Guest guest Posted December 13, 1999 Report Share Posted December 13, 1999 > Most devotees in our society when explaining causes of some problem usually > emphasize only the following categories: > > 1.The abusers > 2.The abused > 3.Confused > 4. ? > > They usualy skip the most important set of people.They are called the >RESPONSIBLE PEOPLE (ksatriyas). The group of people who are responsible for >keeping law and order in our society. According to the idea that ISKCON -- or, rather, all of Prabhupada's followers regardless of camps -- form not only a spiritual network but a karmic network as well, a re-active approach aimed at changing or punishing or limiting the power of the institutional ksatriyas would not change the quality of the network. It would be the patches-and-crutches approach, the remedial measures needed in an emergency. Patches and crutches are, indeed, needed in emergencies, just as criminal laws and any other legal devices. They are necessary, but not sufficient, to operate a significant effect on the whole network. Within a karmic network, founded on karmic homology, while one abusive or ineffective or hypocritical leader is taken care of, 10 more may pop up in no time -- out of the closets, from under the rugs, after fulfilling the parole schedule, etc. > 3.Our GBC should consist of a small number (around 5 people) of most > qualified devotee managers that we have in ISKCON today. This hierarchical approach -- a ksatriya reform -- sounds fine but, I'm afraid, necessary yet not sufficient. I'd venture to say that the hierarchical approach -- to be significant, coherent, effective -- has to be complemented with a horizontal, sort of brahmanical approach. A brahmanical approach means, among other things, clear individual and collective self-awareness, a precise knowledge of the intricacies of Prabhupada's spiritual and karmic network, a pro-active approach to the issues and goals in which every individual's skills and potentials are involved (sort of grassroots), etc. The hierarchical-cum-brahmanical approach, however, while being badly needed is not yet sufficient. The third foot is also needed: the vaisya-centered varnasrama culture, lifestyle, and social organization. In other words, to improve the quality of the Prabhupada network -- to make it more spiritually minded and less karmically affected or wounded -- three feet, approaches, seem to be needed: hierarchical (ksatriya), brahmanical (based on individual and collective awareness), and vaisya (varnasrama). This is one proposal. your servant, Kunti-Devi dasi Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 13, 1999 Report Share Posted December 13, 1999 > Most devotees in our society when explaining causes of some problem usually > emphasize only the following categories: > > 1.The abusers > 2.The abused > 3.Confused > 4. ? > > They usualy skip the most important set of people.They are called the >RESPONSIBLE PEOPLE (ksatriyas). The group of people who are responsible for >keeping law and order in our society. According to the idea that ISKCON -- or, rather, all of Prabhupada's followers regardless of camps -- form not only a spiritual network but a karmic network as well, a re-active approach aimed at changing or punishing or limiting the power of the institutional ksatriyas would not change the quality of the network. It would be the patches-and-crutches approach, the remedial measures needed in an emergency. Patches and crutches are, indeed, needed in emergencies, just as criminal laws and any other legal devices. They are necessary, but not sufficient, to operate a significant effect on the whole network. Within a karmic network, founded on karmic homology, while one abusive or ineffective or hypocritical leader is taken care of, 10 more may pop up in no time -- out of the closets, from under the rugs, after fulfilling the parole schedule, etc. > 3.Our GBC should consist of a small number (around 5 people) of most > qualified devotee managers that we have in ISKCON today. This hierarchical approach -- a ksatriya reform -- sounds fine but, I'm afraid, necessary yet not sufficient. I'd venture to say that the hierarchical approach -- to be significant, coherent, effective -- has to be complemented with a horizontal, sort of brahmanical approach. A brahmanical approach means, among other things, clear individual and collective self-awareness, a precise knowledge of the intricacies of Prabhupada's spiritual and karmic network, a pro-active approach to the issues and goals in which every individual's skills and potentials are involved (sort of grassroots), etc. The hierarchical-cum-brahmanical approach, however, while being badly needed is not yet sufficient. The third foot is also needed: the vaisya-centered varnasrama culture, lifestyle, and social organization. In other words, to improve the quality of the Prabhupada network -- to make it more spiritually minded and less karmically affected or wounded -- three feet, approaches, seem to be needed: hierarchical (ksatriya), brahmanical (based on individual and collective awareness), and vaisya (varnasrama). This is one proposal. your servant, Kunti-Devi dasi Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 15, 1999 Report Share Posted December 15, 1999 Hare Krishna, If you have a strong desire for reform, it should based on correct definitions of the problems. If your remarks are viewed as biased or uninformed, you will not get the broad-based support you wish and need. I have personal knowledge that some of the claims you make (or repeat from others) are not true (or are half-truths or over-simplifications). The facts surrounding ISCKON's failures are bad enough, without their being exaggerated or distorted. I must admit, I am mystified why so many seem to have full confidence in many of these assertions, without having first looked into their veracity. I'm going to limit myself here to making some brief comments. If there is a need to examine some points in more detail, I'll be happy to participate. I beg you to examine your claims in a more critical manner and make corrections where needed. "Devotees have tendency not to mention this set of people [GBC], because they are consisting of sannyasis who are also their gurus." There are currently 24 sannyasi and 12 non-sannyasi GBC members. In addition, the are 21 Deputy GBC, consisting of 3 sannyasi members and 19 non-sannyasi members. Most temple presidents and other managers are not sannyasis. "If the responsible people did their job properly, there would be very little or no abuse going on. Because of that there would be not much abusers also in ISKCON, and because of that, there would be little or none confused, agitated and angry devotees." If you are referring to child abuse, you are partially correct and partially incorrect. If ISKCON's leaders had been more on top of things, are lot of non-sexual abuse may have been prevented by good instruction and supervision. Preventing sexual abuse is more difficult because sexual abusers can spend years getting into an environment where they have free access to children. Sexual abusers don't respond to instruction. Increased vigilance helps, and some abusers with criminal histories can be flushed out through background checks. However, it is naive to think any degree of management can permanently rid ISKCON (or any group) of abusers. "We all know that our nice sannyasis have taken the role of ksatriyas for the sake of Srila Prabhupada and ISKCON. Without any experience, training and proper qualification, that demands the position of ksatriya, their task was beforehand sentenced to be a setback. Just so you don't get me wrong, we have very nice sannyasis, but they have put themselves in a very dangerous position, which is completely unsuitable according to the rules and regulations of their varna and ashram." Srila Prabhupada expressed that ideally, the managers should be grihastas. However, he also appointed sannyasis and gave the GBC its mandate to manage, and defined its rules. He reaffirmed the role of the GBC in his will. Prabhupada sometimes corrected the GBC when it made errors in judgement. Since 1977, the GBC has had to regulate and discipline itself. We wish Prabhupada was personally present to continue his managerial guidance, but he's not. When Srila Prabhupada appointed the GBC members, he did not discriminate against sannyasis. Most of the GBC were undoubtedly "without any experience [or] training," but whether Prabhupada considered them without "proper qualification," I couldn't say. However, your comments do raise an interesting question: As the GBC was constituted, it has legislative (brahminical) and executive (ksatriya) duties. Should the GBC have evolved into system where those duties are performed by separate individuals? That's a tough one. In theory, the GBC could confine itself to legislating and the temple presidents could do the management. But, Srila Prabhupada defined the GBC as management. Additionally, we expect our temple managers to be perfect brahmanas -- as well as perfect ksatriyas. It appears the GBC agrees with your point on sannyasis. From the 1999 GBC resolutions: --------------------- 402. [ACTION ORDER] TOWARD GBC