Where is the fault in ISKCON?

[suchandra]

 

another wave gains momentum to push even further inland and overflood the hearts of all.

 

 

well, that's like a tsunami, why not a global cooperation?

 

 

 

 

[Murali_Mohan_das]

 

 

well, that's like a tsunami, why not a global cooperation?

 

 

 

 

When compared to the current quagmire of misery, who can quarrel with a tsunami of joy and fulfillment?

[Kulapavana]

Thomas J. Hopkins got his Ph.D. in Comparative Religions from Yale in 1962, having written his dissertation on Srimad Bhagavatam. In 1966, as a professor of Religious Studies at Franklin and Marshal College in Lancaster, PA (he taught there 34 years and retired as Emeritus Professor in 1996), he saw an article in Villiage Voice about Srila Prabhupada chanting in Thomkins Square Park, and came to Manhattan to meet “the Swami.” Since that time, he stayed in touch with devotees and followed the history of ISKCON. I thought his perspective as a distinguished outside religious professor were interesting. In his article, “ISKCON’s Search for Self-Identity: Reflections by a Historian of Religions”, he had this to say:

“It is important . . . to recognize what is not the best path to understanding ISKCON’s troubles after 1977: namely, blaming individuals for what happened. It is certainly tempting to do so, and one need only look at . . . [various internet websites] . . . to see how many have yielded to the temptation. The widespread nature of ISKCON’s troubles, however, and the large number of individual leaders involved in various types of problems, suggest that the causes were more structural than individual.

“This is not to say that ISKCON leaders were not responsible for questionable judgments and ill-advised actions that led to many of the movement’s troubles. It is to say, however, that these leaders were placed in a situation that they were not prepared to handle, and that their judgments and actions can be better explained by the situation than by their individual flaws. It certainly seems to me initially more useful to try to understand that situation than to try to assign individual blame to those who were placed in it.”

Hopkins sees many problems as inevitable results of young sannyasis, not yet mature, who were forced to take on responsibilities they were not prepared for. Other responsible leaders and sannyasis have been picking up the pieces ever since.

 

 

Yes, the problems are deep and structural, yet there is no plan to make any real changes in the structure of Iskcon. Thus the future of Iskcon is not looking very bright.

[suchandra]

 

Thomas J. Hopkins got his Ph.D. in Comparative Religions from Yale in 1962, having written his dissertation on Srimad Bhagavatam. In 1966, as a professor of Religious Studies at Franklin and Marshal College in Lancaster, PA (he taught there 34 years and retired as Emeritus Professor in 1996), he saw an article in Villiage Voice about Srila Prabhupada chanting in Thomkins Square Park, and came to Manhattan to meet “the Swami.” Since that time, he stayed in touch with devotees and followed the history of ISKCON. I thought his perspective as a distinguished outside religious professor were interesting. In his article, “ISKCON’s Search for Self-Identity: Reflections by a Historian of Religions”, he had this to say:

“It is important . . . to recognize what is not the best path to understanding ISKCON’s troubles after 1977: namely, blaming individuals for what happened. It is certainly tempting to do so, and one need only look at . . . [various internet websites] . . . to see how many have yielded to the temptation. The widespread nature of ISKCON’s troubles, however, and the large number of individual leaders involved in various types of problems, suggest that the causes were more structural than individual.

“This is not to say that ISKCON leaders were not responsible for questionable judgments and ill-advised actions that led to many of the movement’s troubles. It is to say, however, that these leaders were placed in a situation that they were not prepared to handle, and that their judgments and actions can be better explained by the situation than by their individual flaws. It certainly seems to me initially more useful to try to understand that situation than to try to assign individual blame to those who were placed in it.”

Hopkins sees many problems as inevitable results of young sannyasis, not yet mature, who were forced to take on responsibilities they were not prepared for. Other responsible leaders and sannyasis have been picking up the pieces ever since.

 

 

Yes, the problems are deep and structural, yet there is no plan to make any real changes in the structure of Iskcon. Thus the future of Iskcon is not looking very bright.

