Apr. 22, 2005
"SENTIMENTAL REUNION, LOCAL REALITY"
by Rocana dasa


Like many of my Godsisters and brothers, I felt encouraged by the reconciliation gesture extended by ISKCON's "Srila Prabhupada Family Reunion Committee". I received personal emails of invitation from Yadubara dasa, whose wife Vishakha dasi is a member of the Committee. A number of emails also arrived from other ISKCON notorieties such as HH Jayadvaita Swami [BBT] and Sriman Nrismhanadana dasa [ITV]. It would indeed be spiritually uplifting to go on pilgrimage to Mayapura, and I imagined the pleasure of reconnecting with dear friends with whom I had served throughout my thirty-five years in Srila Prabhupada's service. Alas, I was not able to attend the global family get-together. In lieu of going, I began the "back to home, back to ISKCON" journey right in my own backyard by attending the local ISKCON temple in Portland with my wife Jahnava and a Bhakta friend.

At first, we were greeted with a very warm welcome. I was invited to present the Sunday feast lecture, and everyone present seemed appreciative. Over the next several weeks, with renewed enthusiasm we attended each and every Sunday, including Amala Bhakta's visit on Lord Varaha's Appearance Day.

Two weeks prior to Gaura Purnima, Trikalajna dasa, the Temple Commander, informed me that several members of the community were anxious to paint the inside of the temple before the festival. I agreed to assist them. Over two long days, I worked with the two Brahmacaris to transform the inside of the temple. I brought along a power washer and encouraged one of the local members to clean up the outside areas around the temple. None of the Board members pitched in that weekend.

The two brahmacaris had to spend an overnight at our home ashram because the paint fumes were so strong. The next day was the Sunday feast. The three devotees from our ashram arrived, with our usual contribution of numerous prasadam preparations. Having previously been asked by one of the Board members if I would join the lecture rotation, it was my turn to give the Sunday lecture. After the program, the Board members ushered me into their office, asking me to join them for prasadam. I was expecting a gesture of appreciation for helping to transform the temple from dirty and dingy to brilliantly bright. Instead, I encountered a thick wall of negativity from the Board members (Brhad Bala dasa Adhikary, Brhad Mrdanga dasa Adhikary, Govardhana dasa Adhikary and Seva Priya devi dasi). While taking prasadam, I was treated to a stream of accusations. At first I attempted a point-by-point counter, but my efforts to convince the Board members that my devotional service wasn't ill-motivated fell on very deaf ears.

I reassured the Board that I am in full compliance with ISKCON's position as it relates to their ecclesiastical rivals, the Rtvik and BV Narayana Maharaja camps. I pointed to articles on my website, HareKrsna.com, wherein I have strongly challenged the asiddhantic theories of these two groups. Regardless of how I tried to inject some reason into the conversation, it was apparent that the Board members were of a pre-determined state of mind.

The Board proceeded to communicate to me a convoluted conspiracy theory based upon their suspicions of my ‘sudden' regular attendance. In order to give some evidentiary substance to their unfounded fears, they mentioned having seen various "offensive" passages on my website. The crux of the accusation was that I had "denigrated" HH Jayadvaita Swami and HH Bhakti Caru Swami. They suggested that I was now showing up at the temple for the purpose of promoting my website, hoping to get the local devotees to come online and read my articles.

I asked them to show me specific examples of statements in my writings that they found objectionable, but they were unable to point to anything specific, although they had the HareKrsna.com website up on the office computer screen. When I offered to discuss any perceived philosophical differences with them, Seva Priya dasi replied that they didn't feel qualified to discuss philosophy with me, and I should go to Hridayananda dasa to have that discussion. After much ado about nothing, no incriminating documentary evidence was brought to bear. I shared with them the fact that I had been invited to attend the Srila Prabhupada Family Reunion in Mayapura this year by none other than HH Jayadvaita Swami, who had also recently emailed me expressing his approval of my paper, "The Church of Rtvik". I assured the Board that the mood between Jayadvaita Swami and myself was collegial. While I haven't talked with him personally in recent years, HH Bhakti Caru Swami is recognized as one the few GBC who regularly listens to outside Godbrothers, so I doubt that he is particularly offended over anything I may have written about him on the website.

Throughout the meeting, the Board members simply emoted unflattering opinions of me, personally. After much back and forth, their bottom line was communicated in the form of a ban on my giving any more classes or lectures in future. This decree was not based upon any philosophical statements I had made in the classes I had already given, nor anything I had said to any other temple member. Prior to this meeting, not one of the Board members had expressed any apprehensions to me. Their nebulous excuse for this abrupt sanction was summed up by the remark, "we don't know you well enough". Over the weeks prior to this meeting, many members of the temple community had frequently expressed their appreciation to my wife and I for the "older devotee association". (I am nearly twice the age of most everyone active in the Portland temple.) While we had also heard these sentiments from a few members of the Board, none of the Board members had made any attempt to "get to know me".