RESTRUCTURING THAT the GBC Body endorses the expressed feelings of many devotees around the world that its sannyasis and gurus should generally not be involved in administration and management services but rather concentrate their energies on services viewed traditionally as more brahminical and in keeping with their ashram and position as spiritual leaders such as ministering to devotees, study, teaching of shastra, development and teaching of training programs, increased individual hearing and chanting, etc. To this end the GBC Body requests the Task Force on GBC Reform and Restructuring to examine in detail how this end might be effectively achieved. The GBC Body encourages its current members to take steps towards this end. As a pilot project, the following GBC members are given consent to withdraw from their GBC zonal administrative duties by either: a. Identifying an individual devotee who can be trained to step into the role of GBC Zonal Secretary acting as his or her deputy during the transition or, b. Delegating his administrative and managerial duties to zonal committees established for the purpose. ------------------ To continue: "Because of their soft nature, they didn't know how to be hard towards the abusers, so abusers always escaped from being justly punished." All abusers did not escape punishment. After 1989, many abusers were turned over to local law enforcement authorities for investigation and punishment. However, that step alone does not guarantee punishment. Many abusers managed to place themselves beyond the law -- by time, location, or other means. "They never provided supervision of teachers and ashram leaders." After the breakup of the Dallas gurukula, most ISKCON schools became local affairs. Staffing was determined by local or zonal leaders. The quality of supervision of academic and ashram teachers varied considerably from school to school. "GBC pressured children's parents to send them away to guru kula schools." I think it's fair to say there was pressure -- not only by GBCs, but temple management also. More or less, grhastas were considered to be "in maya" if they wanted to keep their kids at home. However, keep in mind that the principle of sending the children away from home was clearly established by Srila Prabhupada. If Locanananda's account of Srila Prabhupada being told in 1975 about past abuse in Dallas (and it sounds like he is correct), we still have to consider the fact that Srila Prabhupada continued to endorsed the principle of the children going away from home for their education. "Investigation made by ISKCON's Office of Child Protection (OCP), has shown that more than 1000 children have been physically or sexually abused by 220 perpetrators." My understanding is, that at this time, the Office of Child Protection has not made an estimate of the number of possible victims. "For 15 years, most GBC men knew that molesting was going on in different gurukulas, but they didn't know how to stop it, until the victims themselves confronted GBC." The victims of abuse confronted the GBC in 1995. If I understand correctly, the implication here is that the GBC knew about the abuse since 1980, but did nothing. The GBC acknowledged the problem in 1988-89 and steps were taken to rectify the situation. Whether or not those steps were sufficient or effective is another matter. "GBC never punished abusers properly. They never brought criminal charges against them." GBC do not, and did not, have legal standing to press criminal charges against anyone. Temple managers were directed to inform the authorities when there was a suspicion of abuse. In most jurisdictions, the decision to bring charges and prosecute is the prerogative of local police and prosecutors -- assuming that the perpetrator is still in the local jurisdiction or another jurisdiction is willing to extradite the suspect. Parents have a right to bring civil suits while the child is a minor. After that, the victim can bring suit; but the period of time to bring suit is often restricted by a statute of limitation. "It is very difficult to perform proper therapy on the abused victims when the abusers are walking free in ISKCON, even taking important positions like Satadhanya." Satadhanya's case is being re-investigated. "So most abusers are still in ISKCON, waiting for a chance to strike again." We know about Satadhanya and Dhanurdhara. Could you please list the other 218 abusers and identify the "most" who are still in ISKCON, "waiting for a chance to strike again." Our communities need this list ASAP in order to protect our children. "How was it possible that GBC put the fate of ISKCON in the hands of such a sinful man, is it just for the sake of saving some money?" The fate of ISKCON is in the hands of Lord Caitanya. We may find it reprehensible that the GBC choose a child abusers to represent ISKCON; but we should never lose faith in Krishna's ability to right any wrong. He is so much better at it than we. "It is very distasteful seeing devotees criticizing gurukula victims for filing a law suit, and not criticizing the people who provoked the whole thing." Who has done such a thing? It is certainly not me, is it? Has pointing out the obvious wrong of suing Srila Prabhupada's house suddenly become a sin? Is there a new 10th process of devotional service, where two wrongs now make a right? Your servant, Sri Rama das [srirama (AT) bbt (DOT) se], or [srirama (AT) jps (DOT) net] < PLEASE NOTE THIS NEW EMAIL ADDRESS ============================ Janaka.HKS (AT) bbt (DOT) se [Janaka.HKS (AT) bbt (DOT) se] Thursday, December 09, 1999 4:48 AM COM: Varnasrama development Devotees leaving ISKCON I [Text 2843807 from COM] Dear devotees, Hare Krsna! Please accept my humble obeisances. All glories to Srila Prabhupada! In this letter I would like to talk about two problems which are very closely conected. First problem is related to the set of responsible people in our society, and the second problem is explaining:"Why are devotees leaving ISKCON"? Most devotees in our society when explaining causes of some problem usually emphasize only the following categorys: 1.The abusers 2.The abused 3.Confused 4. ? They usualy skip the most important set of people.They are called the RESPONSIBLE PEOPLE (ksatriyas). The group of people who are responsible for keeping law and order in our society.The people who are protecting the innocent and punishing the guilty ones.The people who are watching over every member of society, so the abuse dosn't take place. Devotees have tendency not to mention these set of people, because they are consisting of sannyasis who are also their gurus.Since we are not suppose to criticise our gurus, there is no question of responsibility in ISKCON. Second problem which I would like to talk about is: "Why are so many devotees leaving ISKCON and joining other maths or some anti-ISKCON organizations like: Ritviks, Pada, poison whispers etc..? It is well known that ISKCON has: -the most beautiful and opulent temples -the most beautiful deitys -the best guest facilitys -best prasadam -nice loveing devotees -nice loveing gurus So what is forceing these devotees to make such a drastic decision in their life, and to leave the shelter of our organization.Where did we go wrong? If the responsible people did their job properly, there would be very little or none abuse going on. Because of that there would be not much abusers also in ISKCON, and because of that, there would be little or none confused, agitated and angry devotees. We are all witnessing the heavy crises that ISKCON is experiencing right now.We can't solve old problems, which are hunting us like a terrible nightmare, and new ones are emerging one after another.Our responsible people (GBC), don't know how to deal with it, and because of that, the results are devastateing for ISKCON. We all know that our nice sannyasis have taken the role of ksatriyas for the sake of Srila Prabhupada and ISKCON. Without any experience, training and proper qualification, that demands the position of ksatriya, their task was beforhand sentenced to be a setback. Just so you dont get me wrong, we have very nice sannyasis, but they have put them selves in a very dangerous position, which is completely unsuitable according to the rulles and regulations of their varna and ashram. They never provided supervision of teachers and ashram leaders. GBC pressured childrens parents to send them away to guru kula schools. We should always pay respect to a sannyasi, but ksatriya has to deserve his respect by properly protecting every members of society. So what kind of devestateing effect am I talking about, that this type of brahminical management has caused, and why are devotees leaving ISKCON ? I will add some statistics and facts, so you can get a clear picture of the problem: 1.Investigation made by ISKCON's Office of Child Protection (OCP), has showen that more than 1 000 children have been phisicaly or sexualy abused by 220 perpetrators. 