

Earlier you said that Janmastami was in LA looking for Sulocana as a free agent. According to you, he never said that he was under orders from anyone to kill Sulocana, but rather insisted it was his duty as a disciple of K, and "he flatly stated that the surveillance exercise was merely a prelude to killing Sulocana." As we understand your representation of the timeline, Sulocana was in LA while the second surveillance was going on. So if Janmastami was a co-conspirator "even before the first surveillance was completed", how is it that by the time he arrived in LA he had become a free agent? What happened to his co-conspirators?

You say you were one of the co-conspirators, along with Gorby. But you have not admitted as part of this discussion that you killed Sulocana, nor, if you did, have you told us what motivated you to do so. Please make this clear, since we are left to wonder what the deal was between you and your co-conspirators. Were you ordered to kill Sulocana, but they were not? If you were ordered, how is it that Janmastami, your co-conspirator, was not ordered? And if you were not ordered, by what means of agreement did you and the co-conspirators come to jointly decide to kill Sulocana? If it was a joint agreement, do all the co-conspirators today agree on the story of how that went down? And if Janmastami was a co-conspirator, why do you characterize him in Los Angeles as being independent, when he was actually conspiring with others?

When Daruka first informed me of his intention to kill Chakradhari, I tried my best to talk him out of it. I even proposed that we give Chakradhari a severe beating and have him permanently banned from the community. Daruka listened, but was not persuaded. He remained adamant about killing him. I finally convinced him to first speak to K about the matter, confident that K would counsel him properly. I then personally drove Daruka to K's house.

Daruka informed K what had transpired and of his intention to kill Chakradhari. He presented my argument for beating and exiling him, but K waved him off, saying that would only make matters worse.

Like Janmastami, we too find the above part of your story quite difficult to believe. If you were involved enough in Daruka's upset over Chakradhari to have the conversation with him that you refer to above, how is it that you would drive him to Kirtanananda's, but not sit in on the discussion? And for someone who was presumably sitting outside in the car, you tell the story as if it were first-person: Daruka presented your argument, but he was "waved off"… so it's not just that Kirtanananda didn't buy his argument, he actually physically "waved him off"? Generally one would only describe something as being a "waving off" if they had personally seen it, since it describes a physical motion.

By the way, we have heard from others who were at New Vrindaban at the time Chakradhari was murdered that the rumour in the community was that he and Vrsni had been having an affair, and were caught by Daruka, who then decided to kill Chakradhari.

He considered Chakradhari his friend and had grown to trust him, even allowing him to sleep in his own home. But when the first opportunity arose while Daruka was out of town, he became intoxicated and raped Vrsni, causing her severe physical and emotional trauma. This heinous crime was intolerable. And while I am not necessarily advocating taking the law into one's hands, what happened to these victims is difficult to swallow.

It's interesting that as you tell this part of the story, you feel it necessary to qualify the statement by saying you're not necessarily advocating vigilantism…. inferring that under the right circumstances, you would advocate taking the law into your own hands. Again, this does not sound like the mood of a spiritually remediated Vaisnava, absorbed in the Holy Name.

There was no wide conspiracy to kill Chakradhari as some foolish people allege, and certainly not by any other members of the NV community aside from those already stated. Nor was there any need, since sanction came directly from the top. For my part, I acted solely on the mistaken belief that the test of guru, sadhu and sastra had been satisfied. I am extremely sorry for my role in this.

You are extremely sorry for killing Chakradhari. Do you now admit to killing Sulocana, and are you also extremely sorry for that?

Some time prior to this, K intimated that he wanted one of our neighbors, Richard Rose, killed. He was emphatic that it be made to look like an accident. Steps were taken to plot out a location to abduct Rose while he traveled away from his nearby farm. After about 6 months of such research, K called the matter off. He later said he never asked us to look for a way to abduct and kill Rose.

