Bhakti Vikas Swami's text to VNN

[Guest guest]

Dear Bhakti Vikasa Maharaja,

 

Please accept my obeisances. All glories to Srila Prabhupada.

 

This is a response to your text sent to VNN, and which was forwarded by Basu

Gosh prabhu to several conferances.

 

> Anyway, this letter is in response to a recent posting on VNN by the

> so-called Ardhabuddhi Das (ABD) about a supposed conspiracy against women

> (which I saw in multiple postings on Com by some Bhakta from Europe).

> Actually, in Vedic culture, and in decent families even today, seniors

> don't argue before juniors, and juniors don't challenge seniors. Seniors

> settle (or maintain) their differences privately--which was a reason I

> preferred the secrecy of GHQ.

 

I used to follow my authorities quite blindly when I came to the movement.

After seeing a lot of abuse going on in the name of seniority in ISKCON, I

have become a bit more sceptical to accept blindly what anyone says to me,

even if he is a disciple of Srila Prabhupada.

 

I also hold the opinion that it is often misplaced to see the difference of

seniority simply on the basis of number of years in the movement, age,

gender, whether one is a direct disciple of Srila Prabhupda, asrama status

etc.

 

Most of the devotees in ISKCON come from what we call a karmi background

anyway, and it is easy to commit vaisnava aparadha also from the so-called

seniors' side, if they are actually junior in spiritual advancement.

 

I realize from your statement above that you may not want to discuss this

with me, since I am obviously your junior in regards to number of years in

the movement, age, discipleship and asrama status.

 

It also sounds from your response to bh Ivar prabhu's previous inquiery to

you (which was made on behalf of a lot of other devotees) in regards to

giving a comment on the texts from the GHQ conferance, and in your reference

to him above, that you believe that the fact that he did not take

initiation from a spiritual master automatically makes him disqualified of

your attention. Please correct me if I am wrong about that, because this may

be my misunderstood observation.

 

The idea was to tactfully approach various

> GBC members and present our concerns to them, rather than make a public

> dogfight.

 

That we can see from the available quotes from the GHQ conferance.

 

> Actually, I withdrew from GHQ three weeks ago and wasn't following the

> texts in it for some weeks before that. Although I accept that it is

> addressing grave areas of concern, I left it to others to deal with. Like

> other leaders in our movement (yes, I am some kind of a leader), I don't

> have time to get involved in every controversy that comes around.

> Nevertheless, my name is there as a member of GHQ, and, in light of the

> outcry against it, several devotees have asked me to clarify my position.

> Hence this letter.

 

> The outcry is fueled by ABD's portrayal of GHQ. ABD accuses GHQ members

> of selectively quoting Srila Prabhupada, but ABD has selectively quoted

> GHQ texts and added his (or more likely, her) own biased and inflammatory

> commentary to paint GHQ in the worst possible light. ABD lambasts GHQ for

> its secrecy, yet having publicly revealed private correspondence (which is

> in itself questionable), ABD has deliberately concealed his/her identity

> (Ardhabuddhi literally means "half-intelligent" and is clearly not the

> real name of the correspondent). If someone makes public accusations

> against others, they should at least have the guts and decency to say who

> they are. Failure to do so suggests that the so-called ABD has his or her

> own conspiracy or political agenda to demonize GHQ members.

 

I don't know who ABD is, and therefore I am unable to respond to your

assumptions. To demonize the GHQ members sounds a bit strong in my ears,

especially since the texts quotes were whole and real. If someone demonized

the GHQ members, it looks like it must have been themselves.

 

> It is true that the rhetoric on GHQ sometimes got out of hand. But by

> highlighting that, ABD appears to want to obfuscate the real issues of

> GHQ's concern, which are the cultural direction of our movement, women's

> roles within it, and particularly the malaise of the grhastha-asrama due

> to the tacit acceptance of divorce and remarriage.

 

It is true that the quotes that ABD sent got the attention away from those

points.

 

> These vital issues have been discussed at length in Ameyatma Prabhu's

> recent letter posted on VNN. I fully endorse his position, and request

> that before anyone crucifies GHQ members, they read his letter. Whatever

> else I state here is subsidiary to what is stated there.

>

> To summarize my position, which I believe is that also of other GHQ

> members:

>

> I feel that ISKCON should move towards Vedic social values, as discussed

> elaborately in Srila Prabhupada's books; and that we should be very

> careful not to import ideas from the karmi world.

 

In India that may be possible for all I know, but in the West, we are

basically living in the karmi world. Devotees do get a lot of influence from

the "karmis" even if one can say that this is bad. Actually, most of the

ISKCON devotees have grown up as "karmis", so to throw away their whole

background may not always be so easy, even if it has been tried time and

time again in ISKCON.