2.For 15 years, most GBC men knew that molesting was going on in different gurukulas, but they didnt know how to stop it, until the victims them selves confronted GBC. 3.GBC never punished abusers properly.They never brought criminal charges against them.Instead of handing them over to the police,GBC lightly punished a small number of 220 abusers by removing them from leadership positions and by prohibiting them from leading kirtan, giving class etc.., which is big nonsence.Just two years ago an ex-zonal Archarya guru who molested boys was heartly welcomed with a big kirtan in Mayapur.This kind of behaviour our GBC made many devotees turn against ISKCON and join Gaudiya Math or some anti- ISKCON organization. It is very difficult to perform proper therapy on the abused victims when the abusers are walking free in ISKCON, even takeing important positions like Satadhanya.So most abusers are still in ISKCON, waiting for a chance to strike again.Because of that, many children are still living in fear of their abusers.If we really want to help the abused children, than we have to first drive the abusers out of ISKCON.If punishment is properly inflicted after consideration, it makes all people happy (aspecialy the victims): but inflicted without consideration, it destroys everything. 4.The drop that spilled the glass was when 7 months ago, GBC rehabilitated notorious peadophile Satadhanya das, and chose him to represent them in the Calcutta high court, against Ritviks.Just few years ago Satadhanya was found guilty by the GBC themselvs of anal intercourse, and other gross acts of paedophilia against young boys.So bad was the abuse that one boy needed stitches. How was it possible that GBC put the fate of ISKCON in the hands of such a sinful man, is it just for the sake of saveing some money? This shameles decision made by GBC was a slap in the face to all gurukula victims and was destroying that little faith that devotees still have in ISKCON. It is no surprise that gurukula victims field a law suit against ISKCON, seeing how GBC is promoting sexual abusers. It is very distasteful seeing devotees criticizeing gurukula victims for fileing a law suit, and not criticizeing the people who provoked the whole thing. 5.We have so far two court cases against ISKCON in progress: a)Ritvik court case b)Gurukula court case The second one is threatening to completely destroy ISKCON, depriveing it of all the money, lend and temples. 6.Because of such unskilled dealings of our brahminical management, the number of anti-ISKCON organizations is constantly riseing.Now besides Ritviks, there is PADA, poison whispers etc.. 7.GBC also promised to pledge $ 750.000 to ISKCON's OCP.However, the representative of OCP has issued the following statement: "That pledg was a lie and the money never existed ". So what should we do to set things straight?What should we do to make ISKCON a better place for everybody except for the abusers? You will find my suggestion in the next letter. Your servant, Janaka das Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 15, 1999 Report Share Posted December 15, 1999 Hare Krishna, If you have a strong desire for reform, it should based on correct definitions of the problems. If your remarks are viewed as biased or uninformed, you will not get the broad-based support you wish and need. I have personal knowledge that some of the claims you make (or repeat from others) are not true (or are half-truths or over-simplifications). The facts surrounding ISCKON's failures are bad enough, without their being exaggerated or distorted. I must admit, I am mystified why so many seem to have full confidence in many of these assertions, without having first looked into their veracity. I'm going to limit myself here to making some brief comments. If there is a need to examine some points in more detail, I'll be happy to participate. I beg you to examine your claims in a more critical manner and make corrections where needed. "Devotees have tendency not to mention this set of people [GBC], because they are consisting of sannyasis who are also their gurus." There are currently 24 sannyasi and 12 non-sannyasi GBC members. In addition, the are 21 Deputy GBC, consisting of 3 sannyasi members and 19 non-sannyasi members. Most temple presidents and other managers are not sannyasis. "If the responsible people did their job properly, there would be very little or no abuse going on. Because of that there would be not much abusers also in ISKCON, and because of that, there would be little or none confused, agitated and angry devotees." If you are referring to child abuse, you are partially correct and partially incorrect. If ISKCON's leaders had been more on top of things, are lot of non-sexual abuse may have been prevented by good instruction and supervision. Preventing sexual abuse is more difficult because sexual abusers can spend years getting into an environment where they have free access to children. Sexual abusers don't respond to instruction. Increased vigilance helps, and some abusers with criminal histories can be flushed out through background checks. However, it is naive to think any degree of management can permanently rid ISKCON (or any group) of abusers. "We all know that our nice sannyasis have taken the role of ksatriyas for the sake of Srila Prabhupada and ISKCON. Without any experience, training and proper qualification, that demands the position of ksatriya, their task was beforehand sentenced to be a setback. Just so you don't get me wrong, we have very nice sannyasis, but they have put themselves in a very dangerous position, which is completely unsuitable according to the rules and regulations of their varna and ashram." Srila Prabhupada expressed that ideally, the managers should be grihastas. However, he also appointed sannyasis and gave the GBC its mandate to manage, and defined its rules. He reaffirmed the role of the GBC in his will. Prabhupada sometimes corrected the GBC when it made errors in judgement. Since 1977, the GBC has had to regulate and discipline itself. We wish Prabhupada was personally present to continue his managerial guidance, but he's not. When Srila Prabhupada appointed the GBC members, he did not discriminate against sannyasis. Most of the GBC were undoubtedly "without any experience [or] training," but whether Prabhupada considered them without "proper qualification," I couldn't say. However, your comments do raise an interesting question: As the GBC was constituted, it has legislative (brahminical) and executive (ksatriya) duties. Should the GBC have evolved into system where those duties are performed by separate individuals? That's a tough one. In theory, the GBC could confine itself to legislating and the temple presidents could do the management. But, Srila Prabhupada defined the GBC as management. Additionally, we expect our temple managers to be perfect brahmanas -- as well as perfect ksatriyas. It appears the GBC agrees with your point on sannyasis. From the 1999 GBC resolutions: --------------------- 402. [ACTION ORDER] TOWARD GBC RESTRUCTURING THAT the GBC Body endorses the expressed feelings of many devotees around the world that its sannyasis and gurus should generally not be involved in administration and management services but rather concentrate their energies on services viewed traditionally as more brahminical and in keeping with their ashram and position as spiritual leaders such as ministering to devotees, study, teaching of shastra, development and teaching of training programs, increased individual hearing and chanting, etc. To this end the GBC Body requests the Task Force on GBC Reform and Restructuring to examine in detail how this end might be effectively achieved. The GBC Body encourages its current members to take steps towards this end. As a pilot project, the following GBC members are given consent to withdraw from their GBC zonal administrative duties by either: a. Identifying an individual devotee who can be trained to step into the role of GBC Zonal Secretary acting as his or her deputy during the transition or, b. Delegating his administrative and managerial duties to zonal committees established for the purpose. ------------------ To continue: "Because of their soft nature, they didn't know how to be hard towards the abusers, so abusers always escaped from being justly punished." All abusers did not escape punishment. After 1989, many abusers were turned over to local law enforcement authorities for investigation and punishment. However, that step alone does not guarantee punishment. Many abusers managed to place themselves beyond the law -- by time, location, or other means. "They never provided supervision of teachers and ashram leaders." After the breakup of the Dallas gurukula, most ISKCON schools became local affairs. Staffing was determined by local or zonal leaders. The quality of supervision of academic and ashram teachers varied considerably from school to school. "GBC pressured children's parents to send them away to guru kula schools." I think it's fair to say there was pressure -- not only by GBCs, but temple management also. More or less, grhastas were considered to be "in maya" if they wanted to keep their kids at home. However, keep in mind that the principle of sending the children away from home was clearly established by Srila Prabhupada. If Locanananda's account of Srila Prabhupada being told in 1975 about past abuse in Dallas (and it sounds like he is correct), we still have to consider the fact that Srila Prabhupada continued to endorsed the principle of the children going away from home for their education. "Investigation made by ISKCON's Office of Child Protection (OCP), has shown that more than 1000 children have been physically or sexually abused by 220 perpetrators." My understanding is, that at this time, the Office of Child Protection has not made an estimate of the number of possible victims. "For 15 years, most GBC men knew that molesting was going on in different gurukulas, but they didn't know how to stop it, until the victims themselves confronted GBC." The victims of abuse confronted the GBC in 1995. If I understand correctly, the implication here is that the GBC knew about the abuse since 1980, but did nothing. The GBC acknowledged the problem in 1988-89 and steps were taken to rectify the situation. Whether or not those steps were sufficient or effective is another matter. "GBC never punished abusers properly. They never brought criminal charges against them." GBC do not, and did not, have legal standing to press criminal charges against anyone. Temple managers were directed to inform the authorities when there was a suspicion of abuse. In most jurisdictions, the decision to bring charges and prosecute is the prerogative of local police and prosecutors -- assuming that the perpetrator is still in the local jurisdiction or another jurisdiction is willing to extradite the suspect. Parents have a right to bring civil suits while the child is a minor. After that, the victim can bring suit; but the period of time to bring suit is often restricted by a statute of limitation. "It is very difficult to perform proper therapy on the abused victims when the abusers are walking free in ISKCON, even taking important positions like Satadhanya." Satadhanya's case is being re-investigated. "So most abusers are still in ISKCON, waiting for a chance to strike again." We know about Satadhanya and Dhanurdhara. Could you please list the other 218 abusers and identify the "most" who are still in ISKCON, "waiting for a chance to strike again." Our communities need this list ASAP in order to protect our children. "How was it possible that GBC put the fate of ISKCON in the hands of such a sinful man, is it just for the sake of saving some money?" The fate of ISKCON is in the hands of Lord Caitanya. We may find it reprehensible that the GBC choose a child abusers to represent ISKCON; but we should never lose faith in Krishna's ability to right any wrong. He is so much better at it than we. "It is very distasteful seeing devotees criticizing gurukula victims for filing a law suit, and not criticizing the people who provoked the whole thing." Who has done such a thing? It is certainly not me, is it? Has pointing out the obvious wrong of suing Srila Prabhupada's house suddenly become a sin? Is there a new 10th process of devotional service, where two wrongs now make a right? Your servant, Sri Rama das [srirama (AT) bbt (DOT) se], or [srirama (AT) jps (DOT) net] < PLEASE NOTE THIS NEW EMAIL ADDRESS ============================ Janaka.HKS (AT) bbt (DOT) se [Janaka.HKS (AT) bbt (DOT) se] Thursday, December 09, 1999 4:48 AM COM: Varnasrama development Devotees leaving ISKCON I [Text 2843807 from COM] Dear devotees, Hare Krsna! Please accept my humble obeisances. All glories to Srila Prabhupada! In this letter I would like to talk about two problems which are very closely conected. First problem is related to the set of responsible people in our society, and the second problem is explaining:"Why are devotees leaving ISKCON"? Most devotees in our society when explaining causes of some problem usually emphasize only the following categorys: 1.The abusers 2.The abused 3.Confused 4. ? They usualy skip the most important set of people.They are called the RESPONSIBLE PEOPLE (ksatriyas). The group of people who are responsible for keeping law and order in our society.The people who are protecting the innocent and punishing the guilty ones.The people who are watching over every member of society, so the abuse dosn't take place. Devotees have tendency not to mention these set of people, because they are consisting of sannyasis who are also their gurus.Since we are not suppose to criticise our gurus, there is no question of responsibility in ISKCON. Second problem which I would like to talk about is: "Why are so many devotees leaving ISKCON and joining other maths or some anti-ISKCON organizations like: Ritviks, Pada, poison whispers etc..? It is well known that ISKCON has: -the most beautiful and opulent temples -the most beautiful deitys -the best guest facilitys -best prasadam -nice loveing devotees -nice loveing gurus So what is forceing these devotees to make such a drastic decision in their life, and to leave the shelter of our organization.Where did we go wrong? If the responsible people did their job properly, there would be very little or none abuse going on. Because of that there would be not much abusers also in ISKCON, and because of that, there would be little or none confused, agitated and angry devotees. We are all witnessing the heavy crises that ISKCON is experiencing right now.We can't solve old problems, which are hunting us like a terrible nightmare, and new ones are emerging one after another.Our responsible people (GBC), don't know how to deal with it, and because of that, the results are devastateing for ISKCON. We all know that our nice sannyasis have taken the role of ksatriyas for the sake of Srila Prabhupada and ISKCON. Without any experience, training and proper qualification, that demands the position of ksatriya, their task was beforhand sentenced to be a setback. Just so you dont get me wrong, we have very nice sannyasis, but they have put them selves in a very dangerous position, which is completely unsuitable according to the rulles and regulations of their varna and ashram. They never provided supervision of teachers and ashram leaders. GBC pressured childrens parents to send them away to guru kula schools. We should always pay respect to a sannyasi, but ksatriya has to deserve his respect by properly protecting every members of society. So what kind of devestateing effect am I talking about, that this type of brahminical management has caused, and why are devotees leaving ISKCON ? I will add some statistics and facts, so you can get a clear picture of the problem: 1.Investigation made by ISKCON's Office of Child Protection (OCP), has showen that more than 1 000 children have been phisicaly or sexualy abused by 220 perpetrators. 2.For 15 years, most GBC men knew that molesting was going on in different gurukulas, but they didnt know how to stop it, until the victims them selves confronted GBC. 3.GBC never punished abusers properly.They never brought criminal charges against them.Instead of handing them over to the police,GBC lightly punished a small number of 220 abusers by removing them from leadership positions and by prohibiting them from leading kirtan, giving class etc.., which is big nonsence.Just two years ago an ex-zonal Archarya guru who molested boys was heartly welcomed with a big kirtan in Mayapur.This kind of behaviour our GBC made many devotees turn against ISKCON and join Gaudiya Math or some anti- ISKCON organization. It is very difficult to perform proper therapy on the abused victims when the abusers are walking free in ISKCON, even takeing important positions like Satadhanya.So most abusers are still in ISKCON, waiting for a chance to strike again.Because of that, many children are still living in fear of their abusers.If we really want to help the abused children, than we have to first drive the abusers out of ISKCON.If punishment is properly inflicted after consideration, it makes all people happy (aspecialy the victims): but inflicted without consideration, it destroys everything. 4.The drop that spilled the glass was when 7 months ago, GBC rehabilitated notorious peadophile Satadhanya das, and chose him to represent them in the Calcutta high court, against Ritviks.Just few years ago Satadhanya was found guilty by the GBC themselvs of anal intercourse, and other gross acts of paedophilia against young boys.So bad was the abuse that one boy needed stitches. How was it possible that GBC put the fate of ISKCON in the hands of such a sinful man, is it just for the sake of saveing some money? This shameles decision made by GBC was a slap in the face to all gurukula victims and was destroying that little faith that devotees still have in ISKCON. It is no surprise that gurukula victims field a law suit against ISKCON, seeing how GBC is promoting sexual abusers. It is very distasteful seeing devotees criticizeing gurukula victims for fileing a law suit, and not criticizeing the people who provoked the whole thing. 5.We have so far two court cases against ISKCON in progress: a)Ritvik court case b)Gurukula court case The second one is threatening to completely destroy ISKCON, depriveing it of all the money, lend and temples. 