Should the GBC resign?

[Guest guest]

At 18:20 -0700 7/12/2000, Srirama (das) ACBSP wrote:

> As far as I can see from reading the complaint filed with the court, only

>one alleged child abuser, Kirtanananda, is named as a defendant in the suit.

>All others are named because of the leadership positions they held during

>certain periods of time. It would appear that even Kirtanananda is named due

>to his position and not his actions. Am I alone in thinking this is rather

>odd?

 

From what I understand one of the reasons for this is because the

statute of limitation has passed on the abuse itself. However, the

responsibility and neglect of the organization doesn't operate under

the same statutes.

 

>

> So exactly what are those GBC who are Defendents under suspicion of?

>Suspicion of making bad management decisions?

 

If their strategy has any similarity to their previous successfully

argued case against the catholic church, the leaders will be accused

of creating a situation in which abuse could flourish. This would

include appointing incompetent people to gurukula positions, not

doing any screening or providing training and providing none or

grossly inadequate supervision of gurukula staff. They may also have

evidence that complaints, when brought forward were not dealt with

appropriately and/or that abusers/molesters were simply banned from

one temple without alerting other temples world-wide, which allowed

these abusers to repeat their crimes elsewhere. I don't think they'd

have a hard time arguing any of those issues.

 

The piece I think will be more difficult to prove is that there was a

systematic attempt to hide the abuse, or that the kids were just sent

away so that the parents could go collecting for ISKCON. That may

have been the case in many areas, but I think it will be harder to

prove that it was a conscious, international management decision..

 

Just my $0.02.

 

Ys,

Madhusudani dasi

[Guest guest]

Dear and respected Vaishnavas,

 

Hare Krsna. Please accept my humble obeisances. All Glories to Srila

Prabhupada.

 

I would like to make a few points on the text by "Dasanudas"

 

a) This is another case of Srila Prabhupad's quotes being misused.

 

b) The leaders must be above suspicion can be viewed in anothr way as--- the

general praja must not doubt the leaders, just because they hear some

inside/outside criticism.

 

As members of ISKCON we must have faith (not blind faith) in the leadership

of GBC.

 

CC. Antya 3.11: "...Despite the *logic* that 'Caesar's wife must be above

suspicion', a devotee should not be disturbed by the activities of his

spiritual master and should not try to criticize him. A devotee should be

*fixed* in the conclusion that the spiritual master cannot be subject to

criticism and should never be considered equal to a common man. Even if

there appears to be some discrepancy according to an imperfect devotee's

estimation, the devotee should be fixed in the conviction that even if his

spiritual master goes to the liquor shop, he is not a drunkard, rather he

must have some purpose going there..."

 

Srila Prabhupada does not say some body becomes unqualified just by some

one's suspicion. One becomes unqualified by his own misdeeds or

irresponsible actions, and not by some one's suspicion. A spiritual master

does not become unqualified for sudden lack of faith in the disciple who is

influenced by the external energy and material considerations. A sincere

leader immediately resigns if he has made a mistake. The reason for

resignation is not the suspicion of others but his own mistake. An

insincere leader may go on forever, but the point is, atleast he must resign

when his mistake is exposed.

 

>Who would want to be a member of ISKCON these days? How embarrassing!

 

I want to be a member of ISKCON and I walk around with out any inhibitions

or embarrassment. This is simply because I still have faith in Srila

Prabhupada, and his sincere disciples and granddisciples and wellwishers.

And I personally know many who share my feelings.

 

In my humble opinion, those leaders, who have not made any mistakes, and

inspite of so many embarrassing mistakes that have taken place, which could

not be checked, but have been still going on in the position of leadership,

and sincerely trying to execute their responsibilities, just because of the

faith they have in Srila Prabhupad's blessings, MUST NOT RESIGN. And every

member of ISKCON should completely support such sincere leaders in this hour

of need. I remember Vrtrasura's comments caling out his soldiers who were

running away, leaving him alone to be attacked by Indra. The same words

hold good to those of us members of ISKCON who *blindly* desert our leaders,

and let the leaders be shot down, and we run away saving ourselves. Blind

faith is not good. Similarly blind suspicion and criticism is also not

good.

 

At the same time those leaders who have been pretending MUST IMMEDIATELY

RESIGN and accept their mistakes and by doing so they will get completely

purified of their sins.