The Board declared that if I attended future programs, they would be watching and listening to insure I didn't say anything that could be construed as criticism of ISKCON. They told me that in their opinion, I wasn't a bonafide ISKCON member. I reminded them that I had held very responsible posts within ISKCON for over 20 years, and that to my knowledge, I had not been "ex-communicated". I still have many friends in leadership positions within ISKCON. The Board would not budge, however. Except for the suggestion made by Brhat-Bala dasa that I could open my own temple across the street if I wanted, the only option on the boardroom table was that I must pass their nebulous "approval test". They made it abundantly clear, however, that if I were foolish enough to continue attending temple programs, my every word and action would be scrutinized. Would anyone looking for spiritual enlivenment attend temple programs under those conditions?

A few days after the meeting, I requested that the Board's official position be put in writing so there would be no future misunderstanding, given that the meeting wasn't recorded and there were no impartial witnesses present. I never received the courtesy of a reply.

A few weeks after the Board roast, Bir Krishna dasa Goswami, the local GBC, arrived in Portland. I emailed him with a request for the two of us to meet and discuss the situation. He agreed to meet with me, but wrote: "I will not get into any philosophical debate or discussion. I will leave that up to devotees like Hridayananda Maharaja."

Govardhana dasa sat in on the meeting to represent the Board. My three stated objectives were to discuss 1) the local Board's sanction against me; 2) GBC guidelines on Srila Prabhupada's disciples returning to ISKCON; and 3) GBC requirements for starting a new ISKCON temple.

In preparation for the meeting, Seva-Priya dasi had printed out for Bir Krishna dasa Goswami an example of "offensive utterances" taken from my website. While I wasn't provided with a copy of these documents, the stack of papers appeared to include my "Sampradaya Acarya" and "Church of Rtvik" papers, along with an old Dharma Mela posting about the passing of Tamal Krishna Goswami. It was the latter reference that Bir Krishna dasa Goswami chose to focus his attention on. He said that this article in particular had "pierced his heart". Interestingly, Bir Krishna dasa Goswami has just taken over Tamal Krishna Goswami's Zonal responsibilities in Fiji. Perhaps he is now politically obligated to take a strong stand against anyone overtly critical of Tamal Krishna Goswami.

Throughout our two-hour conversation, the assumption was that this article about Tamal Krishna Goswami was presently online in my site, and easily accessible for all to read. Seva Priya devi had conveniently chosen to omit the crucial fact that she had not recently downloaded the article from my website. In fact, upon returning home I researched this Dharma Mela article and discovered that it had been written in April 2002, when it was posted behind a security wall in the website. At that point in time, one could only gain password access to the Dharma Mela by registering and signing a User Agreement. In addition, the post in question was only online for a 3 month period, because on June 1st, the entire Dharma Mela forum was discontinued at HareKrsna.com. Throughout my discussion with Bir Krishna dasa Goswami, he repeatedly stated that the current GBC policy is to "forget the past that sleeps". It is unfortunate that Seva Priya devi wasn't forthcoming with Bir Krishna dasa Goswami about when and where she got this article. If she had been, perhaps he would have considered it to be part of the ‘sleeping past'.

In fact, the real bottom line clearly presented to me by Bir Krishna dasa Goswami is that to be a member of ISKCON, one is obliged to never publicly broadcast one's privately held opinions if they could possibly disturb the minds and hearts of the followers of diksa gurus or other important ISKCON officials. This message was emphatically and repeatedly communicated to me during the meeting. He conceded that many institutional insiders share many of my opinions, and that nothing he came across from my website was factually incorrect. However, I had broken the cardinal rule of confidentially: everything which is potentially controversial remains private amongst one's Godbrothers/sisters. As he explained it to me, this ultimatum is based upon the principle that the political party faithful never criticize their public leaders, nor do institutional employees publicly criticize their bosses without risk of being fired.

Unfortunately, in the space of this article I can't offer elaborate detail about the content of my long conversation with Bir Krishna dasa Goswami. Overall, he agreed with me on nearly all of my key points, yet throughout the dialogue he replied with the predictable "BUT BUT". What he consistently disagreed with me about was my having a right to publicly state my personal opinions. His position was based on the principle that we have an obligation to not disturb the minds of the neophyte disciples, or those who may be looking for a guru. Consequently, he backed up the Portland Board's decision one hundred percent. I remain persona non-gratis at ISKCON Portland for some indeterminate period.

In this article, I am relating my personal experience in order to illustrate what appears to be a society-wide dynamic faced by Srila Prabhupada's disciples who attempt to re-involve themselves in ISKCON. Whether one was fortunate enough to attend the Srila Prabhupada Family Reunion festival, or simply begins to attend their local ISKCON temple, they are faced with a similar dilemma. Both alternatives require the prodigal son or daughter to overcome big reality hurdles at the grassroots level. We hear a familiar refrain coming from many ISKCON quarters these days: "rest assured, things are much better now". Unfortunately, my local encounter indicates that for me, things are even worse today than they were during my ten post-samadhi years acting as an authority within ISKCON. Granted, I was a seasoned navigator of the institutional minefields back then and I had some institutional clout that eased my way. But what I found at the ISKCON Portland temple was that newcomers or uncommitted visitors coming through the door for the Sunday Feast were looked upon with less suspicion than a Godbrother of their spiritual master, dressed in dhoti and tilaka.