The GBC won't agree, they say, no, we're doing well, things go all right, this is all propaganda and we don't care. Everything looks like that ISKCON agreed to abide by the orders of the globalization network to withdraw from the European Union and NA. Seems some global players just don't want the Hare Krishnas in their territories, but they were granted enough compensation to expand in other parts of the world.

[Kulapavana]

 

The GBC won't agree, they say, no, we're doing well, things go all right, this is all propaganda and we don't care.

 

I think Hopkins is actually talking about structural problems in the way Iskcon was set up by Prabhupada, with respect to authoritarian management structure and all real power placed in the hands of poorly qualified young and ambitious sannyasis. Thus Iskcon has a very weak system of checks and balances which inevitably leads to serious abuses of power.

[sanatan]

 

I've said any number of times that I see Srila Prabhupada as a general in a war taking calculated risks, knowing full well that there might be heavy losses amongst his subordinates.

 

Any perception of Srila Prabhupada's mission having been a failure is a product of our narrow, limited vision.

 

Srila Prabhupada spearheaded a wave that made "Hare Krishna" a household word and paved the way for all subsequent distributors of the Holy Name.

 

As the first wave subsides and ebbs, another wave gains momentum to push even further inland and overflood the hearts of all.

 

Agree here with your big picture, but the losses among the troops..."regular" devotees, women, children...were heartbreakingly incalculable, while many of the corrupt generals and officers got golden parachutes, or are still in power.

 

If there's no larger spiritual compensation for those that suffered the most and got no material compensation, then the whole thing is a sham, a house of cards.

[Murali_Mohan_das]

As you say, if we have any compassion, then certainly we mourn for all of those who have suffered, even as we try to keep in mind that all of our suffering is ultimately illusory (and a product of our past actions).

 

 

Agree here with your big picture, but the losses among the troops..."regular" devotees, women, children...were heartbreakingly incalculable, while the corrupt generals and officers got golden parachutes.

 

If there's no larger spiritual compensation for those that suffered the most and got no material compensation, then the whole thing is a sham, a house of cards.

[Kulapavana]

 

As you say, if we have any compassion, then certainly we mourn for all of those who have suffered, even as we try to keep in mind that all of our suffering is ultimately illusory (and a product of our past actions).

 

The suffering is real. To deny the reality to all of this suffering is part of the sham. If suffering is deemed illusory then so is the bliss, as both are our subjective perceptions. The tiger in the dream is illusory, but your fear and suffering is real.

 

As to the whole "war" comparison...

 

I feel that Krsna used Prabhupada and Iskcon to open the West to true bhakti. Whether Iskcon survives another 100 years (let alone 10,000) is irrelevant - the gate has been opened and there is no stopping it now.

 

The past is relevant only because it still affects the PRESENT. Thus all the people who now hold power in Iskcon need to be held accountable for the past.

 

Today I just cant take seriously guys who at one time were the biggest proponents of truly horrible people like Kirtanananda, Bhavs, or Hansadutta. To me they are finished as leaders of this society. And dont get me started on their qualifications as gurus...

[Murali_Mohan_das]

Oh, *this* semantic quibble again?

 

I'm equating "temporary" with "illusory". It's a fair comparison to make.

 

Are you saying the victims of the abuse are suffering the same spiritual agony as the Gopis feeling separation from Sri Krishna?

 

Our mundane suffering *and* "bliss" or happiness are illusory in the sense that they are temporary. Why quibble with that?

 

 

The suffering is real. To deny the reality to all of this suffering is part of the sham. If suffering is deemed illusory then so is the bliss, as both are our subjective perceptions. The tiger in the dream is illusory, but your fear and suffering is real.

[Kulapavana]

 

Are you saying the victims of the abuse are suffering the same spiritual agony as the Gopis feeling separation from Sri Krishna?

 

like I have any idea about that kind of "suffering"?

 

but I do know that calling the suffering of abused devotees "illusory" is minimizing their pain. was Sulochan's suffering illusory? He is not here to tell us about it but I think I know what he would have said.

[Murali_Mohan_das]

Was their suffering *not* a product of their karma (assuming it was not the inconceivable mercy of the Lord)? I said something about compassion, didn't I?