 

> Now I'll briefly address 3 points of the GHQ emphasized by ABD.

>

> * "No women in leadership positions"

>

> * "Terminating the present Women's Ministry"

>

> * "Women not allowed to give classes or lead kirtans"

>

> Although those proposals were posted on GHQ, not all members accepted them

> as such, and there was much discussion on them. ABD has thus made a

> biased and dishonest portrayal of GHQ and has therefore misled the readers

> of his/her text.

 

The quoted texts from the GHQ conferance gave a very strong impression on

many devotees, so to remove our sceptiscism may take some effort. To simply

try to paint ABD as the bad guy, may not be convincing enough.

 

It would be fair if the whole discussions on the above mentioned matters

from the GHQ conferance are posted, (maybe as an attatched file) so that we

can see and judge for ourselves. Is that possible?

 

> Another concern of GHQ members is that devotees in positions of authority

> in ISKCON should have morally clean records.

 

I agree that moral should be put high emphasis on among all leaders, and not

the least sannyasis. To say who has morally clean records however, is not

necessarily done by looking at if the person has a divorce behind him/her.

We have a lot of memers of highly questionable past, among them many in

leadership positions. Not all of us have been devotees from birth?

 

The dissatisfaction with the

> Women's Ministry was largely due to its being led mostly by divorcees.

> This position has been explained in detail by Ameyatma Prabhu and I won't

> elaborate on it further.

 

Ok.

 

> GHQ members also feel that, according to Srila Prabhupada's directions and

> example, women in ISKCON should not be given positions of leadership.

 

That was clear from the quotes from GHQ.

 

> At last year's GBC meeting, a member, speaking for the inclusion of women

> on the GBC, said (as reported on Chakra): "Don't see what Srila Prabhupada

> did, think what he would do now."

 

Srila Prabhupada made a lot of changes in the movement up until the day he

left. I find it a bit naive to think that he would have made no changes

after all that has happened after he left.

 

> This statement caused much concern to GHQ members, who felt it could open

> the doors to unlimited speculation and compromise.

 

That is a danger, I can see that. But I also believe that we scare away a

lot of people by our mistreatment of women and children. As an example from

the West, I can mention that a lot of people have been very disturbed by the

fact that women even publicly are treated as obviously inferior to men

(after the women have been fighting for many decades for equal rights). It

is hard for both men and women to understand this, especially because it is

not always obvious that the men are any more qualified than the women.

 

> There was some discussion on GHQ of the past activities of Mother Malati.

> I wrote that my experience of her is that she is a nice devotee. But as a

> godbrother said to me, "No doubt she is a good devotee, but now she is in

> a high post, it is natural that people will remember her past."

 

I know a lot of the child abuse cases in ISKCON, and I happen to "know" that

some of the GBC's, sannyasis and initiating spiritual masters are previous

child abusers (either sexual, physical or mental) and woman abusers. Still

they are in the GBC or accepted as initiating spiritual masters. That is

after ruining the lives of one (or more) child(ren). They have been accepted

on the "Innocent until proven guilty" clause, it seems.

 

I don't know mother Malati, but if her past includes a divorce, I am sure it

could still be tolerated that she is in the GBC. Anyway, that is not my

decision.

 

> The GHQ discussion of Mother Malati was to bring out the point that

> leaders of our movement should have no record of moral turpitude.

> Apparently there is a GBC rule about this that has not been followed by

> the GBC in their appointments of a woman GBC and the Women's Minister.

> The GHQ was not on a witchhunt against anyone (remember, these texts were

> private!), but was concerned about ethos that was being created by making

> such appointments.

 

It sounded a bit like some of the GHQ members condsidered it a witch-hunt,

or should I say whore-hunt. I am sure there were also those who disagreed to

such a mood, but since that did not come out in ABD's text, it is hard for

us little people to see who is who, unless you make it more clear to us.

 

Later a GHQ member who never contributed to the

> discussion made the point publicly about Mother Malati, without consulting

> any GHQ members, which I personally felt wasn't proper.

 

That is to your credit.

 

> Apart from all these unpleasant details, I feel that there are bigger

> issues here, as reflected in a text I sent to GHQ, as quoted below. This

> wasn't a public criticism, but as ABD has made it public by posting it on

> VNN, I'll quote it again here.

 

I will also make some comments to that text here.

 

> Text 1729575 (16 lines)

> Bhakti Vikasa Swami

> 29-Sep-98 11:53 +0100

> GHQ [8]

> Some observations

> ---------------------------

> I recently saw in the Iskcon Communications Journal the transcript of a

> speech given at the infamous Iskcon Womens' meet in LA. It presented the

> rights of women in Iskcon according to International Law.