Here you say that some time prior to Kirtanananda's having ordered you to kill Chakradhari, he also "intimated" that he wanted you to kill Richard Rose. You obviously took the "intimation" seriously enough to plot the murder and stake out the possible crime scene. Yet in an earlier passage, when you say that Daruka told you Kirtanananda said Chakradhari should be killed, you were "taken aback" and "somewhat amazed". But if Kirtanananda had already asked you to kill Rose, why did his instruction to kill Chakradhari come as such a surprise? Granted, he was a devotee, albeit apparently one with no moral principles. And you obviously had no trouble believing that guru, sadhu and sastra supported the concept that he should be put to death. Coming on the heels of Kirtanananda's previous order for Rose's murder, it seems unlikely that you would have found it so shocking that Kirtanananda ordered Chakradhari's murder. As you've stated, you were already clear on the fact that in Kirtanananda's eyes, people were expendable: 'my way or the highway', wasn't it?

After Sulocana was released from jail he first traveled to his parent's home in Royal Oaks, Michigan, a suburb of Detroit. I went there with Randall Gorby to observe his movements and placed a "Snoopy" bumper sticker on the rear bumper of his newly acquired van. Gorby thought this would unnerve him. Approximately 2 weeks later I received information from Janmastami who was then staying in Philadelphia, that Krsna Katha (KK) had called him to say that Sulocana had arrived in the LA area and was living out of his van with Michigan license plates. Shortly thereafter I traveled to LA and met with KK.

You previously stated that when Sulocana went to jail, the situation was defused. Yet as soon as he was released, you and Gorby traveled all the way to Detroit to watch him, psyching him out with a Snoopy bumper sticker? What caused you to go from a state of "defusement" to "surveillance" in such a short time?

In the time immediately after Sulocana's death, several persons were knowingly and unknowingly engaged in the transfer of several sums of money. It is important to note that Radhanath Swami and Umapati Swami, played no role in furtherance of any events connected to any criminal activity. These events were thoroughly investigated by the police who found no wrong doing on their parts.

Kindly tell us who these persons were. Which ones were knowingly engaged, and who was unknowingly engaged? What was it the "unknowingly engaged" ones thought they were doing as they moved that money?

And while I'm sure you'll address this point in response to Janmastami's rebuttal of your letter, let me add my encouragement that you should respond to his rebuttal item #60. This item states that from the first and second West Virginia trials, the list of criminal acts in the indictment includes a statement that Radhanath had indicated the $6,000 blood money was for the killers to get out of the country. Naturally, prosecutors make every effort not to include unsubstantiated claims in the evidence they present to grand juries, because such poor evidence can result in the grand jury's finding that there is not probable cause. Without probable cause, the jury will not return an indictment. Consequently, we must assume that the police and/or FBI did have evidence that Radhanath played some role in the murder-for-hire scheme, and the prosecutor thought that evidenced was strong enough that he put it before the grand jury. The grand jury obviously thought the evidence indicated probable cause, thus they returned an indictment that included this claim against Radhanath. How else would you explain the inclusion of this statement in the indictment?

After Sulocana's death, a Federal Grand Jury was convened to help investigate the entire matter.

This is incorrect. Grand juries do not involve themselves in "investigations". They simply review evidence presented by the prosecution and determine whether or not there is probable cause to return an indictment.

One allegation alludes to Radhanath Swami and the Assistant US attorney, Michael Stein, giving each other "high fives," outside the Grand Jury room. We must remember that during this time, William Kolibash of the US attorney's Office in Wheeling, West Virginia, was singularly focused on bringing all of NV down, hoping to indict as many people as possible for their possible role(s) in criminal activity. Millions of dollars and great effort were expended in their extensive investigation. Among others, the police repeatedly sought to learn Janmastami's identify from me, since he had identified himself only as "Barney" to the other coconspirators in LA. Because I refused to cooperate, they never came to learn of his actual identify.

While you acknowledge in the statement above the allegation that Radhanath and Michael Stein 'high-fived' each other, your subsequent comments offer no explanation for this allegation. Do you have an explanation for why such an incongruous event should have taken place - one that clearly raises the specter of a conflict of interest on the part of the US Attorney's Office?

When K began to display certain peculiar, abnormal behaviors, devotees were quite lenient, thinking the trauma of his attack had caused him some temporary damage.

Are you telling us that you had no knowledge of Kirtanananda's "peculiar, abnormal behaviors" until after the pipe attack?

