The letter goes on, "Why does he doubt that Guru-Krsna prabhu's humility is anything less than completely genuine?" I felt that obvious. At least it was to me just by reading Guru Krsna's letter. In my mind it appeared so, due mainly to the manner of his speech and the words used. The letter goes on to say, "He continues: '...yet it seems apparent that he (Guru Krsna) harbors some mood other than that of genuine humility.' I would like to know on what foundation this wildly assumptive leap has been built?" Again, simply my impressions of his communication. That is all. Just as your arguments are based on your impressions of my letter to CHAKRA.

You say, "By tossing speculative accusations at Guru-Krsna prabhu without a shred of evidence to justify his position..." This seems to be the main point, as it is repeated on many occasions. What evidence do you require? Unfortunately I did use some subjectively judgmental language, which has no doubt led to your view of my letter. I was wrong. I was simply trying to voice my personal, objective, opinion and impression. Is there anything wrong with that? If you want me to explain why I got that impression, then I would be happy to oblige. What more can I say in this regard. Can you provide evidence to support your arguments that his humility is genuine, and that my accusations hold no substance? Actually he may have been genuine in his mood, but I do not feel that shows in his communication. That is my opinion. I personally got another impression.

The letter says, "Bhaktavatsala prabhu spends much of the balance of his letter decrying the sad state of communications held over the Internet." I seem to have been misunderstood. I have no objection to the internet, nor the communications therein (so long as it is useful and constructive). It is simply that I all too often do not personally see such communications reflected in the practical dealings among the devotees. That's all. I unfortunately mostly see what appears to me to be diplomacy and duplicity, at least according to my years of experience with ISKCON. It is simply a general, objective, observation, and includes all levels of devotees. But it is all too often more convenient to communicate in such impersonal ways, as there is less risk involved of either physical or emotional harm, hence the tendency toward impersonal dealings. Srila Prabhupada has quite adequately explained these causes for the tendency toward impersonalism in his teachings.

The internet can easily be just another impersonal forum, being a means to negate personal dealings. So is this the standard that we want in the Krsna consciousness movement? And who sets the standards? Ultimately Krsna, via Srila Prabhupada, the "Founder Acharya." But the leaders, as "representatives," are supposed to show the example of those standards (the qualification for leadership) of personal and general Krsna conscious dealings and relationships. And this also applies with regard to dealing even with the "ruffians" (as the six Goswamis of Vrindavan did), with utter humility and tolerance etc., as opposed to setting the standards of impersonalism, which is all too often the case. Unfortunately we often have a funny idea of what humility really is, thinking that it means to say such things as "prabhu," etc., with folded palms. No, it's something deeper than that. That is purely my personal, objective, opinion and experience. And, unfortunately, this impersonalism seems all too prolific in ISKCON. And, if this view is incorrect, then it is yet to be revealed as such through adequate and sufficient communication. Something thus far greatly lacking in my own personal life with ISKCON and society in general. We are not so special, unless we show it by our actions. Dhotis and saris do not a devotee make. We all have so much to learn.

I just had an interesting, short, conversation with a bhakta who said that he seldom visits CHAKRA because he does not feel the communication conducive to his spiritual life. He raised some good points. But I asked him why he could not say his thoughts on CHAKRA, rather than preferring to keep it to himself. His points are very simple and basic, and would probably be quite helpful. But that's the problem, you see. Too many times people keep things inside themselves, perhaps seemingly simple but nonetheless important things, and do not communicate them. And what's the result? Nil understanding! And then they wonder why nothing changes, and people don't change. But then they may not be prepared for the response, which could either be favorable or unfavorable. We all have so much to learn. My letter was obviously not greatly appreciated in this case, but at least that has been communicated, and I have been allowed to make a response. I appreciate the points made, and the basic complaint, and I shall try to improve my language of communication accordingly. So, I feel my points in my previous letter to be valid, although the language in parts may have been somewhat subjective and judgmental. I hope this can be overlooked in reading it. Obviously CHAKRA cannot cater to all communications, in which case it may be expeditious, and more appropriate, to relegate it to another forum, perhaps private. They could, and perhaps should, always suggest this, and even which forum might be more appropriate. But that must also be communicated, even if only briefly and concisely, as most people cannot read minds (even the CHAKRA ones).