By tasting one drop of the ocean, one can tell how the whole ocean tastes. This sums up our visit to ISKCON Portland. The reality of the experience I described above is far from the ‘love and trust mood' articulated on the Srila Prabhupada Family Reunion website. I invite the reader to study carefully the opening statement sent by the Family Reunion Committee to many disciples of Srila Prabhupada:

Did Bir Krishna dasa Goswami embody this kind-hearted, welcoming mood with me? Certainly not! Are the individual GBC transmitting this heart felt, "all are welcome back" attitude down the line to their disciples? Apparently not. Past problems within ISKCON relating to the irreverent attitudes of grand-disciples toward their Guru's Godbrothers have been a sore spot since 1977. For many previous members, particularly the high-level managers, this inhospitable mentality directly contributed to their reluctant departure. Proper sastric etiquette differentiating the relationships between the grand-disciples and the Guru's Godbrothers is obviously still not being taught to the disciples.

According to the Srila Prabhupada Family Reunion Committee, "Srila Prabhupada himself explained that when an acarya leaves the planet, there are bound to be crises." Considering that Srila Prabhupada departed nearly thirty years ago, I for one am wondering when this crisis will finally wind down. Is the yearly reunion idea the beginning of a new era, or just an attempt to tip toe past the graveyard?

Attending the Srila Prabhupada Family Reunion festival and becoming enlivened doesn't translate back to the long-term, day-to-day grassroots reality. For many, associating with Srila Prabhupada's followers can only be realized by regularly attending a local temple. Lord Chaitanya Mahaprabhu, when asked for the definition of a Vaisnava stated, " A Vaisnava is one who associates with other Vaisnavas".

As for the mass departure of God-siblings that resulted from the family crisis, my present, practical, personal experience illustrates that the original crisis dynamics known by many as the Zonal Acarya era are still all pervasive. The philosophical discrepancies lying at the root of this chronic illness have never been addressed by ISKCON. The well-meaning GBC who are spearheading this refreshing attitude of love and trust speak sunny words, but their mood apparently doesn't translate down to the temple level.

At the source of this vexation lies the discordant concept of GBC verses diksa gurus. Many Diksa gurus tacitly consent to be seen by their disciples as pure empowered representatives of the past Sampradaya Acaryas. When their maha-mistakes become public knowledge, they beg everyone's forgiveness by confessing that in truth, they are only sincere, fallible servants. This is also the case here in Portland, where the disciples of Prithu dasa are now struggling to make sense of this inconsistency.

Another dimension to this family crisis is that many diksa gurus have influenced their disciples into believing that the departed ‘family feud' victims are, in fact, nothing more than spiritual weaklings, "bloopers" fringees, and/or cowardly deserters. The insiders repetitively remind us of Srila Prabhupada's infrequent statements beseeching his disciples to continue participating in his ISKCON lila pastimes "through thick or thin". Of course, broadcasting this same message under present day ISKCON circumstances, as if we are still in a Srila Prabhupada ISKCON lila period, is most disingenuous. I doubt that the reciting of new-age clichés such as "put the past behind us and look forward" will rectify the wrongs and heal the wounded hearts.

The re-recycled theme "when an acarya leaves the planet, there are bound to be crises" is a grand sweep on post-samadhi history. I can only assume that if I had gone to Mayapura and voiced my disapproval of this hallucinatory historical version, the welcome mat would have quickly disappeared. The GBC's attempt to un-ring the bell by repetitively chanting this mantra is more than simply annoying. The Family Reunion invitation message was: "All members of our ISKCON family are humbly requested to attend, with a special invitation to those who may not currently play an active role in the society." Yet the "humble" request expressed here seems to have an underlying message: the invited are expected to be humble and grateful for being extended this invitation -- not the other way around. Between the lines, we know that if any Godbrother/sister voices disagreement with ISKCON's historical over-simplification, they essentially become un-invited. My experience at ISKCON Portland underscores the reality that this dynamic continues to this day at the local temple level.

As I have been reminded here in Portland, the underlying warning is crystal clear: Dear Godbrothers and sisters, we request you to refrain from sharing your traumatic experiences. In fact, we insist upon it. If sharing your personal history means turning the spotlight on present prominent ISKCON members, then be forewarned – you are not welcome here. Disparaging remarks made about ISKCON GBC or gurus are likely to offend their disciples. ISKCON finds it far preferable to offend the disgruntled Godbrothers/sisters -- Srila Prabhupada's own direct disciples -– than to risk having them offend the grand-disciples. This is the bottom-line equation that was recently articulated to me by Bir Krishna dasa Goswami and the ISKCON Portland Board.

The filter the GBC has imposed over their historical lens is designed to eliminate the harmful blame rays illuminating the "ultimate managing authorities" who were directly responsible for instituting the many crisis-creating programs. The past GBC ‘turn or burn', asiddhantic mandates resulted in institutionalizing extremely offensive attitudes aimed squarely at undermining the devotional service of many of their spiritual siblings. Bir Krishna dasa Goswami related to me his personal sad story of Zonal Acarya oppression, but that pastime must remain between us and behind closed doors. He is not free to state it publicly. That's the name of the ISKCON game, and not abiding by the rules automatically disqualifies one from re-entry! God forbid that any victim of the "family crisis" should commit the unforgivable mistake of associating with, or worse still identifying himself with, an outspoken critic of any of the GBC or their policies.