After a time the community began to split into two camps; the traditionalists and the faithful. At first their differences were confined to polite discussions. But as the numbers of the traditionalists slowly grew, tempers began to flare.

You say the split into two camps didn't occur until after the pipe attack. Earlier, you said that the devotees at New Vrindaban weren't "brainwashed Moonies" - they were thoughtful Vaisnavas. Given the fact that there is more than ample proof of Kirtanananda's aberrant behavior from many years prior to the pipe attack, we can only wonder at why it took so long for the "traditionalists" to step away from the "faithful". Over all those years, how did "traditionalists" rationalize accepting so much non-traditional behavior coming from Kirtanananda?

Questions eventually arose about K sitting on the Vyasasana with his German Shepherd dog, along with other aspects of his personal behavior. However, merely questioning these practices could earn one the wrath of K and Janmastami.

Here again, we see that you are willing to criticize Janmastami for behavior that you yourself exhibited, in spades. While challengers might earn the wrath of Janmastami and Kirtanananda, you were the actual killer. So how are we to believe that you're now so fixed up in your Krsna consciousness, and such a humble, remediated Vaisnava, yet you still criticize another devotee whose behavior is far less despicable than your own?

Later, even after the facts of child molestation came to the surface, Janmastami continued to defend his guru, threatening violence against those who dared speak out against K. Janmastami saw Radhanath Swami as the leader of the rebellion and the would-be usurper of K's once grand empire. Here he began his blasphemous crusade in earnest. Later, when K was barred from NV, the devotees voted to expel Janmastami for his continued practice of threats against devotees. Thus, Janmastami's virulent behavior is nothing new. And now that he has apparently found a home in the lap of the Rtvik camp, he can blaspheme not only Radhanath Swami, but all of ISKCON.

This appears to be a continuation of the same arrogant theme - the criminal calling his cohorts black. What is your evidence that Janmastami defended Kirtanananda after learning of his child molestation? You say that Radhanatha had no part in any of the criminal activities going on at New Vrindaban, although there is testimony and apparently court evidence to the contrary. Even if one assumes that this evidence is false, and Radhanath was not complicit in crimes, it seems ridiculous to assert that he didn't know about the general scope of corruption going on at New Vrindaban, since even devotees from other continents knew it well. Consequently, why would Radhanath want to usurp Kirtanananda, and take over that contaminated kingdom in West Virginia? It seems more likely that he would do what he actually did - leave America and take over Kirtanananda's realm in Bombay, where the wealth factor was higher and there was less criminal element to deal with.

As suggested in today's article by Navadvipchandra dasa, it also seems more likely that Janmastami's anger at Radhanath would be due to Radhanath not disclosing what he knew all those years about Kirtanananda's perversions. However, regardless of which answer is the truth, we can see a great deal about Tirtha's pathology in his criticisms of Janmastami. Amazingly, even from behind prison bars, Tirtha has managed to drag out the tired old Rtvik rag, and toss it in Janmastami's direction. He has "found a home in the lap of the Rtvik camp, he can blaspheme not only Radhanath Swami, but all of ISKCON." It's laughable to hear this rhetoric even from someone who's been offline all these years, and has missed out on the great Internet debate on Rtvik vada.

In contrast to this unfortunate fellow, anyone who knows the character of Radhanath Swami knows what he is truly about. He is not faking it. He has dedicated his entire life to the propagation of the holy name, fulfilling the order of his spiritual master. And on the other side, the accuser, is a person who does not bother to chant even his vowed rounds, does not follow the regulative principles, and makes it his hobby to blaspheme devotees. Why is there even a hesitation or question as to who is telling the truth? Have devotees so lost their way, become so jaded by the supposed faults of other devotees that they can't distinguish wrong from right?

Not only doesn't the humble, socially remediated and Krsna conscious criminal Tirtha hesitate to criticize that unfortunate fellow Janmastami, he also sees himself as a fit spokesperson for the spiritual character of Radhanath Swami. While he suggests that "anyone who knows the character of Radhanath Swami" loves him, he does not acknowledge the fact that there are also many devotees - particularly amongst the family of Srila Prabhupada's direct disciples - who question his character. The reasons why they question his character are 1) due to his long association with New Vrindaban and Kirtanananda; 2) his support for a preaching mood that was not in line with Srila Prabhupada's, even after he left Kirtanananda's direct influence; and 3) his oft-revealed tendency to self-glorify.