 

ISKCON can never be polluted, just like Ganges, inspite of so many material

things being dumped in her. Vrindavana or Navadvipa will not get polluted

because there are some murders, or rapes going on in those holy places. The

explanation is given by Lord Nityananda to Jiva Gosvami during Navadvipa

Parikrama.

 

Jiva Goswami: Many people live in Navadvipa, but why they are still unable

to attain Krishna Bhakti? As they are staying in this dhama, how do

offences still remain in them? (Jiva Goswami asks these questions after

hearing all the glories of Navadvipa which is a place of Audarya, where

offences do not act)

 

Lord Nityananda: ..........Maya has eternally covered the dhama, with a film

of dull matter. People who have no relationship with Krishna Caitanya

simply live on top of that covering, blind to the real truth. Though one is

thinking 'I am in Navadvipa' Praudha Maya happily keeps that person far away

from the dhama. ....

 

If that *spiritual* ISKCON was not there then I would not be writing this

text today.

 

Please forgive me and correct me if my above understanding is wrong.

 

Your humble servant,

Bhadra Govinda Das.

[Guest guest]

>>sounds sentimental. just to sarisfy one's feeling one should not resign,

imho. Hare Krishna.>>

 

That was not the point. The point was if they were hurting the organization

by remaining at its helm (after they had been in charge during a time when

unbelievable atrocities had been committed), they should resign voluntarily to

spare the organizations and its members further pain and embarrassment.

 

 

 

Ys,

Madhusudani dasi

[Guest guest]

They also accuse Srila Prabhupada of knowing about the abuse and not

acting, as well as creating an organization wherein child abuse was

guaranteed to flourish. So why shouldn't those calling for the resignation

of the GBC also request Srila Prabhupada to resign as Founder-Acharya of

ISKCON?

 

After all, because Prabhupada is not here personally to be sued, they

have named the executors of his will and sued his estate. Perhaps those who

are glorying in ISKCON's troubles should ask the executors to submit

Prabhupada's resignation for him!

 

Before the suit was filed, there was so much talk of how it was intended

to "reform" ISKCON. But now that we've seen the $400,000,000.00 price tag,

it's clear the purpose is to completely destroy ISKCON and not leave a

single stick standing. Still our so-called devotees are jumping up and down

in jubilation, "Now we can finally get rid of the GBC!"

 

And the whole business does nothing to punish the abusers or prevent them

from continuing to victimize others.

 

Shame, shame.

 

 

 

Madhusudani.Radha.JPS (AT) pamho (DOT) net

[Madhusudani.Radha.JPS (AT) pamho (DOT) net]

Thursday, July 13, 2000 12:36 AM

Basu Ghosh (das) ACBSP (Baroda - IN); Bhadra Balaram (das) JPS

(Mayapur - IN); Granddisciples (of Srila Prabhupada); India (Continental

Committee) Open (Forum); Varnasrama development

Re: Should the GBC resign?

 

 

At 22:09 +0200 7/12/2000, Harsi (das) HKS (Timisoara - RO) wrote:

> > Srila Prabhupada implies that if the responsible leader comes under

> > suspicion, they cannot go on with their duties. Therefore the GBCs who >

>stand accused in the child-abuse court case must resign.

>

>Should one not wait until proven guilty?

 

I think the view in some quarters is that an honorable leader who was

in charge while atrocities were committed, resigns voluntarily to

spare the members and the organization additional embarrassment and

pain. Because of their positions, such leaders always *feel*

responsible, even if they never personally authorized the abuse. Of

course, if the members insist, they can always be reinstated later.

 

 

ys,

madhusudani dasi

[Guest guest]

> >>sounds sentimental. just to sarisfy one's feeling one should not resign,

> imho. Hare Krishna.>>

>

> That was not the point. The point was if they were hurting the

> organization by remaining at its helm (after they had been in charge

> during a time when unbelievable atrocities had been committed), they

> should resign voluntarily to spare the organizations and its members

> further pain and embarrassment.

>

> Ys,

> Madhusudani dasi

 

As far as I understand Prabhupadas will, the GBC members where or should be

spiritual advisers and not managers or administrative leaders.

But of course who should than be the managers, the templepresidents or

someone else? Who would or should than take responsability for this things?

How would it be in varnasrama?