Mutinous behavior of this sort burns an indelible mark on the outspoken devotee's character, and this mark apparently requires an act of GBC absolution for removal. As for all the major deviations made by the GBC over the years, such as the Zonal Acarya System or the Gopi Bhava Club, to name just a few, we are expected to magnanimously delete these from our memories. In contrast, our personal mini-mistakes will require public exposure and profuse apologies such as those we've recently seen published by writers such as Dasanudasa Vanacari.

While talking to Bir Krishna dasa Goswami, I was informed that no society-wide rules or guidelines exist which specify the qualifications required of a returning Srila Prabhupada disciple. It appears that all such decisions are left to the local authorities, who for the most part, are likely to be disciples of the returning member's Godbrothers. As we can see in Portland, if just one of the grand-disciples ‘Googles' your name and comes up with anything they construe as "offensive", then be prepared for an inquisition. It reminds me of McCarthyism, but in the ISKCON scenario the most neophyte among us may sit as judge and jury and there is no constitutional protection of freedom of the press, expression or religion.

It may be the luck of the draw, but the odds are stacked against many Srila Prabhupada disciples getting a fair shake at ISKCON temples. This phenomenon is one of the main reasons so many of Srila Prabhupada's disciples have found that their only option is to move to Alachua in order to gain devotee association. One result of this unfortunate circumstance is that many North American temples are becoming either "hindu-ized", a single guru's matha/asrama, or else they are gradually dwindling into oblivion.

Recently, yet another ISKCON campaign was begun to try and stem this tide -- the Spiritual Strategic Planning Team (SSPT).

Sadly, we see that not one of the 53 initiatives heralded by the SSPT suggests attracting the previously trained-up, committed followers/disciples of Srila Prabhupada. The SSPT's stated goal is to rekindle the enthusiasm manifest during Srila Prabhupada's physical presence. The reader naturally assumes that would include re-involving those who were actually active participants in Srila Prabhupada's ISKCON lila, but that does not appear to be of significant interest to the group… at least not of enough interest to merit inclusion as one of the named initiatives.

Gopal Bhatta Prabhu's primary qualification for leading the SSPT is his multiple successes in entrepreneurial business ventures. In many respects, ISKCON's corporate structure parallels a standard business franchise. Unfortunately, in ISKCON's case there are no written contracts to set the boundaries of how each branch is permitted to present itself to the public, as is the case with franchises. The SSPT has an initiative to protect ISKCON's public image and continuity, yet there is no definition of what constitutes membership, which is inherent to continuity. Perhaps some of the devotee lawyers involved in SSPT will work with the GBC to produce a professional document which unambiguously sets forth the prerequisite qualifications required for ISKCON membership. Until that happens, we can expect that others will face the same situation I just did at ISKCON Portland.

At the root of this problem is the fact that no one in the GBC, SSPT or elsewhere, is facing up to the fundamental 28-year problem mentioned above: the dynamics of super-imposing diksa guru/disciple relationships onto temple management. This rasa-bhasa makes the day-to-day temple management exceedingly more frustrating and complex. Many of Srila Prabhupada's disciples, and especially the senior temple authorities, reluctantly bowed out of ISKCON due to their frustration in trying to manage under this impossible scenario. Is the GBC and SSPT going to cling to the traditional Vedic system like the Gaudiya Matha, or to the western religious institutional paradigm based on democracy and transparency? Clearly, the present day ISKCON managerial system is a hybrid that is unworkable in North America. Judge by the results! The SSPT will fall short of achieving it's lofty goal of "rekindling the enthusiasm manifest during Srila Prabhupada's physical presence" unless and until the GBC successfully addresses their clashing duel power structure. In our case, the power is surcharged by absolute-ness. Down at the grassroots level, where most of the "small-timers" and "outsiders" reside, this is the bewildering reality we experience. The elite don't want to know about this problem because it's a problem that seldom impacts them, and they don't have an easy solution.

This question lies at the root of the declining North American Temple problem: In the minds of initiated members of the temple, who has the ultimate authority -- their diksa Guru or the local authority representing the GBC? The prevalent denial factor illustrates the enormity of this obstacle to progress. Managerial manipulation by the SSPT will not alone bring about achievement of our common goal. My comments concerning the Reunion or SSPT are not in the spirit of raining on someone's parade. I wish the organizers of SSPT success in their undertaking, but wonder if it is possible without dealing with the issue of unclear ‘ultimate' authority.

Given the absence of free communication with an open-minded ISKCON, my only access to affecting change is through the independent free speech offered by the Internet. Bir Krishna dasa Goswami made it abundantly clear during our candid conversation that my public truth-speaking has made me persona non-gratis within ISKCON. I asked Bir Krishna dasa Goswami whether or not he thought that I was being brahminically minded in my straightforward outspokenness. While he agreed with me on nearly all of my debate points, he would not agree that I was brahminical. He admitted that he had uncovered nothing on my website that was factually untrue, and several times remarked that my writing was ‘sophisticated', BUT…. he equated brahminical behaviour with speaking only sweet words. He agreed that my complaints about ISKCON were valid and true, BUT…. he unabashedly explained to me that participating in any official capacity within modern ISKCON -- even giving classes in a small temple -- is equivalent to being a cabinet member of the Bush Administration. Here Govardhana dasa chimed in to say that it was comparable to being a member of the US Army (which he is). No one can criticize President George W. Bush.