6.Because of such unskilled dealings of our brahminical management, the number of anti-ISKCON organizations is constantly riseing.Now besides Ritviks, there is PADA, poison whispers etc.. 7.GBC also promised to pledge $ 750.000 to ISKCON's OCP.However, the representative of OCP has issued the following statement: "That pledg was a lie and the money never existed ". So what should we do to set things straight?What should we do to make ISKCON a better place for everybody except for the abusers? You will find my suggestion in the next letter. Your servant, Janaka das Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 18, 1999 Report Share Posted December 18, 1999 Dear Sri Ram Prabhu, Hare Krsna. Please accept my humble obeisances. All glories to Srila Prabhupada. Sri Ram Prabhu wrote; >I have personal knowledge that some of the claims you make (or repeat >from > others) are not true (or are half-truths or over-simplifications). > > The facts surrounding ISCKON's failures are bad enough, without their > being exaggerated or distorted. I must admit, I am mystified why so many > seem to have full confidence in many of these assertions, without having > first looked into their veracity. Thank you for commenting Prabhu.However, I must not agree with some of your statements.I don't usualy have a habit to say or write something before checking it out first, from the proper sources.That also accounts for the assertions that I made in my two previous letters titled:"Devotees leaving ISKCON I and II", which I would like to prove now. >> "Devotees have tendency not to mention this set of people [GBC], >> because they are consisting of sannyasis who are also their gurus." > There are currently 24 sannyasi and 12 non-sannyasi GBC members. In > addition, the are 21 Deputy GBC, consisting of 3 sannyasi members and 19 > non-sannyasi members. Most temple presidents and other managers are not > sannyasis. Unfortunately, you pulled this sentence out out of context and because of that, you are commenting the unimportant part of the text.The whole text goes like this: " Devotees have tendency not to mention these set of people, because they are consisting of sannyasis who are also their gurus.Since we are not suppose to criticise our gurus, there is no question of resposibility in ISKCON ". So the point is; "There is no question of responsibility in ISKCON because devotees a scared to judge or evaluate the work of GBC, because GBC is consisting of sannyasis who are also their gurus which they are not suppose to criticize". But term; consisisting of sannyasis or consisting mostly of sannyasis, is totaly irrelevant for the point that I was makeing.Anyway, most devotees in ISKCON allready know that fact, that GBC is mostly consited of sannyasis. >> "If the responsible people did their job properly, there would be very >> little or no abuse going on. Because of that there would be not much >> abusers also in ISKCON, and because of that, there would be little or >> none confused, agitated and angry devotees." > If you are referring to child abuse, you are partially correct and > partially incorrect. > > Sexual abusers don't respond to instruction. No they don't.They respond to punishment. They don't respond to instructions because there is no authority in ISKCON that they should be afraid of.It is not enough to have only good laws nad resolutions, without haveing qualified people (ksatriyas) to aply those laws on the society. It is been said: "Punishment alone governs all created beings, punishment alone protects them, punishment watches over them while they sleep; the wise declare punishment (to be identical with) the law".This statement is only valid If punishment is propely inflicted with consideration, otherwise it destroyes everything. > However, it is naive to think any degree of > management can permanently rid ISKCON (or any group) of abusers. I dont agree with you Prabhu. We can permanently get rid of abusers that we know of, by banishing them from ISKCON.This will set an example for others who are planing to use ISKCON for achieving their morbid plans.Then they will think twice before trying enything stupid.If we have a management that is determined and severe in protecting every member of our society, we can achive that goal.It is also been said: "By him who is pure (and) faithful to his promise, who acts according to the Institutes (of the sacred law), who has good assistants and is wise, punishment can be justly inflicted". So it is possible, if qualified brahmanas get qualified assistants, the ksatriyas. > It appears the GBC agrees with your point on sannyasis. From the 1999 > GBC resolutions: This is very nice to hear. >>"Because of their soft nature, they didn't know how to be hard towards >>the abusers, so the abusers always escaped from being justly punished". >Many abusers managed to place themselves beyond the law--by time, >location, or other means. This is because there are no law enforceing people in our society (ksatriyas). >>"Investigation made by ISKCON's Office OF Child Protection (OCP),has >>shown that more than 1 000 children have been physically or sexually >>abused by 220 perpetrators". >My understanding is, that at this time, the Office of Child Protection >has not made an estimate of the number of possible victims. This is a part of a letter that Dhira Govinda Prabhu, the Director of ISKCON Central Office of Child Protection has send to me on the 1.May.99.; * We do have a pretty good idea of how many abusers there were.Currently the Child Protection Office has case files for about 220 alleged child abusers. Also, the answer to your question depends a lot on how child abuse is defined.If we include a broad defenition of physical, sexual and emotional abuse, then probably more than 1 000 children were abused while they were children under the care of ISKCON.I estimate there have been about 200-300 victims of sexual abuse. * So there is an estimation of number of possible victims, and there is an accurate estimation af all abusers which all have case files.That means that mine statement above is not untrue, half-true, exaggerated or distorted as you apply. Devotees are intitled to know the truth, especialy the abused children: we owe them that much. >>"For 15 years, most GBC men knew that molesting was going on in >>different gurukulas,but they didn't know how to stop it, until the >>victims themselves confronted GBC". >The victims of abuse confronted the GBC in 1995.If I understand >correctly, the implication here is that the GBC knew about the abuse >since 1980, but did nothing.The GBC acknowledged the problem in 1988-89 >and steps were taken to rectify the situacione.Whether or not these steps >were sufficient or effective is another matter. >If Locanananda's account of Srila Prabhupada being told in 1975 about >past abuse in Dallas (and it sounds like he is correct), we still have to >consider the fact that Srila Prabhupada continued to endorse the >principle of the children going away from home for their education. My assertions are based on statements made by some older devotees, who said: "That they knew that abuse was going on even 15 years ago and that other people also knew". Considering the statement that you just made about Locanananda Prbhu telling Srila Prabhupada in the year 1975. about child abuse in guru kula school in Dallas, my assertion seem to be very much true. That means that GBC did not first time acknowledge the problem of child abuse in year 1988-89., but actually 20 years ago in 1975.Considering that ISKCON's Child Protection Office had only been established in April 1998., there is a big gap in between of actualy something concrete been done about this probem. >>So most abusers are still in ISKCON, waiting for a chance to strike >>again" >We know about Satadhanya and Dhanurdhara.Could you please list the other >218 abusers and identify the "most" who are still in ISKCON, "waiting for >a chance to strike again".Our communities need this list ASAP in order to >protect our children. OK, I am sending you a list of 18 names mentioned in Dhira Govinda Prabhus letter send to me on the 4.Apr.99. This is part of a letter from Dhira Govinda prabhu: *Curently, the cases of Hunkara das (vrndavana), Kurma Avatara dasa (Kenneth Theodore Capoferi - Los Angeles), and several persons accused of sexual child abuse in Mayapur are being reviewed by panals of judges (some names of alleged abusers are confidential because they are accused of abusive incidents when they were adolescents). A case of file has been prepared in the case of Dhanurdhara Maharaja (Vrndavana Gurukula), and the file has been sent to him so that he can respond to all allegations.Other cases that are being actively investigated include Anila dasa (Scott Langsdon-Mayapur), Sri Galima das (Gary Gardner- New Vrndavana), Satadhanya das (Mayapur), Diviratha dasa (Dirk Bucher- Germany and Vrndavana), Adiraja das (Anand Nahadoo Nepal and Mauritius), Ananta Rupa das (Vrndavana), Atmabhavana dasa (Arturo Sanjuan Habiba- Vrndavana), Chakradari dasa (Charles Stevenson Colorado), Kripa Kara dasa (Keith Foley - Australia), Krsnapada dasa (Krsnapada Mondal - New Zeland), Laxmipati dasa (Joe Luiz Martinez - France), Manihar dasa (Matthew Norton- New Vrndavana and Vrndavana), Murari Gupta dasa (Melville Moncrieff - Mayapur), Niragadeva dasa (Vrndavana), Sastra dasa (Peter Chatterton - Vancouver), Visnuratha dasa (Beat Soldermann - France and Switzerland), and Gobhatta dasa (Lacinio Pichardo - Dominican Republic).The Office of Child Protection has many other case files that are also waiting to be investigated. * So, Dhira Govinda Prabhu says that: " OCP has * many * other case files that are waiting to be investigated.That means while the investigation is going on, some 220 abusers are wondering about somwhere in ISKCON. I am a little bit surprised that you don't know this fact concerning the number of abusers, and part from Satadhanaya and Dhanurdhara that you don't know any other abusers that are still in ISKCON. If you want to know the names of other 202 abusers, please call ISKCON's Child Protection Ofice, I am sure that they will be very happy to assist you in that way. I would like to take this opportunity to thank Dhira Govinda Prabhu and Mataji Madhusudani Radha, and all other nice devotees from ISKCON's Child Protection Office, for doing nice job in helping the abused victims, and shading so much light on the identity of perpetrators. Your servant, Janaka das Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 18, 1999 Report Share Posted December 18, 1999 Dear Sri Ram Prabhu, Hare Krsna. Please accept my humble obeisances. All glories to Srila Prabhupada. Sri Ram Prabhu wrote; >I have personal knowledge that some of the claims you make (or repeat >from > others) are not true (or are half-truths or over-simplifications). > > The facts surrounding ISCKON's failures are bad enough, without their > being exaggerated or distorted. I must admit, I am mystified why so many > seem to have full confidence in many of these assertions, without having > first looked into their veracity. Thank you for commenting Prabhu.However, I must not agree with some of your statements.I don't usualy have a habit to say or write something before checking it out first, from the proper sources.That also accounts for the assertions that I made in my two previous letters titled:"Devotees leaving ISKCON I and II", which I would like to prove now. >> "Devotees have tendency not to mention this set of people [GBC], >> because they are consisting of sannyasis who are also their gurus." > There are currently 24 sannyasi and 12 non-sannyasi GBC members. In > addition, the are 21 Deputy GBC, consisting of 3 sannyasi members and 19 > non-sannyasi members. Most temple presidents and other managers are not > sannyasis. Unfortunately, you pulled this sentence out out of context and because of that, you are commenting the unimportant part of the text.The whole text goes like this: " Devotees have tendency not to mention these set of people, because they are consisting of sannyasis who are also their gurus.Since we are not suppose to criticise our gurus, there is no question of resposibility in ISKCON ". So the point is; "There is no question of responsibility in ISKCON because devotees a scared to judge or evaluate the work of GBC, because GBC is consisting of sannyasis who are also their gurus which they are not suppose to criticize". But term; consisisting of sannyasis or consisting mostly of sannyasis, is totaly irrelevant for the point that I was makeing.Anyway, most devotees in ISKCON allready know that fact, that GBC is mostly consited of sannyasis. >> "If the responsible people did their job properly, there would be very >> little or no abuse going on. Because of that there would be not much >> abusers also in ISKCON, and because of that, there would be little or >> none confused, agitated and angry devotees." > If you are referring to child abuse, you are partially correct and > partially incorrect. > > Sexual abusers don't respond to instruction. No they don't.They respond to punishment. They don't respond to instructions because there is no authority in ISKCON that they should be afraid of.It is not enough to have only good laws nad resolutions, without haveing qualified people (ksatriyas) to aply those laws on the society. It is been said: "Punishment alone governs all created beings, punishment alone protects them, punishment watches over them while they sleep; the wise declare punishment (to be identical with) the law".This statement is only valid If punishment is propely inflicted with consideration, otherwise it destroyes everything. > However, it is naive to think any degree of > management can permanently rid ISKCON (or any group) of abusers. I dont agree with you Prabhu. We can permanently get rid of abusers that we know of, by banishing them from ISKCON.This will set an example for others who are planing to use ISKCON for achieving their morbid plans.Then they will think twice before trying enything stupid.If we have a management that is determined and severe in protecting every member of our society, we can achive that goal.It is also been said: "By him who is pure (and) faithful to his promise, who acts according to the Institutes (of the sacred law), who has good assistants and is wise, punishment can be justly inflicted". So it is possible, if qualified brahmanas get qualified assistants, the ksatriyas. > It appears the GBC agrees with your point on sannyasis. From the 1999 > GBC resolutions: This is very nice to hear. >>"Because of their soft nature, they didn't know how to be hard towards >>the abusers, so the abusers always escaped from being justly punished". >Many abusers managed to place themselves beyond the law--by time, >location, or other means. This is because there are no law enforceing people in our society (ksatriyas). >>"Investigation made by ISKCON's Office OF Child Protection (OCP),has >>shown that more than 1 000 children have been physically or sexually >>abused by 220 perpetrators". >My understanding is, that at this time, the Office of Child Protection >has not made an estimate of the number of possible victims. This is a part of a letter that Dhira Govinda Prabhu, the Director of ISKCON Central Office of Child Protection has send to me on the 1.May.99.; * We do have a pretty good idea of how many abusers there were.Currently the Child Protection Office has case files for about 220 alleged child abusers. Also, the answer to your question depends a lot on how child abuse is defined.If we include a broad defenition of physical, sexual and emotional abuse, then probably more than 1 000 children were abused while they were children under the care of ISKCON.I estimate there have been about 200-300 victims of sexual abuse. * So there is an estimation of number of possible victims, and there is an accurate estimation af all abusers which all have case files.That means that mine statement above is not untrue, half-true, exaggerated or distorted as you apply. Devotees are intitled to know the truth, especialy the abused children: we owe them that much. >>"For 15 years, most GBC men knew that molesting was going on in >>different gurukulas,but they didn't know how to stop it, until the >>victims themselves confronted GBC". >The victims of abuse confronted the GBC in 1995.If I understand >correctly, the implication here is that the GBC knew about the abuse >since 1980, but did nothing.The GBC acknowledged the problem in 1988-89 >and steps were taken to rectify the situacione.Whether or not these steps >were sufficient or effective is another matter. >If Locanananda's account of Srila Prabhupada being told in 1975 about >past abuse in Dallas (and it sounds like he is correct), we still have to >consider the fact that Srila Prabhupada continued to endorse the >principle of the children going away from home for their education. My assertions are based on statements made by some older devotees, who said: "That they knew that abuse was going on even 15 years ago and that other people also knew". Considering the statement that you just made about Locanananda Prbhu telling Srila Prabhupada in the year 1975. about child abuse in guru kula school in Dallas, my assertion seem to be very much true. That means that GBC did not first time acknowledge the problem of child abuse in year 1988-89., but actually 20 years ago in 1975.Considering that ISKCON's Child Protection Office had only been established in April 1998., there is a big gap in between of actualy something concrete been done about this probem. >>So most abusers are still in ISKCON, waiting for a chance to strike >>again" >We know about Satadhanya and Dhanurdhara.Could you please list the other >218 abusers and identify the "most" who are still in ISKCON, "waiting for >a chance to strike again".Our communities need this list ASAP in order to >protect our children. OK, I am sending you a list of 18 names mentioned in Dhira Govinda Prabhus letter send to me on the 4.Apr.99. This is part of a letter from Dhira Govinda prabhu: *Curently, the cases of Hunkara das (vrndavana), Kurma Avatara dasa (Kenneth Theodore Capoferi - Los Angeles), and several persons accused of sexual child abuse in Mayapur are being reviewed by panals of judges (some names of alleged abusers are confidential because they are accused of abusive incidents when they were adolescents). A case of file has been prepared in the case of Dhanurdhara Maharaja (Vrndavana Gurukula), and the file has been sent to him so that he can