 

Ys, Harsi das

[Guest guest]

> sounds sentimental. just to sarisfy one's feeling one should not resign,

> imho. Hare Krishna.

>

> ys, bb

 

In the case of Arjuna, indeed, Lord Krishna supported your view. However there

was no finger of suspicion to hamper Arjuna's ability to lead and govern, just

his family sentiments.

 

However, in the case of Lady Sita, she was banished from the kingdom by Lord

Ram. Here there was a finger of suspicion, albeit without any guilt. Srila

Prabhupada remarked "Caesar's wife should be above suspicion". What to speak of

Caesar.

 

A leader of good character will have concerns for the welfare and good name of

the society if he or she comes under suspicion. I believe these are the

feelings mother Madhusudani Radha prabhu is talking about.

[Guest guest]

I know this will be disappointing to some, but out of the nineteen

individuals named in the suit, only two are presently members of the GBC. So

their resignations probably wouldn't be very satisfying to those with a

desire to get rid of the whole group.

 

 

 

 

Madhusudani.Radha.JPS (AT) pamho (DOT) net

[Madhusudani.Radha.JPS (AT) pamho (DOT) net]

Thursday, July 13, 2000 11:22 AM

Bhadra Balaram (das) JPS (Mayapur - IN); Granddisciples (of Srila

Prabhupada); India (Continental Committee) Open (Forum); Varnasrama

development

Cc: Basu Ghosh (das) ACBSP (Baroda - IN)

Re: Should the GBC resign?

 

 

>>sounds sentimental. just to sarisfy one's feeling one should not resign,

imho. Hare Krishna.>>

 

That was not the point. The point was if they were hurting the organization

by remaining at its helm (after they had been in charge during a time when

unbelievable atrocities had been committed), they should resign voluntarily

to

spare the organizations and its members further pain and embarrassment.

 

 

 

Ys,

Madhusudani dasi

[Guest guest]

>> I know this will be disappointing to some, but out of the nineteen

individuals named in the suit, only two are presently members of the GBC. So

their resignations probably wouldn't be very satisfying to those with a

desire to get rid of the whole group.>>

 

I didn't read the quotes provided by Nayana-ranjana as questioning the status

only of those GBCs mentioned in the law suit.

 

I also don't udnerstand why you assume this is disappointing to some.

Personally, the only things I find disappointing are 1) that the abuse could

happen in the first place, and 2) the leadership's overall handling of the

complaints and reports over the eyars (yes, I know there are some real heroes

in that group, which is why I stated "0verall"). Who is and isn't on the GBC

and who is and isn't named in the law suit is not something that I find either

disappointing or encouraging. I'm just sad it had to come to this and that

the youth couldn't get their needs met within ISKCON. But I don't blame them

for any of their actions. I think they've been very patient and can well

understand their frustrations.

 

Ys,

Madhusudani dasi

[Guest guest]

Dear Prabhus,

Please accept my most humble obeisances onto you all.

Who is to resign.?The wrong doer or the one who is incharged.?After all, who is

sued and who is not.?

Who is judged and who is not.?

 

Your servant

mp das.

-

Madhusudani Radha (did) JPS (Mill Valley, CA - USA)

<Madhusudani.Radha.JPS (AT) pamho (DOT) net>

Basu Ghosh (das) ACBSP (Baroda - IN) <Basu.Ghosh.ACBSP (AT) pamho (DOT) net>; Bhadra

Balaram (das) JPS (Mayapur - IN) <Bhadra.Balaram.JPS (AT) pamho (DOT) net>; Granddisciples

(of Srila Prabhupada) <Granddisciples (AT) pamho (DOT) net>; India (Continental Committee)

Open (Forum) <India.Open (AT) pamho (DOT) net>; Varnasrama development

<Varnasrama.development (AT) pamho (DOT) net>

Cc: ISKCON India (news & discussion) <ISKCON.India (AT) pamho (DOT) net>

Thursday, July 13, 2000 12:36 AM

Re: Should the GBC resign?

 

 

> At 22:09 +0200 7/12/2000, Harsi (das) HKS (Timisoara - RO) wrote:

> > > Srila Prabhupada implies that if the responsible leader comes under

> > > suspicion, they cannot go on with their duties. Therefore the GBCs who >

> >stand accused in the child-abuse court case must resign.

> >

> >Should one not wait until proven guilty?