What does Srila Prabhupada say?


The first high profile persons thrown out of ISKCON after Srila Prabhupada's departure were considered at the time to be the most brahminical, namely Pradyumna dasa and Yasoda nandana dasa. Their only fault was that they dared to speak out truthfully against the infamous Zonal Acarya system. If you are a truth speaking Brahmana today, then you are apparently still not welcomed back to ISKCON. That precondition appears not to have changed since those early years. At least Bir Krishna dasa Goswami was truthful enough to make that point abundantly clear to me.

In the final analysis Bir Krishna dasa Goswami, like most of the GBC, has a different individual conception of what Srila Prabhupada's ISKCON is compared to others such as myself. Being Canadian by birth, I like to read this letter sent by Srila Prabhupada in 1968 to the Governor General of Canada, wherein he concisely defines his ISKCON. His letter states clearly that ISKCON opposes religious dogmatic wranglings by providing clear theistic knowledge and practice. Is this the ISKCON of today?


By sharing these thoughts, I hope to inform my readers. Perhaps some of the power brokers may also be inspired and motivated to institute the necessary changes in ISKCON. As stated by the SSPT, we all hanker for the original spiritual atmosphere found in Srila Prabhupada's ISKCON.

It's not that power corrupts! It's the fear of losing power. This is deafeningly amplified when the power is absolute.

your servant,

Rocana dasa

Replies: 9 comments

They lied.

They said it was because you wrote some criticism of an ISKCON guru and that therefore you were disbarred.

Pure unadultered lie.

I can point to you numerous quotes from various ISKCON leaders severely criticizing each other all over the internet.

Why just recently Bhakti Marg Swami created a big stink by severly criticizing a sick dying guru godbrother, he was forced to make a retraction in public. Yet he is not disbarred.

We can find numerous severe harsh criticisms of Hrdayananda Swami, Jayaptaka Swami, and others made by various vaisnavas in positions in or out of leadership in ISKCON.

Some have made huge swipes at the entire GBC!

A few years ago a few GBC Gurus resigned from the GBC over claiming that the GBC body were bogus for not taking some kind of harsher stance against some lady devotee who made controversial remarks on an internet forum.

The point is we can find numerous biting and harsh criticisms coming from ISKCON leadership towards other ISKCON leaders, but they are not disbarred.

So Rocana Ji, you were not disbarred because of some comment about Tamal Krishna Goswami.

You were disbarred because you presented a perceived threat to the authority of the temple leaders. And since you hold no position in the society they could then simply disbar you.

It wasn't about what you said, it was about who you know.

Clearly what happened is that Bir Krishna could probably have cared less or even welcomed you into taking part. A seasoned devotee with speaking skills is going to enhance a temple in it's preaching mission.

The problem was that the temple leaders feared losing respect and authority as the final word on Krishna consciousness for their community.

They feared that if someone outside of their command structure all of a sudden showed them up in philosophical teachings, to the public, then in the eyes of the congregation (follow the money), giving money and support to the leaders may become secondary to giving money and support to the outsider.

So the temple leaders were being protective of their positions and became anxious by your presence. They then approached Bir Krishna Goswami in an anxious state. Seeing their distress and not wanting to alienate them for someone that has no standing in ISKCON, and who is not his personal friend, he simply made a politically expedient choice.

I'll comment on the rest of what you wrote later. I'm short on time right now.

Aloha Haribol!!

Shiva

Posted by shiva das @ 04/22/2005 03:20 PM PST

You mentioned that they brought up an analogy of a presidential cabinet member or a military member being in the same position as a member of ISKCON.

Both analogies are false. A President chooses his cabinet. They in turn give advice to the president on the issues of the specific secretarial position they occupy. The process was created not so that the President could tell them what to do, or to use them as a propaganda mouthpiece, their job was to provide expertise to the president in the fields of their expertise.

The president isn't expected to know everything about everything, therefore the cabinet is supposed to be a body of advisors to the president about things he is not expert at.

How is non critical membership in ISKCON like being a cabinet member?

In fact the job of the cabinet is to teach the president, to educate the president, to preside over the section of government for the president because they are supposed to be experts in the field. Their job is to tell the president when they feel he is mistaken, it is their job to critique the president not to be his yes men.

As for the military analogy; the military has a chain of command. They also have a system of redress for complaints about superiors. They also are encouraged to be "whistle-blowers" by law.

So the military analogy is false as well. The military does not disallow membership if you criticize an officer or a policy.

The military is a bad analogy also because they follow rules laid down in a lawbook. The creator of ISKCON had rules for ISKCON. Nowhere did he mention that criticism of management or of other devotees made one ineligable for participation.

There may or may not be such a law on ISKCON's books now. But that would not be in the spirit of the founder acarya.

What Bir Krishna and Govardhana were really saying is that they want to enforce a militaristic authoritarian culture within ISKCON for their own material benefit. They want no dissent. They want to be controllers. They want to exploit people's ignorance for the service they can get out of them. They want to make ISKCON there own personal organization.

