What's going on Ajamila?

[Guest guest]

Ajamila wrote:

>I humbly suggest you go back and read the relevant texts of Madhusudani

>Radha to which Hari Sauri Prabhu responded. Her texts were needlessly

>disruptive.

 

 

No need. I will repost them myself here (below). However, I find it

disturbing that you keep changing your accusations against me and

never acknowledge when you are simply wrong.

 

First you commented on Madhusudana's text, attributing his facts to

me and telling me that I should provide the sources. When I pointed

out that those facts were not posted by me, you simply changed your

tune and said that I had "blasted" Hari Sauri. Now you are saying

that I was "needlessly disruptive", but you are still not clarifying

what you're talking about. Vague, general accusations like that are

simply not helpful.

 

You still have not stated what sources you are interested in, but

appear to have been more interested in trying to criticize me and

provide false information about my texts. However, just in case you

were wondering where I received information that there was some GBC

involvement in the 4 cases (LS, BVP, NC, and DD), that information

came from the child protection office. If you had wanted to know,

you could simply have asked me directly.

 

Personally, I think you have shown yourself to be both rude,

disruptive and a sloppy reader in this discussion. I'm very

disappointed in you. I know you can do much better than that.

 

Ys,

Madhusudani dasi

 

 

Here are the two letters I sent Hari Sauri re. the current thread.

Just for the record.

>Wed, 9 Aug 2000 21:09:10 -0700

>"Hari Sauri (das) ACBSP" <Hari.Sauri.ACBSP (AT) pamho (DOT) net>,

>ISKCON.India (AT) pamho (DOT) net, India.Open (AT) pamho (DOT) net,

>Varnasrama.development (AT) pamho (DOT) net, CAP (AT) pamho (DOT) net, "Bhadra Balaram

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

>Maria Ekstrand <mariaekstrand (AT) earthlink (DOT) net>

>Re: GBC authority and responsibility

>

>

>At 7:06 +0630 8/10/2000, Hari Sauri (das) ACBSP wrote:

>> As far as Satadhanya is concerned, he was banned from doing any

>>service for 10 years from Mayapur/ Calcutta temples and we have strictly

>>enforced that. He isn't allowed on our property although he lives just down

>>the road.

>

>

>I'm very happy to hear that this is being enforced now. Do you know

>when the last time was that he was on Mayapur's property? Also,

>when was the last time he appeared on the gurus behalf in Calcutta

>(re. the ritvik lawsuit) and the last time he signed any papers on

>behalf of the gurus? Also, have the papers he previously signed on

>behalf of the gurus now been re-signed by someone else, so that he

>is no longer the gurus' representative on record?

>

>Thanks for any information you can provide.

>

>Ys,

Madhusudani dasi

 

 

>Wed, 9 Aug 2000 08:48:51 -0700

>"Hari Sauri (das) ACBSP" <Hari.Sauri.ACBSP (AT) pamho (DOT) net>,

>ISKCON.India (AT) pamho (DOT) net, India.Open (AT) pamho (DOT) net,

>Varnasrama.development (AT) pamho (DOT) net, CAP (AT) pamho (DOT) net, "Bhadra Balaram

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

>Maria Ekstrand <mariaekstrand (AT) earthlink (DOT) net>

>Re: GBC authority and responsibility

>

>

>At 20:42 +0630 8/9/2000, Hari Sauri (das) ACBSP wrote:

>> Just ask Dhira Govinda.

>

>

>Will do, but the fact remains that we already know of one instance

>in which the CPO decision was overriden by the GBC EC (Danurdhar),

>one instance when they CPO was told not to investigate (Lokanath S),

>one instance where local authorities allowed someone to continue

>representing ISKCON (Satadhanya) and two instances where the GBC and

>local authorities have been involved in some unclear capacity

>(Bhakti Vidya Purna S and Nitai Chand S). What all of these cases

>have in common is that they involve devotees who were/are in some

>kind of leadership positions. It would be nice to hear the GBC's

>side on these cases before we look for more. The one exception I

>can think of re. the above tendency is re. Muralivadaka, which is

>one of the few cases that involved a leader which was handled really

>well.

>

>What will be interesting to find out is if all the wonderful

>recommendations (e.g.seeking therapy, apologizing to victims, paying

>into a victim's fund, staying away from events where children are

>present, not giving class, giving kirtanas) that were carefully

>developed have actually been enforced in each case. In some cases,

>timelines were given within which some of these things had to happen

>in order for the person to be considered rehabilitated. I will

>write to Dhira Govinda to find out what kind of follow up or

>progress reports that have been submitted to his office by the

>various local communities and by the abusers.

>

>Ys,

Madhusudani dasi