>

> I think the view in some quarters is that an honorable leader who was

> in charge while atrocities were committed, resigns voluntarily to

> spare the members and the organization additional embarrassment and

> pain. Because of their positions, such leaders always *feel*

> responsible, even if they never personally authorized the abuse. Of

> course, if the members insist, they can always be reinstated later.

>

>

> ys,

> madhusudani dasi

>

>

[Guest guest]

> A leader of good character will have concerns for the welfare and good

> name of the society if he or she comes under suspicion.

 

and tha's why he should not resign just out of sentiments but strictly

investigate the matter and let people know what is the truth involved. This

is the point I wanted to make. Hare Krishna.

 

ys, bb

[Guest guest]

Mother Madhusudani Radha wrote:

 

> I think the view in some quarters is that an honorable leader who was

> in charge while atrocities were committed, resigns voluntarily to

> spare the members and the organization additional embarrassment and

> pain. Because of their positions, such leaders always *feel*

> responsible, even if they never personally authorized the abuse. Of

> course, if the members insist, they can always be reinstated later.

 

A sincere leader immediately resigns if he has made a mistake. The reason

for resignation is not the suspicion of others but his own mistake. An

insincere leader may go on forever, but the point is, atleast he must resign

when his mistake is exposed.

 

Madhava Ghosh Prabhu:

 

>>In futball we call this taking one for the team.

 

In corporate circles also, "we take one for the company". Most important

point here is whether in a foot ball match or in a corporate office the

person who takes it for the team or for the company is usually a person on

the lower level. We do not generally expose the top man in the company,

when there is a disaster. Some one else sacrifices himself and not the main

person/leader, for the benefit of the company.

 

I have heard, When the caste brahmins/gosais tried to murder Bhakti

Siddhanta Saraswathi Thakur, during a mob attack, one of his disciples wore

the dress of Thakor and allowed Srila BSST to escape. He was ready to get

killed for the leader. Because, a good leader can always, again lead/fight

from the *front*, but as a strategy in times of emergency, or unfavourable

circumstances he may apparantly take a back seat.

 

Even great warriors/kings/emperors were saved by the sacrifice of the

subordinates for the benefit of the country.

 

Any way case to case, the strategy is different. My humble submission is

every thing has to be seen in a balanced way and in the right perspective.

We can not tilt totally to one side.

 

Your humble servant,

Bhadra Govinda Das.

[Guest guest]

> >Who would want to be a member of ISKCON these days? How embarrassing!

>

> I want to be a member of ISKCON and I walk around with out any inhibitions

> or embarrassment. This is simply because I still have faith in Srila

> Prabhupada, and his sincere disciples and granddisciples and wellwishers.

> And I personally know many who share my feelings.

 

I am not embarrassed either. we preach to and meet hundreds of people, and

have not found much negative effect of all these scandals.

 

This is because the people whom we deal with (1) Know that there are bad

eggs in every basket (2) Can see that the devotees who are in front of their

eyes are not involved in such activities. So their opinion of Iskcon does

not change.

 

The root cause of all the problems will not be solved by the resignations of

those who have committed no child abuse. Unless every single devotee learns

to care for and care about the other devotees, different kinds of abuse will

always take place. Instead of acting 'holier than thou' and searching for

scapegoats, we should work to improve the spiritual atmosphere wherever we

are and wherever we travel. This is not the work of just the GBCs, but every

single devotee.

 

It is extremely doubtful that some GBCs resignations will satisfy those who

are out to destroy Iskcon.

[Guest guest]

Of course I do not accuse you, Mother Madhusudhani, of having such a

mentality. But there are many who do and who are not afraid to express their

feelings.

 

It is unfathomably sad that these things have happened. I know the

mistakes that have been made as well as anyone else.

 

However, it is sinful to encourage the course of action taken in this

lawsuit because it is an action taken in the mode of ignorance: it brings

misery now and it will bring only misery in the future to all involved. It

cannot benefit anyone.

 

The ultimate purpose of the suit is to bring healing to the victims. But

it will never bring healing. If one carefully reads the language of the

filed complaint and thinks it over, one will realize that to propagate this

suit requires one to reject Srila Prabhupada, abandon such fundamental

principles of spiritual life as the Law of Karma, and to forget who is the

actually Proprietor and Owner of the temples of Sri-Sri Radha-Krishna. You

can make all kinds of work-juggling arguments that this is not true, but in

the end it's going to become very clear that it is.