But what of this other fellow who blasphemes? Who among you know him beyond his illogical rantings on the internet? Yet he was not always as crazed as this. He was once a good devotee with great potential. However, for as long as I have known him, over thirty years, he always held a penchant for faultfinding. He has been counseled about it repeatedly, but seeming to no avail. And now we can see the fruit of an uncontrolled mind. Compounded, since there are problems associated with being a liar. It's difficult to keep one's collection of lies lined up properly. Something is always getting out of order, out of place.

Here we have a cold-blooded murderer criticizing his co-conspirator as a "fault-finder". Worse still, he offers a little lecture about dishonesty. Tirtha's repeated arrogant criticism of Janmastami leaves no doubt in our mind that he himself is still very contaminated. While he tries to preach aggressively in defense of Radhanath, we can't accept his instruction in this regard, given that his character - as obviously expressed in this letter - simply doesn't warrant it.

I never changed my "version" of events, since I never spoke to anyone to give a version.

We look forward to confirming that.

I never took formal initiation from Radhanath Swami. Nor has NV ever given me one cent for any of my "expenses".

Please tell us for the record who gave you sannyasa initiation, and who from the 'outside devotee world' has contributed money towards your livelihood in prison since your incarceration.

In truth, the Feds were vigorously prosecuting NV with the assistance of the Sheriff. Both agencies were bent on destroying NV. The fact that NV once had the cooperation of the Sheriff is irrelevant. Once Sulocana was killed, everything changed.

Why would Sulocana's death change "everything" about the Fed's vigorous attempts to destroy New Vrindaban? These two events appear to have little connection.

There was a diary of Sulocana's that was seized by police when he was arrested for the weapons charge. This was made available to persons from NV. It was probably unethical for the Sheriff's Department to do this, but not illegal.

On what basis have you concluded that the Sheriff's handing over of Sulocana's diary was not illegal?

Likewise, to say that I was awarded sannyasa in remuneration for my illegal acts is ludicrous. Anyone who believes this sort of tripe has no proper conception or understanding of what sannyasa really is. It isn't a prestigious material designation, especially in prison. It means one completely dedicates his body, mind and words to the service of guru and Krsna. It is a position of complete humility. People who think sannyasa is a great gift should think again. It means one enters into a life or penance and austerity, complete lifelong celibacy, etc. The reason I thought to take sannyasa was because I fully expected to be executed in California. I wanted to wind up my life in a mood of greater renunciation. With this in mind I asked the devotees if it was proper and acceptable under the circumstances. I took sannyasa under that pretext. In realizing how my vows of sannyasa have upset certain of my Godbrothers and sisters, I no longer ascribe to using my formal sannyasa title.

First, given the degree of false ego contamination evident in this letter, it seems ludicrous to think that you yourself have a proper understanding of what sannyasa really is. And if you did, how could you disavow that title simply because it agitated the minds of your Godbrothers/sisters? Or are you saying, Tirtha, that you've given up the title just to appease them, but you still live by the principles and consider yourself a sannyasi? But wouldn't that would be a false and pretentious position, not unlike your statement that you took sannyasa, thereby adopting a position of "complete humility"?

There are persons who object to devotees visiting or otherwise communicating with persons who are incarcerated. However, there is an authorized arm of ISKCON called ISKCON Prison Ministry, authorized by Srila Prabhupada himself. The head of this department is His Grace Candrasekhara Prabhu. It exists as an outreach program for incarcerated persons, without discrimination as to offense, or any other material consideration. If a person contacts IPM asking for information, etc., such a request is taken seriously and all accommodation is made. With this in mind, why should anyone object if a merciful devotee attempts to rehabilitate another fallen devotee who happens to be in prison? Is this not also a part of IPM's mission? What of my own rehabilitation? Am I to be eternally condemned? Is this the Krsna conscious philosophy?