Some may claim that dissent is bad for newcomers. That is totaly absurd. What kind of person will become involved with ISKCON in todays culture without first going online and sussing them out?

All the criticism and dirt and everything they supposedly want to hide, is hiding in plain sight for anyone with half a brain and a computer.

If someone joins and doesn't know the history of ISKCON, then I have to question whether they are stupid or have been living without contact with modern civilization.

If there is no freedom of speech allowed in ISKCON, then just what the hell do they think they are promoting ISKCON to be?

Oh, come join the dispensation of the yuga dharma. Come take part in the highest level of God's munificence, the Sankirtan Lila. Come join the descent of the spiritual world on earth.

No freedom of speech allowed.

Anyone who promotes that conception is a hypocrite, a mudha, a fake brahamana, and an aparadhi towards the vaisnavas.

Vedic culture is free speech culture.

Anyone with a position or even without a position of management in ISKCON, who thinks that ISKCON is their own little private kingdom, that they can use Sri Krishna's mercy for their own little power trips, take a look around. Seen any problems with those who thought just that of late? Don't think you are above karmic reaction.

Karmic reaction is worse for those in knowledge of their sins.

Posted by shiva das @ 04/22/2005 06:55 PM PST

I just received a private email which expressed sentiments that I'm sure other readers are also thinking. I've paraphrased the writer's question below, along with my response:

Q: I am somewhat perplexed [by your ISKCON Portland article]. There is nothing in your extensive writings that would have prepared me for such a decision. Based on what you know, what did you expect would happen? In other words, if I were a veteran say of the Democratic Party, worked in it for years and years and left disgruntled, I would know what to expect if I re-entered the organization at the local level (unless I believed in miracles or magic which clearly you do not).

So my question is, why did you do it and what did you think would happen? From the perspective of the young devotees there (and put yourself in their shoes or socks as the case may be - what would you have done in a similar situation say in 1974 or 75?) They had good reason to question your motives. I question your motives and I'm a sympathizer! And surely you know Bir Krishna and his type as well as you know your own self. Don't you think your expressions of disappointment with the whole experience are just a little disingenuous?


Dear prabhu,

Of course I realized there was a high percentage of chance that something like this could happen. But why should that stop me from testing the waters? Please keep in mind that this was the first time in more than ten years that I have attempted "re-entry". It's not like I've been bouncing in and out of ISKCON temples over the years under the pretense of wanting to get involved, just so I can get thrown out and have another critical article to write. As to whether or not there were signs in my previous writings that I might attempt such a thing, over the years I've certainly expressed my reticence about being on the ‘outside' of my Spiritual Master's movement. Should everyone on the outside plan to just wait until some huge, sudden change occurs that signals the "all clear"…. then we all come running back at once? That's not a very likely scenario, either. Change always happens incrementally, as does reconciliation.

ISKCON Portland represented a good opportunity, at the right time and place, to test the waters. First of all, as you know, Prithu dasa Adhikary left his position some six months ago and ISKCON Portland had been his matha. We'd made a few visits to the Portland temple over recent years, and saw that they were in need of assistance. We purposely didn't go to the temple during the first six months after Prithu's departure, so we wouldn't give the impression that we were trying to exploit the situation. Perhaps we didn't wait long enough. While we knew that his disciples/ex-disciples there were probably still recovering from the trauma, it also meant there wasn't likely to be a direct personal conflict with Prithu himself. We'd heard that in his wake, various other ISKCON sanyasis and leaders were coming to the temple to help ‘stabilize' it. So there was an opportunity for me to re-connect with various Godbrothers who weren't fully attached to this temple. Following Prithu's resignation, Bir Krishna das Goswami had been made the new GBC, which meant there was opportunity for a new mood to get established here. As Shiva das noted in his Blog reply, Bir Krishna, left to his own devices, might just as likely have been happy to have someone experienced arrive on the scene. It was the reaction of the local Board leaders that shifted the balance, and Bir Krishna followed their lead. Going in, we had no way of knowing that's what was going to unfold.

In addition, my wife and I had just started a new Bhagavad-gita class series in downtown Vancouver. Jahnava was interested in visiting the temple to see if we could establish good rapport and get some participation from the devotees there to come support the Gita class, and have a place to recommend our class participants go to experience more of Krsna Consciousness.

Also of importance is the fact that my wife has never lived in or been an active part of a Hare Krsna temple community. All her experience has been gained ‘on the outside', in private devotee community and the home asrama. We're currently living with Bhakta Eric, who has taken up Krsna Consciousness over the last year we've been house-sharing with him. Jahnava was anxious the he should also get a taste of the temple experience. In fact, both Eric and Jahnava benefited spiritually from the few visits to the temple. Association with Vaisnavas for Krsna kirtan, darshan of the Deities, class and prasadam is unquestionably very nice and important. My wife immediately was connecting with the other ladies, planning for deities and festivals. It made her very happy.

Add to this the recent expressions of ‘family reunion mood' coming from the GBC and ISKCON leaders, and the recent return of numerous other older, disenfranchised devotees, and you can see how all of this combined to set the scene.