 

As for Sulochan, I'd best not go there (suffice it to say, given whose life *he* was threatening shortly before his untimely demise, I have friends who shed no tears over his fate).

 

 

like I have any idea about that kind of "suffering"?

 

but I do know that calling the suffering of abused devotees "illusory" is minimizing their pain. was Sulochan's suffering illusory? He is not here to tell us about it but I think I know what he would have said.

[Kulapavana]

 

Was their suffering *not* a product of their karma (assuming it was not the inconceivable mercy of the Lord)? I said something about compassion, didn't I?

 

As for Sulochan, I'd best not go there (suffice it to say, given whose life *he* was threatening shortly before his untimely demise, I have friends who shed no tears over his fate).

 

It is not about karma but about the reality of suffering. Just because you deserve to suffer does not make it less real then undeserved suffering.

 

In one sense Sulocana was both a victim and a victimizer. In another sense he was simply a victim of a system that promoted a totalitarian and fanatical version of spirituality. At that time our movement was quite close to a common definition of a "religious cult" and quite a few people share the blame for that situation. That is very much relevant to the subject of our discussion. Besides, I used his example because in his case the suffering was both physical an emotional.

[raghu]

 

When I first wrote about my relationship with Pranada Dasi, I understated the length and seriousness of it. I was frightened and wanted to protect my reputation, Pranada’s reputation, and not cause unnecessary damage to the faith of many devotees who counted on me to provide a proper example of Krsna consciousness. In retrospect this was a mistake, and I hope this letter serves to clarify matters.

 

 

As a young sannyasi I developed a secret attraction for Pranada Dasi in 1978 in Los Angeles. Later, I gave her and her husband at the time, Vadiraja Dasa, second initiation. I never revealed this attraction to her or anyone. In 1980 when Pranada Dasi’s marriage to Vadiraja dasa failed I suggested she move to Gita-nagari. Sometime later she began managing Gita-nagari Press, my tape ministry, and assisting me in a secretarial role as my typist for letters to my disciples and other duties required to fulfill my GBC responsibilities. From 1980 to 1985, due to my ongoing attraction to her, I instructed her, as her spiritual master, to do many things that were quite difficult for her. These included moving away from Gita-nagari, leaving her son behind, and getting married (I had previously insisted she vow never to remarry). After she married and moved away from my home zone my attraction subsided. Therefore, my attraction lasted about seven years.

In December of 2001, I was at a medical and spiritual low point in my life. I had wanted to tell Pranada Dasi, before I died of my old feelings for her because this was a part of my life. Naively I told her of my prior attachment to her. I did not anticipate the result of my confession, which was a revival of the old feelings. Thus began an illicit and intimate romantic phone, e-mail, and letter exchange lasting over a year. During this year she also visited me three times in Ireland, and during one such visit, there was physical intimacy.

 

Here is a question for the iskcon members of this forum.

 

The person who wrote this letter admitting to a relationship with a female disciple, and then admitting to lying about it in true Bill Clinton fashion - is he a Hindu, a Vaishnava, both, or neither?

 

Please justify with sensible arguments.

 

 

 

[Beggar]

 

 

Here is a question for the iskcon members of this forum.

 

The person who wrote this letter admitting to a relationship with a female disciple, and then admitting to lying about it in true Bill Clinton fashion - is he a Hindu, a Vaishnava, both, or neither?

Please justify with sensible arguments.

 

 

Yes, I was once a member of the ISKCON institution. I respectfully decline to answer this question on the grounds that I may tend to incriminate myself.

Yes, I understand the question. I respectfully decline to answer this question on the grounds that I may tend to incriminate myself.

[suchandra]

 

 

Here is a question for the iskcon members of this forum.

 

The person who wrote this letter admitting to a relationship with a female disciple, and then admitting to lying about it in true Bill Clinton fashion - is he a Hindu, a Vaishnava, both, or neither?

 

Please justify with sensible arguments.