Why then is a fallen devotee or a devotee due to circumstances, that ends up in prison automatically excluded from spiritual rehabilitation? Where does it say in sastra that he is automatically and eternally condemned for whatever offense he has committed? Please quote chapter and verse in sastra to substantiate this claim. You cannot. Therefore why criticize someone who is working to rehabilitate prisoners who are initiated devotees?

This impassioned plea in support of the Prison Ministry program seems to be code for some other dynamic at play here. We have not heard anyone criticizing you for getting the periodic association of devotees through the IPM, although your statements above seem to indicate that you're worried about the IPM program being criticized, or perhaps even eliminated. We can imagine that you would find this most unfortunate, as much of your personal status in prison life comes from your association with this program.

What we have heard being criticized is the fact that high-level personalities of New Vrindaban fame, particularly Malati, Radhanath, and Umapati swamis, are involved with Tirtha in prison. While they may not publicly acknowledge it, these individuals know they are under close scrutiny by many in ISKCON due to their close association with New Vrindaban and Kirtanananda. Their behavior in this regard should be above reproach. For the sake of Srila Prabhupada's preaching mission, they should take absolutely no chance that their activities might further tarnish ISKCON's good name, or increase overall suspicions that there's "something going on" between them and Tirtha in prison.

Clearly, it is not necessary for these ISKCON leaders to be the ones actively engaged in visiting or helping Tirtha. There are plenty of other 'rank and file' devotees who could take up that service on Tirtha's behalf as representatives of the IPM. Even less conceivable is the idea that these particular ISKCON leaders should be the ones offering direct support and advocating on Tirtha's behalf with government and law enforcement officials. What are they thinking?! We offer our speculations in that regard in our closing comments.

The philosophy of Krsna consciousness is based on compassion. Forgiveness is the defining characteristic of a Vaisnava. It doesn't imply we become naïve, but it means we are always ready to forgive those who may have offended or harmed us. Lord Jesus Christ forgave his tormentors while on the cross. We especially do not hold grudges and blaspheme devotees we disagree with. When we find a person who regularly blasphemes devotees we should steer clear of such a person. Even reading their words and comments will cause us to likewise lose all of our spiritual credits.

Tirtha appears not to notice that while he preaches forgiveness to the choir, he is simultaneously breaking his own standards by harshly criticizing Janmastami dasa. In fact, it appears that he holds a grudge with Janmastami, and doesn't hesitate to personally "blaspheme" him. Tirtha stepped into this dogfight when he first wrote from prison to rebut an article by Janmastami, in which he made accusatory statements about Radhanath's connection to the New Vrindaban murders. Rather than follow the advice he preaches above and "steer clear of such a blasphemer" to avoid losing all of his spiritual credits, Tirtha jumped right into the fray in defense of Radhanath. Interestingly, more of his comments are slanted in his own defense than in Radhanath's.

If a person has expressed genuine remorse and is truly repentant for their offenses, that is the first step in their rehabilitation. At that point the devotee should be given counseling and examined to try to understand their actual heart in the matter. If they continue to show humility and sorrow for their transgression they should be accepted back. Such a person is never permanently banned from devotee association. Anyone can become deluded and make serious mistakes in their life. We should not be so cruel and callous as to never forgive them. At the very least some atonement should be given them to officially prepare a way for them to become redeemed. Even the Christians are not so hard hearted as some of the devotees pretend to be.

Again, we do not hear the mood of humility, sorrow or repentance in Tirtha's letter. We hear just the opposite: arrogance, blaming, even rationalizing that his criminal actions were not untoward. Granted, anyone can make a serious error, and no one should be denied the right to redeem himself. Devotees are not hard-hearted in this regard. Unlike the Christians, however, our philosophy does not provide for "atonement" before the sinner's act of redemption. We believe in karma, and the mitigation of karma by devotional service to Lord Krsna.

Either there is an IPM or there isn't. And if there is, it must be for all persons.

Again, we hear the undercurrent of another agenda in Tirtha's comments. Why all this concern about whether or not the IPM program is OK? Has it been threatened in some way, or is Tirtha just pretending that it's threatened because some devotees have seen fit to challenge the participation of certain ISKCON leaders with Kirtanananda and Tirtha in prison?