respond to all allegations.Other cases that are being actively investigated include Anila dasa (Scott Langsdon-Mayapur), Sri Galima das (Gary Gardner- New Vrndavana), Satadhanya das (Mayapur), Diviratha dasa (Dirk Bucher- Germany and Vrndavana), Adiraja das (Anand Nahadoo Nepal and Mauritius), Ananta Rupa das (Vrndavana), Atmabhavana dasa (Arturo Sanjuan Habiba- Vrndavana), Chakradari dasa (Charles Stevenson Colorado), Kripa Kara dasa (Keith Foley - Australia), Krsnapada dasa (Krsnapada Mondal - New Zeland), Laxmipati dasa (Joe Luiz Martinez - France), Manihar dasa (Matthew Norton- New Vrndavana and Vrndavana), Murari Gupta dasa (Melville Moncrieff - Mayapur), Niragadeva dasa (Vrndavana), Sastra dasa (Peter Chatterton - Vancouver), Visnuratha dasa (Beat Soldermann - France and Switzerland), and Gobhatta dasa (Lacinio Pichardo - Dominican Republic).The Office of Child Protection has many other case files that are also waiting to be investigated. * So, Dhira Govinda Prabhu says that: " OCP has * many * other case files that are waiting to be investigated.That means while the investigation is going on, some 220 abusers are wondering about somwhere in ISKCON. I am a little bit surprised that you don't know this fact concerning the number of abusers, and part from Satadhanaya and Dhanurdhara that you don't know any other abusers that are still in ISKCON. If you want to know the names of other 202 abusers, please call ISKCON's Child Protection Ofice, I am sure that they will be very happy to assist you in that way. I would like to take this opportunity to thank Dhira Govinda Prabhu and Mataji Madhusudani Radha, and all other nice devotees from ISKCON's Child Protection Office, for doing nice job in helping the abused victims, and shading so much light on the identity of perpetrators. Your servant, Janaka das Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 18, 1999 Report Share Posted December 18, 1999 Sri Ram Prabhu wrote: >Satadhanya's case is being re-investigated. Concerning gurukula abuse or for putting him in charge of Ritvik court case? Everything I said about Satadhanya is true, and to back that up I am sending you this letter from Vipramokya Swami to Hari Sauri Prabhu: > Letter COM:2436537 (34 lines) > Comment: Text COM:2437219 by Hari Sauri (das) ACBSP > Satyadhanya defending ISKCON? > --------------------------- > Dear Hari Sauri Prabhu, et al, > > Please accept my humble obeisances. All glories to Srila Prabhupada. > >> Now whether the GBC feel that having him represent them is too big of a >> liability or not, that is for them to decide. All I can say in this >> regard is that he is doing a good job, he has dedicated a tremendous >> amount of time and energy into this case and is certainly competent to >> handle it. > > Personally, I would prefer not having my name connected in any way > whatsoever with Satadhanya. If Adri wants to sue me, fine, but I don't > want my name associated with Satadhanya. He will bring (and is presently > bringing) disasterous public relations to ISKCON by being involved with > this case in any way. > > I'm glad I waited before sending my "power of attorney" off to him. I > think I will prefer to hold off on that. I am not sending mine now. > >> Whatever way the GBC decides to deal with this, it should be >> considered carefully that Satadhanya is playing an important role in >> helping to counter the ritviks attempts to destroy the current >> leadership of this movement. His removal from this service would >> greatly hamper the GBC and would fall right into the hands of the >> ritviks. > > With all due respect, Satadhanya's name is dirt, and having him > associated in any way whatsoever in this will simply fuel the ritvik > fire more and more. Even my hearing his name associated with this makes > me not want to have anything to do with it, and VNN will continue to > have a festival at our expense. Someone may see that as helpful, but the > PR damage is unbelievable. Please stop this, it's causing more people to > lose whatever fading faith they still have left in ISKCON. > > Your servant, > Vipramukhya Swami > (Text COM:2436537) -------- When I propsed the following changes to be made, in my letter "Devotees leaving ISKON II", this is the kinde of most qualified brahmanas that I had in minde, that will supervise Ksatriyas in the sence if they are governing according to religious principles.Why Vipramukhya Swami?Because part from being very pure, Vipramukhya Swami is actting according to religious principles, and is liveing out to his moral responsibilitys. Your servant, Janaka das Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 18, 1999 Report Share Posted December 18, 1999 Sri Ram Prabhu wrote: >Satadhanya's case is being re-investigated. Concerning gurukula abuse or for putting him in charge of Ritvik court case? Everything I said about Satadhanya is true, and to back that up I am sending you this letter from Vipramokya Swami to Hari Sauri Prabhu: > Letter COM:2436537 (34 lines) > Comment: Text COM:2437219 by Hari Sauri (das) ACBSP > Satyadhanya defending ISKCON? > --------------------------- > Dear Hari Sauri Prabhu, et al, > > Please accept my humble obeisances. All glories to Srila Prabhupada. > >> Now whether the GBC feel that having him represent them is too big of a >> liability or not, that is for them to decide. All I can say in this >> regard is that he is doing a good job, he has dedicated a tremendous >> amount of time and energy into this case and is certainly competent to >> handle it. > > Personally, I would prefer not having my name connected in any way > whatsoever with Satadhanya. If Adri wants to sue me, fine, but I don't > want my name associated with Satadhanya. He will bring (and is presently > bringing) disasterous public relations to ISKCON by being involved with > this case in any way. > > I'm glad I waited before sending my "power of attorney" off to him. I > think I will prefer to hold off on that. I am not sending mine now. > >> Whatever way the GBC decides to deal with this, it should be >> considered carefully that Satadhanya is playing an important role in >> helping to counter the ritviks attempts to destroy the current >> leadership of this movement. His removal from this service would >> greatly hamper the GBC and would fall right into the hands of the >> ritviks. > > With all due respect, Satadhanya's name is dirt, and having him > associated in any way whatsoever in this will simply fuel the ritvik > fire more and more. Even my hearing his name associated with this makes > me not want to have anything to do with it, and VNN will continue to > have a festival at our expense. Someone may see that as helpful, but the > PR damage is unbelievable. Please stop this, it's causing more people to > lose whatever fading faith they still have left in ISKCON. > > Your servant, > Vipramukhya Swami > (Text COM:2436537) -------- When I propsed the following changes to be made, in my letter "Devotees leaving ISKON II", this is the kinde of most qualified brahmanas that I had in minde, that will supervise Ksatriyas in the sence if they are governing according to religious principles.Why Vipramukhya Swami?Because part from being very pure, Vipramukhya Swami is actting according to religious principles, and is liveing out to his moral responsibilitys. Your servant, Janaka das Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 19, 1999 Report Share Posted December 19, 1999 Haribol As a newbie to ISKCON Can any one answer this question for me? If these people are being investigated by our/your office of child protective services. Why haven't you guys called the police? I can be considered an accomplice if I know or think a child is being molested and did not call the police and report it, in the state I live in! I understand it is being done for current cases, was it done in the past? If so how far in the past? I have a fat little grandson, still in diapers who may go To an ISKCON school if he comes to live with me. I am not the kind of person to tolerate anyone hurting my children. If I hear about it and my child or grand child was involved you will only find a blood trail to the river, and the child molester will never be heard of again. Am I so weird as to want my family safe from predators? Has no one ever struck out and attacked even one of the low life perverts? Perhaps you had better not list the names and countries of these scum. There are people like me who would think that ridding the world of this type of unspeakable filth as simply weed eradication, an unfortunate necessity and get on with it! Carol Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 19, 1999 Report Share Posted December 19, 1999 Haribol As a newbie to ISKCON Can any one answer this question for me? If these people are being investigated by our/your office of child protective services. Why haven't you guys called the police? I can be considered an accomplice if I know or think a child is being molested and did not call the police and report it, in the state I live in! I understand it is being done for current cases, was it done in the past? If so how far in the past? I have a fat little grandson, still in diapers who may go To an ISKCON