 

 

Looks like the forum members are more interested to discuss angels over India - to pull together such kind of complex interrelations within ISKCON the answer must also come from ISKCON. For example ITV director Nrsimhananda das sees things this way:

 

Something New

BY: NRSIMHANANDA DASA

 

 

Jan 3, LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA —

In response to

Sita Pati das's perspective

regarding Satsvarupa, I cringe at the idea of ISKCON GBC men fabricating a "new" category of anything, especially the categories of sannyas. Srila Prabhupada warned us not to change anything, yet so much has changed. Now this idea of "retired sannyas" has been manufactured to benefit "one of our own."

 

I was always under the impression that devotees don't "retire," but preach until their last breath. Srila Prabhupada set the example. When I heard my karmi friends talk about their retirements, I would always think to myself, "You can putt your way into that eighteenth hole (golf) which will be your grave in due course of time, but we (devotees) will be dancing, chanting, and preaching until we drop."

 

There are other "retired" sannyasi's in ISKCON - those who have "renounced" the active preaching life and settled into their nests without being labeled with the "r" word (retired). I don't look up to them, but I at least respect them for keeping their vows. The GBC didn't invent a special name for their position. The problem is that Satsvarupa would not agree to give up his sannyas status even though his victim(s) requested that he do so. The committee had to deal with a person who wouldn't take their counsel; they had to negotiate with him. The very hubris of it all is enough to disqualify the person from the position of the "renounced order."

 

Moreover, Satsvarupa only came clean under duress, and it wasn't squeaky clean. It was just enough. The whole story is a lot more sordid and sorrowful, but you'll never know. The committee doors are closed - and locked. The GBC has removed the sannyas title from others for having done a lot less than seduce a wife of a Prabhupada disciple. Kesava Bharati M. has come back gloriously. Hari Sauri has shined. They had their status demoted, but chose to "soldier on." Others who just disagreed philosophically with shifting GBC standards, not breaking any vows, have been kicked out of ISKCON rather than accommodated to the degree that the GBC have chosen to do with a "favorite son."

Bottom line is that I do not to the idea that ISKCON should create new rules. We can only guess at what Srila Prabhupada would do, but we can KNOW what to do from reading his books. There is nothing in Srila Prabhupada's writings that contradict the removal of a person's status from sannyas when they fall down. Everything else is pure speculation, and speculation is one of the offenses against the Holy Names.

 

I believe that the job of the GBC is first and foremost to make sure that the spiritual principles are followed in all of ISKCON's centers and by its leaders. I am dismayed at the idea that a person - of whatever age - can remain a sannyasi after doing what Satsvarupa has done since 1978 - been a manipulator and hypocrite. He was dishonest from almost the time Srila Prabhupada departed, and he let everyone believe that he was worthy of having his feet bathed by adoring disciples. He took their money, lived on it, bought paints, tilak, and airline tickets with it, and lived a life without having to earn money because of his position as an ISKCON guru/sannyasi. We should have a "money-back guarantee" that if your guru falls down, you can get your laksmi returned from him; that would probably prevent a lot of falldowns.

 

I don't condemn the committee members for their attempt at reconciliation; I believe that they did the best that they know how to do. I just beg to differ - strongly and publicly. I know many ISKCON leaders - GBC members included - who agree with me but are afraid to say it lest they be condemned by the inner circle. Ultimately, Satsvarupa's position will be marginalized to those who want to hear from him and those who don't. His position in ISKCON is forever blackened. A true redemption would have been a complete detachment from the sannyas position bestowed upon him from an optimistic Srila Prabhupada who gave instructions of what do to in the case of a falldown. He could have tried to earn it back. That would have been way cool, and he would have been adored by almost everyone. Comebacks sell.

 

The fact that Satsvarupa is speculating about what Srila Prabhupada wants for him and what Srila Prabhupada has given in his lawbooks for the next ten thousand years (and beyond) must be assessed by each individual. I have no personal gripe against Satsvarupa. I just have a different realization of what needs to be done to promote the dictum, Purity is the Force.

 

 

[krsna]

<CENTER></CENTER>

BY: ROCANA DASA

 

 

 

Jan 21, CANADA (SUN) — A weekly response to Dandavats editorials.