With this in mind, I humbly ask all devotees to please assist me in going back home to Godhead. Please help me become spiritually rehabilitated. I accept that I am your servant and humbly request that you kindly give me some service to perform. If you wish to know more about me I have a website, Tirthainprison.com. I am available for your comments and corrections.

Tirtha, we trust that you will accept our comments in the mood you express above, and see that we are simply trying to get to the truth. We will gladly ask for and accept your assistance in that regard. Please give your service to this effort by carefully considering and answering all of the questions posed in this paper. Please take our personal criticisms of you as corrections, and consider the advice offered to you.

In closing, too many devotees obsess over incidents they know nothing about. Many are addicted to reading accounts and stories, listening to rumors to the extent that over time they automatically accept whatever is said to be the truth. If a lie is repeated often enough it becomes the truth. Listening to gossip and spreading gossip is prajalpa. If someone genuinely needs to understand the truth of something, there is a process. Gossip and speculation only poison one's consciousness.

In our opinion, various aspects of Tirtha's letter, including the passage above, indicate that he was not the sole author of this article. Rather, it seems that he may had gotten some assistance in writing and/or editing it. For example, how is it that someone who has been behind bars for essentially the entire duration of the Internet phenomenon, and has no Internet access himself, could be so familiar with the dynamics of the online devotee community? To hear Tirtha, one would think he's been cruising for years and knows intimately what 'digital prajalpa' is all about. In fact, his only taste of this world has been via hard copy articles periodically sent to him by his well-wishers, and whatever his visitors have conveyed to him about the world outside. This little speech about avoiding gossip came right out of the ISKCON songbook, and is just one of the indications that Tirtha's letter was influenced by someone from the outside, likely one of his regular visitors or penpals.

In the matter of events that happened 20+ years ago at NV, one should approach a reliable person who was at the core of events. You should then check that person's integrity and credentials to satisfy yourself they are telling the truth. But if the person supposedly propounding the truth is a chronic blasphemer, we should automatically doubt their veracity. Does the person follow the four regulative principles? Does the person chant 16 rounds every day? Srila Prabhupada said we shouldn't trust anyone who wasn't at least doing this much.

We appreciate Tirtha's advice from our standpoint as Editor of the Sun. We are earnestly looking for reliable persons who were at the core of New Vrindaban events, who will give us an honest account of what really went on there. It's not easy to find such a person. Instead, we are finding many individuals, each with their own slant on the truth, who are providing pieces of the patchwork quilt that is the composite history of New Vrindaban. Certainly Janmastami dasa has provided many important facts, as have Navadvipachandra, and Tirtha himself. As for fact-checking each and every statement, that is impossible for a publication like ours. Even more unrealistic is the idea that we might be able to determine the actually integrity of each contributor to this discussion. That would likely prove to be impossible even if we had large sums of money at our disposal. As we all know, "credentials" often aren't worth the paper they're printed on. At least in the case of Krsna consciousness, one's spiritual credentials can easily be verified by putting what they preach to the test of guru, sadhu and sastra.

We hope that Tirtha can get some idea of just how neophyte he sounds when he implores the reader to avoid "chronic blasphemers", listening only to those individuals who appear to be chanting their rounds and following the four regulative principles. He writes:

You should substantiate if I am following the regulative principles, chanting 16 rounds and eating only Krsna prasadam. You should carefully examine my character and statements to see if I have a propensity for blaspheming other devotees. You should very carefully examine everything I say. Then you can make up your mind. Not based on rumor, gossip or slanted commentaries by blasphemers. It is your choice.

While Tirtha may be able to offer some degree of proof that he is following the four regs and eating only Krsna prasadam in prison, he certainly can't prove that he is offenselessly chanting his rounds each day. No one can prove that, except by the manifestation of their spiritual effulgence. Based on the many indications of Tirtha's personality and psychopathology contained in this letter, we can only assume that regardless of his determined sadhana practice, he still has a long way to go before he is spiritually remediated to the point where we could take his word over that of any other common gossiper, blasphemer, or criminal.