school if he comes to live with me. I am not the kind of person to tolerate anyone hurting my children. If I hear about it and my child or grand child was involved you will only find a blood trail to the river, and the child molester will never be heard of again. Am I so weird as to want my family safe from predators? Has no one ever struck out and attacked even one of the low life perverts? Perhaps you had better not list the names and countries of these scum. There are people like me who would think that ridding the world of this type of unspeakable filth as simply weed eradication, an unfortunate necessity and get on with it! Carol Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 19, 1999 Report Share Posted December 19, 1999 At 19:15 -0500 12/18/1999, DGilsen (AT) aol (DOT) com wrote: > > As a newbie to ISKCON Can any one answer this question for me? If these >people are being investigated by our/your office of child protective >services. Why haven't you guys called the police? The police is called for all current cases. As far as I understand, they are only called re. past cases (most of which are 10-20 years old) if the victim is willing to press charges. Many of these events also took place in other countries, which makes reporting even more complicated. Still, they are investigated internally for the protection of current ISKCON children. If you want specific information, please write to the head of the ISKCON child protection office <DGovinda (AT) aol (DOT) com> > I have a fat little grandson, still in diapers who may go To an ISKCON >school if he comes to live with me. I am not the kind of person to tolerate >anyone hurting my children. Good. It's best to be an informed parent/guardian and thoroughly investigate any school (ISKCon and non-ISKCON) before sending your children there. After you have decided you're comfortable with them, I'd still recommend making surprise visits. Any school that doesn't allow those should be suspected as having something to hide. Ys, Madhusudani dasi Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 19, 1999 Report Share Posted December 19, 1999 At 19:15 -0500 12/18/1999, DGilsen (AT) aol (DOT) com wrote: > > As a newbie to ISKCON Can any one answer this question for me? If these >people are being investigated by our/your office of child protective >services. Why haven't you guys called the police? The police is called for all current cases. As far as I understand, they are only called re. past cases (most of which are 10-20 years old) if the victim is willing to press charges. Many of these events also took place in other countries, which makes reporting even more complicated. Still, they are investigated internally for the protection of current ISKCON children. If you want specific information, please write to the head of the ISKCON child protection office <DGovinda (AT) aol (DOT) com> > I have a fat little grandson, still in diapers who may go To an ISKCON >school if he comes to live with me. I am not the kind of person to tolerate >anyone hurting my children. Good. It's best to be an informed parent/guardian and thoroughly investigate any school (ISKCon and non-ISKCON) before sending your children there. After you have decided you're comfortable with them, I'd still recommend making surprise visits. Any school that doesn't allow those should be suspected as having something to hide. Ys, Madhusudani dasi Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 19, 1999 Report Share Posted December 19, 1999 DGilsen (AT) aol (DOT) com wrote: > [Text 2868815 from COM] > > Haribol > As a newbie to ISKCON Can any one answer this question for me? If these > people are being investigated by our/your office of child protective > services. Why haven't you guys called the police? I can be considered an > accomplice if I know or think a child is being molested and did not call the > police and report it, in the state I live in! I understand it is being done > for current cases, was it done in the past? If so how far in the past? One problem is that it is such a quiet and discreet crime, usually by someone who in all other aspects is a well respected and known neighbor, friend or relative. Also, not every allegation is true, even if many or most are. In the case of Sri Galim, he was investigated by authorities, even arrested, but charges were eventually dropped, as it was not possible to make an evidentiary case against him. So the punishment he did get ( essentially banishment) could only come from devotees, as the hands of law enforcement were tied by rule. And what the devotees can do is also limited by law. If you physically attack an abuser, you are guilty of assault and battery, regardless of what he was alledged to have done. And if you tell me you are going to attack someone and do so, and I don't report it, I am a passive co-conspirator. So. as they say "Real heroes don't talk too much" which is to protect the rest of us from RICOA reprecussions apparently. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 19, 1999 Report Share Posted December 19, 1999 DGilsen (AT) aol (DOT) com wrote: > [Text 2868815 from COM] > > Haribol > As a newbie to ISKCON Can any one answer this question for me? If these > people are being investigated by our/your office of child protective > services. Why haven't you guys called the police? I can be considered an > accomplice if I know or think a child is being molested and did not call the > police and report it, in the state I live in! I understand it is being done > for current cases, was it done in the past? If so how far in the past? One problem is that it is such a quiet and discreet crime, usually by someone who in all other aspects is a well respected and known neighbor, friend or relative. Also, not every allegation is true, even if many or most are. In the case of Sri Galim, he was investigated by authorities, even arrested, but charges were eventually dropped, as it was not possible to make an evidentiary case against him. So the punishment he did get ( essentially banishment) could only come from devotees, as the hands of law enforcement were tied by rule. And what the devotees can do is also limited by law. If you physically attack an abuser, you are guilty of assault and battery, regardless of what he was alledged to have done. And if you tell me you are going to attack someone and do so, and I don't report it, I am a passive co-conspirator. So. as they say "Real heroes don't talk too much" which is to protect the rest of us from RICOA reprecussions apparently. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 20, 1999 Report Share Posted December 20, 1999 Hare Krishna. To the best of my knowledge, Mother Madhusudani Radha's statement is 100% accurate. Additionally, in the older cases, local devotees, parents, managers, etc. were advised/instructed/ordered to inform local law enforcement and/or social services agencies of any suspected or confirmed incidents. In most places, only parents, victims who have reached the age of majority, and local government agencies have standing to press charges -- though anyone may make a complaint or report. Your servant, Sri Rama das [srirama (AT) bbt (DOT) se], or [srirama (AT) jps (DOT) net] Madhusudani.Radha.JPS (AT) bbt (DOT) se [Madhusudani.Radha.JPS (AT) bbt (DOT) se] Re: Devotees leaving ISKCON [Text 2868827 from COM] The police is called for all current cases. As far as I understand, they are only called re. past cases (most of which are 10-20 years old) if the victim is willing to press charges. Many of these events also took place in other countries, which makes reporting even more complicated. Still, they are investigated internally for the protection of current ISKCON children. If you want specific information, please write to the head of the ISKCON child protection office <DGovinda (AT) aol (DOT) com> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 20, 1999 Report Share Posted December 20, 1999 Hare Krishna. To the best of my knowledge, Mother Madhusudani Radha's statement is 100% accurate. Additionally, in the older cases, local devotees, parents, managers, etc. were advised/instructed/ordered to inform local law enforcement and/or social services agencies of any suspected or confirmed incidents. In most places, only parents, victims who have reached the age of majority, and local government agencies have standing to press charges -- though anyone may make a complaint or report. Your servant, Sri Rama das [srirama (AT) bbt (DOT) se], or [srirama (AT) jps (DOT) net] Madhusudani.Radha.JPS (AT) bbt (DOT) se [Madhusudani.Radha.JPS (AT) bbt (DOT) se] Re: Devotees leaving ISKCON [Text 2868827 from COM] The police is called for all current cases. As far as I understand, they are only called re. past cases (most of which are 10-20 years old) if the victim is willing to press charges. Many of these events also took place in other countries, which makes reporting even more complicated. Still, they are investigated internally for the protection of current ISKCON children. If you want specific information, please write to the head of the ISKCON child protection office <DGovinda (AT) aol (DOT) com> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.