>

> It should be exposed that the feminists are appealing to a totally

> non-sastric source: the laws of a demoniac society that supports divorce,

> homosexuality etc. in the name of "equality" and "rights."

 

What I "understand" when I hear that there are meetings where the women

quote "karmi" law, is that we as the men must have failed miserably in our

"attempts" to protect the women.

 

> That members of our movement can be so "off" and get GBC support for it is

> frightening. What is more frightening is the possibility that our

> liberated mothers might throw the karmi law book at us and use the clout

> of state law to enforce "womens' rights" in our temples and communities.

 

If they have to do that, it is a sign that we really failed. The karmis at

least respect those who are weaker to some degree, and care when they

complain, while it seems like we in ISKCON just ignore them. I really don't

blame some of those who look whether some if the things we do in the name of

spiritual life really is legal according to karmi laws. I know for a fact

that many crimes have been performed by devotees who have represented

ISKCON.

 

> It is interesting to note how ICJ and Iskcon World Review (now Hare Krsna

> Today) have systematically promoted within our society the values of the

> secular humanist liberal (i.e. atheistic) "civilization." (end of text)

 

We often have this high-nose attitude that we have nothing to learn from the

"karmis", even from a social standpoint. In the West we have been trying for

30 years to introduce vaisnava philosophy (most of us for far less than 30

years, and not from birth), and we think that we are on a level of social

advancement where we can throw everything the "karmis" say as garbage

without exception. (Except for all the material facilities, of course.)

 

> The present Women's Ministry and movement in ISKCON appears to be

> influenced by the demoniac feminism of karmi society, which has been and

> is a major factor in the ongoing moral degeneration of the world.

 

I believe that this has started in ISKCON because we (the men) have failed

miserably in our duties, not the least to properly protect the women.

 

> Feminism is part of the secular, liberal, humanistic and ultimately

> atheistic worldview much promoted by modern scholars. Srila Prabhupada

> said that "women's liberation" is an excuse by men to exploit women for

> sex.

 

That may be a bi-effect if we let it loose by continuing to abuse and

mistreat the women. If we instead started to focus on treating them

properly, things may not have to go that far.

 

Men anyway exploit women for sex also within our closed system.

 

> Still worse, feminism is only one manifestation of various atheistic

> tendencies insidiously infiltrating our movement through "higher studies"

> and New Age speculations. This is a major discussion that I won't get into

> here.

 

Ok.

 

> As regards calling women "whores": "prostitute" was the word Srila

> Prabhupada regularly used to describe women who didn't stick to one

> husband.

 

He may have used those words, and I am sure that those words are a pain in

the heart of many of the women who have gotten divorced after seriously

trying for many years, but who could not make it all their lives as totally

abused and neglected wives.

 

In addition, Srila Prabhupada may have said those words on some occations,

but he was also a pure devotee who managed to inspire thousands of people.

Others should maybe be careful to imitate him, otherwise it may be very

little appreciated.

 

So if re-married women in our movement get themselves into the

> limelight, it's unfortunate but not surprising if such descriptions are

> remembered. Ameyatma Prabhu has already discussed this in detail and there

> is no need for me to repeat what he has stated.

>

> I do not condone the use of other terms like "witches," etc., and have

> never used them myself. "No Souls" is so obviously untrue that it may be

> that the author of them was ludicrously overstating his case in jest.

> After all, it was a private conference in which decorum is relaxed. It

> would be better to have asked he who wrote that what he meant, before

> making such a huge issue of it and interrogating so many sannyasis about

> it.

 

It was not only this one statement which caused the "interrogation".

 

> However, it is an unfortunate fact of life, even in our society, that

> leaders get all sorts of nasty things said about them--which is another

> reason women shouldn't take leadership roles. They should be protected

> from such nastiness.

 

I agree with you that we (the men) should protect them from such nastiness.

If we really care, we will protect them, also if they are in leadership

positions.

 

My wife is the youth minister of Northern Europe, and she has a leadership

function. I often support her. It is still not that I am more qualified to

be the leader of the youth in Europe than her, because she cares even more

than me about the youth. That qualifies her. I can assist her and be happy

with that.

 

At the same time, I am managing a company with 15 employees and which is

dealing with importers in more than 15 countries. She feels that such a type

of management would be too much for her, so she is happy that I can do that.

She offers me support in my job by being a lovely and caring wife.

 

> In closing, I'll state that I'm not open to discussion with every Tom,

> Dick and Sally on these points, but would welcome the GBC setting up a

> committee to investigate the cultural direction our movement is heading

> in, before we glibly ride off down the road of deviation, modernism, and

> degradation.

 

I am not Tom, Dick nor Sally, and it is up to you if you want to comment on

my text or not.

 

Your servant,

Jatukarnya das