If you truly wish to know about the incidents I have alluded to, then you should ask the only person you knows. I am the only person who knows exactly what happened, with whom, and why.

In closing, we find that this statement of Tirtha's speaks volumes. It may even come as a disappointment to those who expect him to come clean and tell all that he knows. The more we have heard from Tirtha throughout this letter, the more it appears that he's manipulating everyone. Our conclusion is that he has something over a lot of people, and he could implicate them in a serious crime if he spilled the beans. This is the only real power he has in this world. And someone who's a psychopath, as Tirtha certainly appears to be, must feel that they have power over others.

Tirtha's power is that he knows something. But if he told it to the FBI or someone in authority in the legal system, they might take him seriously and re-open the investigation. Once he's told everything, either to the public through a disclosure like his letter to the Sampradaya Sun, or by going to the authorities and telling all that he knows, he will then lose whatever power he still holds in this whole situation. He would lose his power over all the people who are now helping him. When you consider that individuals like Radhanath and Malati are engaged on his behalf, attempting to gain his pardon and release, you can only imagine how imperative it is that he not give up the power that influences them.

Over the course of this discussion it's become obvious that the political ramifications of associating with Tirtha make it a very dangerous proposition, indeed. Those ISKCON notorieties who are associating with him are quite politically savvy in the context of ISKCON. One would assume they've considered the high price of associating with Tirtha in any way, shape or form and know that they run the risk of damaging their own reputations by associating with him. And that's exactly what's happening in the Sun today - a public discussion has unfolded, and they find themselves right at the center of it. Their reputations are being assertively challenged. So what's in it for them to be known as a close associate of Tirtha? While questions abound regarding the New Vrindaban murder mysteries, this is the real million dollar question.

As previously stated in this article, we don't find evidence in Tirtha's letter that he's really making much spiritual advancement, although that's how ISKCON authorities are depicting him. The assessment of him as being "spiritually remediated" supposedly justifies their continued efforts to help him. Even Ravindra Svarupa has made an effort to promote Tirtha's spiritual persona. But common sense and Tirtha's own statements lead the unbiased observer to conclude that he's actually got something over these people that's forcing them to help him in all these ways: trying to get a pardon from the Governor, giving him as much facility as the prison will allow in terms of visitations and gifts, publishing his book, facilitating his various preaching efforts, and singing his praises as a fixed-up Vaisnava.

We can only conclude that Tirtha is never going to tell everything he knows -- and that's what they're counting on! At the same time, they are undoubtedly fearful that he's crazy enough to turn on them if they neglect him. And why not? He doesn't have much to lose, except what he gets through them. If they don't service his needs, he could very well start implicating others in ISKCON… one person after another. Of course, the individual who has the most to lose is Radhanath Swami. If he goes down, we can only imagine the domino effect that will ripple through ISKCON. In the wake of such a disastrous event as that would be, the GBC would have to deal with the reality of the many other potential loose cannons out there who were associated with New Vrindaban and Kirtanananda throughout their long criminal history. Just consider the pressure that could be brought to bear on ISKCON if the public were to become aware of the real history of New Vrindaban, and how actively involved they were with Kirtanananda's regime over an extended period of time. This would cause a great deal of damage to ISKCON's already tarnished reputation. It boggles the mind just to think of it.

We can only imagine how unhappy Tirtha's handlers must be that he ever responded to that first Sun article by Janmastami, which resulted in the flood of subsequent articles and disclosures. We do not wish to bring harm to ISKCON, nor do we wish to see Srila Prabhupada's good name further damaged by the bad choices of the society's leaders. At the same time, we must encourage and support honest disclosure at every level. Truth is the only medicine that will cure the disease that has slowly but surely weakened Srila Prabhupada's transcendental movement.

So, let us all be dedicated to the process of finding the truth. Statements of non-truth should be shot down immediately, and publicly, with solid evidence and full disclosure. Those who represent truth have nothing to fear by expressing it. Ultimately, only those who are hiding the truth stand to be harmed, and we cannot derail the process in order to protect them.

We wish Tirtha well, and look forward to his prompt, honest and detailed response.

Your servant,

Rocana dasa
Editor, Sampradaya Sun