Finally, my willingness to ‘test the waters' has been impacted by my having firmly arrived at the Sampradaya Acarya conclusion. Having come to this philosophical understanding, I have now personally resolved many of my concerns around the diksa issue as relates to how one can work cooperatively with the institution. In other words, I now have a clear, philosophically sound way to express to newcomers I'm cultivating how they can consider the concept of diksa. The diksa concept, as presented in the Sampradaya Acarya construct, lets me stand within the boundaries of the ISKCON institutional model, while at the same time maintaining a healthy distance from the aspects of institutionalized diksa that I find unacceptable and am not willing to convey to newcomers just for the sake of participating with ISKCON. For years, I have been hesitant about encouraging newcomers to get involved in the temple scene because I was unable to guide them through the initiation ‘minefield' without standing in direct opposition to ISKCON. The Sampradaya Acarya concept gives me spiritually safe, philosophically sound ground to stand on in that regard.

Comparing being a member of Srila Prabhupada's spiritual family to being part of some mundane political party illustrates a perception of ISKCON, Srila Prabhupada, and the sankirtan movement that I don't share. I agree that idealism verses realism is the question here. ISKCON types like to paint the rosy ‘big Vaikuntha' picture to their participants, especially newcomers. In other words, most ISKCON bhaktas don't believe they are joining a "political" party or that their authorities place controlling and maintaining their material power first and foremost over what's best for spreading the glories of the Holy Name, even though that's often the truth of it. So, let them at least hear from my example what this so-called ISKCON and it's leaders are truly like. I see it as a good part of their education. Don't you think I have a right or duty to broadcast my experience if I think it can help others?

Your comparison of today's circumstances within ISKCON and what was transpiring back in the mid-seventies during Srila Prabhupada's ISKCON lila period is more than a stretch. I can't recall being put into a similar situation when I was Temple President. How could I? Srila Prabhupada is/was a Sampradaya Acarya and as such, is an inconceivably advanced personality. Is such a person present in ISKCON today? Are these leaders trying to make out that they are far more advanced than they actually are? That reality is one of the pillars of my Sampradaya Acarya theme. Why not expose them whenever possible, and especially when personal experience plays a part? I don't consider that disingenuous at all.

We made a sincere effort in our approach to the temple. I did not have an ulterior motive to watch a failure unfold, then report about it publicly in order to say "I told you so". We actually hoped the mountain might have moved enough to give us a little foothold, trusting that on the local level our sincerity would help open the door at least long enough for some mutual trust to grow. That could have been the outcome, you know. Given different people and dynamics, the re-entry could have resulted in a successful outcome. I don't think any of the choices we made would or should have changed. Failure occurred on the other side of the equation. I simply followed the dominoes as they toppled, engaged in whatever process was there in front of me to be engaged in, and recorded and published the outcomes and my commentary on them. I do not see that as disingenuous, in any way.

I do understand how you and other readers might judge the mood of my article to be disingenuous based on the tone of "disappointment" expressed there. Yes, I could certainly have applied the razor's edge in that article. Instead of the somewhat neutral, disappointed tone, I could have conducted a post mortem on the personal qualities and levels of realization expressed by the various participants. That might have sounded a bit more like the articles you're used to reading from me. I didn't think it was necessary, wise or fair to express that tone in the article because I do understand the dynamics going on for there for the younger devotees. At the same time, I think they deserve to be challenged, and publicly so. Believe me, there are many more revelations coming down the pike from me on the Bir Krishna front. I only presented a small fraction of the contents of my conversation with him, and I'll certainly express a different level of challenge when I get into the rest of that story.

So you can believe one of two things: that my motives for going were as stated in the article and elaborated upon above, or that I was acting as an ‘undercover investigative journalist' looking for a good story. If it had turned out positively, which as you say was hope against hope, that would have been great. But nothing ventured, nothing gained. If the predictable happened, as it did, then where's the downside? I am given an opportunity to say what I've said in the article, and perhaps someone might learn from it.

your servant,

Rocana dasa

Posted by Rocana dasa @ 04/25/2005 01:28 PM PST

Dear Shiva dasa,

Thanks for your contribution and truth telling. As you so astutely pointed out, there was undoubtedly a political component to my encounter with the duplicitous authorities. The initial board roast was hastily called because unbeknownst to me at the time, one of the devotees was attempting to get support from the congregation to put me on the Board. I wasn't aware of this exacerbating factor until after leaving the temple that night. The board was apparently scrambling to come up with viable reasons to get rid of me. There was no mention of the "offensive" letter about Tamal Krishna, which ended up playing the key role in my meeting with Bir Krishna dasa Goswami, because they probably hadn't yet put their hands on it.

Frankly, I didn't have a desire to be given that kind of temple responsibility. In fact, prior to the Board roast, I didn't fully realize that Bir Krishna dasa Goswami had done away with the traditional Temple President position and had given the equivalent power to these board members. Srila Prabhupada's formula was that a Temple President be in charge, but here we see yet another GBC "improvement". Was it Srila Prabhupada who said that a camel is a horse designed by a committee"?