 

So how can this path bring healing? It will be found in the future, as it

has been found from time immemorial, that material wealth, power and

vengeance bring only a sense of complete and absolute emptiness. Over time,

as devotees see the effects of the suit on their communities and their

personal lives, the plaintiffs are probably going to find themselves

despised and completely segregated from anyone who cares even a little about

ISKCON. I'm not saying this is right or fair, but human nature will act and

this will happen.

 

Two days ago, a former gurukula student called me to find out how she

could participate in the lawsuit. Of course I had to tell her she probably

called the wrong person because I do not agree with the goals of this suit.

Nevertheless, we talked for a long time and she cried and cried as she told

me of the things she experienced and her pain and frustration at not having

got what she needed from ISKCON. At the end of the conversation I gave her

the number of someone who could give her the information she requested. She

has to, of course, choose her own direction. I understood just how desperate

one becomes to find some way to react to the events of the past -- to

finally stop being a victim and take action.

 

So we are saddened by the events of the past, and we will be further

saddened by the events of the future. If one chooses to act, one is always

responsible for the correctness of the currently-chosen course. And I fear

this path is the worst of all possible choices. It only continues the cycle

of doling out pain to anyone who is close enough to be caught up in it.

 

Therefore, I believe it is wrong to encourage these unfortunate

decisions.

 

 

 

 

 

Madhusudani.Radha.JPS (AT) pamho (DOT) net

[Madhusudani.Radha.JPS (AT) pamho (DOT) net]

Thursday, July 13, 2000 5:11 PM

Srirama (das) ACBSP; Granddisciples (of Srila Prabhupada); India

(Continental Committee) Open (Forum); Varnasrama development

RE: Should the GBC resign?

 

 

>> I know this will be disappointing to some, but out of the nineteen

individuals named in the suit, only two are presently members of the GBC. So

their resignations probably wouldn't be very satisfying to those with a

desire to get rid of the whole group.>>

 

I didn't read the quotes provided by Nayana-ranjana as questioning the

status

only of those GBCs mentioned in the law suit.

 

I also don't udnerstand why you assume this is disappointing to some.

Personally, the only things I find disappointing are 1) that the abuse could

happen in the first place, and 2) the leadership's overall handling of the

complaints and reports over the eyars (yes, I know there are some real

heroes

in that group, which is why I stated "0verall"). Who is and isn't on the GBC

and who is and isn't named in the law suit is not something that I find

either

disappointing or encouraging. I'm just sad it had to come to this and that

the youth couldn't get their needs met within ISKCON. But I don't blame them

for any of their actions. I think they've been very patient and can well

understand their frustrations.

 

Ys,

Madhusudani dasi

[Guest guest]

The inclusion of Doe Defendents is standard procedure in civil lawsuits

involving organizations. But if you read the language you quoted below, it

is clear they do not intend to name abusers, but rather more leaders when

they can figure out how they can connect them together for their conspiracy

theory.

 

If they want name abusers, I'll be happy to provide dozens of names and

info. But I doubt they'll want them because there's no money to made there.

American civil tort attorneys go after the deep pockets -- in this case all

the temple properties. Don't think they're going after the individuals

leaders. If they got all the personal assets of every ISKCON leader in the

world, there wouldn't be $2000 to go around to each plaintiff after Windle

Turley takes his share.

 

 

 

 

Ekatma (AT) pamho (DOT) net [Ekatma (AT) pamho (DOT) net]

Friday, July 14, 2000 2:09 AM

Srirama (das) ACBSP; Bhadra Balaram (das) JPS (Mayapur - IN)

RE: Should the GBC resign?

 

 

> I know this will be disappointing to some, but out of the nineteen

> individuals named in the suit, only two are presently members of the GBC.

> So their resignations probably wouldn't be very satisfying to those with a

> desire to get rid of the whole group.

 

Below is the list of defendants who are still around. Please note defendant

19. "Defendant Doe", as explained below.

 

"Plaintiffs will seek leave of this court to amend this complaint to

include the true names and capacities of the defendants sued herein as Does

1 - 30, inclusive, when the same have been ascertained."

 

This means there are thirty more to come, thirty more defendants whose legal

names are not yet known or published.