 

 

Today's edition of Obeisances is in response to a recent article by Jatayu dasa (SDG) entitled "Where is the Fault in ISKCON?" I'm calling attention to this particular article for a number of reasons. It's not that I think anyone can glean anything philosophically substantial from the article, but rather to highlight a common dynamic we find when persons such as Jatayu dasa, a disciple of Satsvarupa das Goswami, try to make a comeback in ISKCON. Here Jatayu prabhu is revealing his mood and sentiment as he tries to ingratiate himself with those he classifies as "senior devotees".

 

We don't get to know the author at all by reading his article, beyond the fact that he obviously became a devotee shortly after Srila Prabhupada left. The "senior devotee" nomenclature that he repeatedly uses is referring to Srila Prabhupada disciples. We get a vague idea of how, according to his own reflections, he didn't treat the authorities in the temple with the respect he should have back in the days when he was serving.

 

Back in that era, the service I performed for Srila Prabhupada was primarily as a Temple President, and I suppose Jatayu is referring to people such as myself. I too have had to reflect a great deal on the phenomenon that's become more and more prevalent within our community of devotees, wherein some devotees are being considered "senior". "Senior", by and large, doesn't mean much. As Jatayu uses it, "Senior" basically means you joined sometime back, especially if you're a Srila Prabhupada disciple. Now, I assume, it also includes people who joined in the late 1970's and 1980's. But we find there's very little spiritual scientific analysis of this whole idea of "senior". "Senior" doesn't mean advanced. It doesn't mean you're exhibiting symptoms or qualities of an advanced devotee. We understand from sastra that an advanced devotee can be a child, like Prahlad Maharaja, or someone who isn't exhibiting himself as an authority. Personally, I think it's a type of spiritual laziness for devotees to use these designations arbitrarily, without carefully or intelligently considering who even is a devotee, let alone a Vaisnava. Overall, our use of "junior" and "senior" are generally just labels used for all but philosophical purposes.

 

A closely related dynamic to this is the way we often hear the phrase, "I like to serve the devotees". In nearly all cases, the person making the statement has made no determination as to the actual spiritual benefits they might obtain by serving an actually advanced devotee in comparison to serving someone who is either untrained or isn't exhibiting the symptoms of being advanced.

 

In my opinion, Jatayu's article is pure unalloyed sentiment. It has no philosophical content of merit. Of course, Dandavats doesn't discriminate on that basis. Because the article casts a favourable light on senior devotees, who are the peers of the editor, and because Jatayu makes institutional leaders such as Temple Presidents look good, Dandavats is happy to give the author audience.

 

I find it quite interesting where he states that the early devotees didn't have a proper place to sleep or proper meals, and didn't have warm clothing. He says some were Srila Prabhupada's personal servants, Temple Presidents and book distributors. From my experience back in the ISKCON lila days, the devotees in these categories were actually the ones who did have all those things. It wasn't usually the Temple Presidents or Srila Prabhupada's servants who went without - it was the devotees sleeping in vans or eating on the road, or living in basements and doing the menial tasks. They're the ones who really experienced inadequate material circumstances. Back in those days we didn't really think we were doing without or suffering unnecessarily, although you could hardly find a place to put your sleeping bag down at night because the place was so crowded. You just had a little cubicle to put all your personal belongings in. The daily food ration was dal, chapattis and rice and porridge in the morning, but everyone was very happy and enlivened. Unfortunately, that period really didn’t last too long. After while, in the latter part of Srila Prabhupada's ISKCON lila, money was flowing and the devotees began eating too much rich food.

 

The whole idea that Jatayu's projecting is that he would have made so much more spiritual advancement had he served his authorities in a more diligent way and respected them more. But this doesn't hold a lot of philosophical weight. Who he should have been serving, meditating on and thinking about, is Srila Prabhupada himself, and how to please Srila Prabhupada. Many devotees had been led astray by convincing themselves or being convinced by others that if I just serve some person who's slightly above me, without discrimination or contemplation of whether or not they, themselves are in tune with the Sampradaya Acarya, then I'll get spiritual advancement. In some extreme circumstances like New Vrindavan, some of these eager devotees actually committed murder in order to please their leaders. Women practically prostituted themselves. There are so many examples of foolish people who were coerced, fooled and conned by adopting the mentality Jatayu is promoting in this article.