 

5. Defendant WILLIAM DEADWYLER, III (Krishna name, "Ravindra Svarupa Das")

is Chairman of the Governing Body of Commissioners. He resides at 41 West

Allens Lane, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19119.

 

PLAINTIFFS' ORIGINAL COMPLAINT - Page 7

7. Defendant JOHN FAVORS (Krishna name, "Bhakti Tirtha Swami") resides at

600 Ninth St., N.E., Washington D.C. 20002. Mr. Favors was a member of the

GBC from 1982 to 1999.

 

8. Defendant STEVEN GOREYNO a/k/a STEVEN GUARINO (Krishna name, "Satsvarupa

das") is a resident of Baltimore, Maryland. Mr. Goreyno a/k/a Guarino was a

member of the GBC from 1975 to 1987.

 

9. Defendant MICHAEL GRANT (Krishna name, "Mukunda Goswami") resides at

10310 Oaklyn Drive, Potomac, Maryland 20854. Mr. Grant was a member of the

GBC from 1984 to 1999.

 

12. Defendant THOMAS HERTZOG (Krishna name, "Tamal Krishna Goswami")

resides at 5430 Gurley Ave., Dallas, Texas 75223. Mr. Hertzog was a member

of the GBC from 1975 to 1999.

 

14. Defendant GOPAL KHANNA (Krishna name, "Gopal Krishna Goswami") resides

at 1626 Pie IX Blvd., Montreal, Quebec, H1V2C5. Mr. Khanna was a member of

the GBC from 1975 to 1999.

 

16. Defendant WILLIAM OGLE (Krishna name, "Balavanta das") is a resident of

New York, New York. Mr. Ogle was a member of the GBC from 1976 to 1999.

 

17. Defendant HOWARD RESNICK (Krishna name, "Hrdayananda das Goswami")

resides at 153 N. Arnaz Dr., Beverly Hills, California 90211. Mr. Resnick

was a member of the GBC from 1975 to 1999.

 

19. Defendants Does 1 - 30. Plaintiffs are not aware of the true names and

capacities, whether individual, corporate, or otherwise, of defendants Does

1 - 30, inclusive, and therefore sue said Defendants by such fictitious

names. Plaintiffs will seek leave of this court to amend this complaint to

include the true names and capacities of the defendants sued herein as Does

1 - 30, inclusive, when the same have been ascertained. Plaintiffs are

informed and believe, and thereby allege, that each of the defendants

designated herein as a "Defendant Doe" acted in concert with each and every

other defendant, intended to, and did, participate in and cause the events,

acts, practices and courses of conduct alleged herein, or, alternatively,

acted as the principal or agent of the other defendants or in the course and

scope of said employment or agency, and proximately caused damages and

injuries thereby to the Plaintiffs as alleged herein.

[Guest guest]

No, that was not. ISKCON began dealing with its abuse problem in about

1987. It was not at all a secret, but was rather widely publicized.

 

I've posed a question several times to individuals who repeat the charge

that there was a conspiracy to cover-up the problem by the GBC: Can you

please give the names, dates, locations, etc. of these conspiratorial

events? So far, no one has provided the info. Perhaps you can tell us?

 

 

 

 

Harsi.HKS (AT) pamho (DOT) net [Harsi.HKS (AT) pamho (DOT) net]

Thursday, July 13, 2000 1:55 PM

Varnasrama development

Re: Should the GBC resign?

 

 

> >

> > So exactly what are those GBC who are Defendents under suspicion of?

> > Suspicion of making bad management decisions?

>

> Conspiracy to conceal child abuse. The statute of limitations has expired

> for most of the abusers, but that can be circumvented by saying there

> was an ongoing conspiracy to conceal evidence of child abuse.

 

Was not that exactly what was done for many years, conceal te evidence of

child abuse, at least until the gurukula alumnis where speaking up

themselves?

[Guest guest]

> > I want to be a member of ISKCON and I walk around with out any

> > inhibitions or embarrassment. This is simply because I still have faith

> > in Srila Prabhupada, and his sincere disciples and granddisciples and

> > wellwishers. And I personally know many who share my feelings.

>

> I am not embarrassed either. we preach to and meet hundreds of people, and

> have not found much negative effect of all these scandals.

 

same here, at least my personal experience. I am still happy tht i am a

member of Srila Prabhupada's ISKCON. I hope I always remain a faithful one.

 

Hare Krishna.

 

ys, bb