 

In fact, devotees have to really take responsibility, especially under the circumstances we're now in, when a Sampradaya Acarya is not personally present, as Srila Prabhupada was in the ISKCON lila period. Even in that period, this same principle applied because Srila Prabhupada was hardly ever physically present. You had to make a conscientious effort to understand Srila Prabhupada through his books and by listening carefully to his lectures, ascertaining for yourself what is right and what is wrong, what is real service, what does Srila Prabhupada want, and how does he want you to do it. And had to develop the spiritual maturity to actually say "no" under certain circumstances to your institutional authorities, when they were instructing you to do something you felt in your heart and by your commonsense was not inline with Srila Prabhupada. While there may be a certain etiquette as to how one questions or challenges, one should ultimately be ready to say no. If the answers to your questions are not forthcoming or don't dispel the doubt you have, you have a right to say "no".

 

Personally, I feel very foolish about how I went along to get along, not saying "no" at times when I should have. I even left Vrindavan on the order of my GBC, who happens to be Jatayu's guru, just prior to Srila Prabhupada's departure when I should have said "no". And that's just one of many examples I could give. In fact, I could say that many of the miserable circumstances I experienced in ISKCON were because I tried to just obediently obey the persons who happened to be my authorities at the time, even though my mind, common sense and understanding of the philosophy made me conclude that what they were doing was wrong. If I had just said "no" back then, it might not have even made much difference or impacted my service. Unfortunately, the mentality that Jatayu is promoting as being ideal or exemplary is what got me into trouble. And from where I sit today, I can see that it was foolishness.

 

My personal advice to anyone who wants to join an institution like ISKCON in order to enhance their service or make spiritual advancement is that they carefully consider the reality of relationships with their "authorities". There are undoubtedly some trade-off's and a degree of compliance one has to be in as it pertains to more mundane matters, for the sake of harmony and getting things done. But when it comes to tough philosophical issues, one has to see through the eyes of Sastra and Guru, and take a stand. We can see that Jatayu still thinks Satsvarupa is a guru, and that's a perfect example of not applying one's common sense or the tests of Guru, Sadhu and Sastra.

 

So while I'm afraid his article offers little of value, it does stand as a perfect example of a bewildered person who's coming to the wrong conclusion. Jatayu obviously feels that his problems in life and his struggles are due to not being obedient to institutional authorities, when in fact it's not that at all. It's because he doesn't understand Srila Prabhupada, he doesn't understand the philosophy, and therefore he doesn't know how to apply it. Therefore, he suffers. It's certainly nothing to do with the reasons he's presenting in his article. Jatayu would not have been saved from his suffering by being more subservient to his authorities, many of whom couldn't even save themselves in the end - including his own guru.

Obeisances to Dandavats, and to Sriman Jatayu das.

[bhaktajan]

 

Posted by krsna

"(Letter by ROCANA DASA). . . the reasons he's (Jayatu) presenting in his article . . ."

 

 

 

Editorial responses should/must be replete with:

1) Identifiying 'Bonifides' [time, dates, age, circumstances, personal experiences, et al].

2) medthodical enumeration of specific topics which are being responded to, point-by-point.

3) The relationship of each rebuttal vs. each Topic. The editorial did not quote the words, context nor qualifications that Jayatu wrote.

 

The position of a carpet bagger is to take the helm of institutions while the old ruling class has been knocked to their knees.

 

The unwanted circumstances we find ourselves are sooooo 'un-desirable'. But while such misgivings are the cries of spoiled children wanting a larger silver spoon.

 

I lived in New Vrindavan ---Mikey was a new bhakta in 1983. Mikey's brother was a young kid too from the rough parts of Brooklyn, associating with devotees. Mike was determined to follow through where his brother hadn't.

One time, after being initiated, Mathura (Mikey) was on book distribution with two others, raising funds to build Visnu-Mandirs --while sleeping late at night in a van heated by a kerosine heater the oxygen in the van had been depleted--Mathura died along with Chetiraj, but, Kevalabhakti lived but walked with a cane.

 

Maybe they could have changed destiny if they had made some effort on their own????

 

Or maybe we owe them a debt to respect their stupidity.

 

ys,

Bhaktajan