Trikalajna dasa, presently the Temple Commander at Portland, had to bow out of the crazy Board earlier in the year, out of shear frustration. He complained to Bir Krishna dasa Goswami about the Board's ineffectualness, but to no avail. Trikalajna dasa and Bhakta Joe are the only live-in brahmacaris at the temple. They go out daily for preaching and maintain the temple programs. As such Trikalajna dasa would be the natural choice for being Temple President under Srila Prabhupada's original plan. From what I saw, he appears to be well-suited for the position, with proper training and support. I was willing and able to be an advisor for Trikalajna dasa, having served many years as a Temple President, but I have gone long past the age where I'm attracted to that type of service -- especially under today's conditions. Of course, I was never given an opportunity to share these thoughts with any of the existing authorities, namely the Board and Bir Krishna das Goswami.

I'm certainly not attached or broken hearted by the way things turned out, although I wish they turned out differently. I tried to keep my article focused on the bigger picture. I have commented many times that I believe ISKCON is, in essence, an ethereal mirage. The collective GBC members blow this international smoke screen so they can be perceived by their local followers as holding some big international institutional position. In fact, many temples function as separate mathas or asramas controlled and owned by a single personality, without any GBC oversight. That's the way it is in many North American temples, including Bir Krishna dasa Gowsami's North Carolina community.

Then there are the Hindu oriented, Board controlled temples. The one's I'm most familiar with are in Canada, but there are a number here in the US as well. Many of the Indians are sincerely dedicated to Srila Prabhupada and are trying their level best to maintain the temples by catering to less committed Indians. This results in the side altars for demigods and celebrating festivals not emphasized on our Vaisnava calendar. I don't blame them so much as I do the responsible GBC, who consistently show permissiveness and a lack of oversight, and generally do not see that Srila Prabhupada's high standards re maintained. Pleasing the past Sampradaya Acaryas is the secret to success rather than pleasing congregational members whose real desire is a combination community center cum temple.

Even here in Oregon, just a few miles from Portland, there is a group of Indian's who broke away from ISKCON Portland and started their own group-oriented Hillsboro ISKCON. They chose Hari Vilas dasa as their GBC. His Seattle scene is quite similar to what's happening in ISKCON Hillsboro. So, the ISKCON that Srila Prabhupada started and oversaw from ‘66 to ‘77 is vastly different than what we find today.

When I suggested to Bir Krishna the idea of the GBC producing a standardized membership requirements document, he actually laughed out loud. Basically, he confirmed my theory that a homogeneous ISKCON, as is commonly portrayed, is in fact a complete illusion. He said it was impossible for the GBC to create such a document considering that almost anything and everything under the Vaisnava sun is fair game under the auspices of being called ISKCON. The only disqualification for a member is being publicly recognized as an outspoken critic of the GBC and/or the diksa gurus, or being offensive towards Srila Prabhupada. Of course, they don't have a vision of Srila Prabhupada as being on the level of a Sampradaya Acarya, which in mind is also offensive.

Bir Krishna dasa Goswami went on to say that I would have experienced far less of a welcome at the Los Angeles Temple than I had initially experienced in Portland. Sevasa dasa, the long standing Temple President in LA, runs his temple like a family fiefdom. There is an eerie similarity to many localized temples scattered throughout India. There's a good chance that Sevasa dasa passes on to another body, his oldest son will ‘inherit' the temple. Time will tell, but all the symptoms of history repeating itself can be observed on the Vaisnava landscape today.

I don't claim to have all the details in order to accurately categorize into sub-groups all the worldwide temples flying the ISKCON flag. All in all, not much has changed since I faded out of the ISKCON picture over fifteen years ago. There's lots of cheery talk about big improvements since the early "crisis years", along with the open-armed welcomes from a certain sector of well-intentioned individuals, but this mood appears not to be shared by the overall GBC or ISKCON in general.

Rocana

Posted by Rocana dasa @ 04/27/2005 09:14 PM PST

PAMHO AGTSP
Dear Rocana prabhu, dear Godbrother!

Thanks for sharing this eclat for a better understanding what's going on in our spiritual fathers movement. I joined Srila Prabhupada 1972 and made it till 1988, although at that time I was one of the last non-initiating Prabhupada disciples in that zone from previously more than 200 Godbrothers/sisters.

At one point I knew clearly that they wanted me to leave and treated me just that way. I sold more than 150.000 hardbound books, helped quite some new devotees to join, opened temples, studied Prabhupada's books real hard to give qualified lectures, my parents donated tons of laxmi, still around 1985 they began to call me asara, strange-dasa, useless-dasa, in front of their new disciples. For teaching them how to distribute books, how to cook or leading them out on Harinama I was warmly welcomed. At that time I realized that they simply wanted to turn Iskcon into their own ashram, just new gurus and new disciples, no "disturbing" godbrothers in between. They came up with "siddhantas" like, a disciple who, after the disappearance of his spiritual master doesnt advance to the level of accepting his own disciples is to be considered fallen - terribly fallen. And thats what the new disciples were taught, non initiating Prabhupada disciple are to be considered as not having received the mercy of their guru (they seemingly also liked to hear this with big smiles). The way I was told to leave was of that kind that I actually never visited a temple again and I'm thankful to hear from you now, that nothing actually has changed, except one goes there with a USD 1 Million check! I associate regularly with two Godbrothers but mainly time is eaten up to work for mainting the families material situation and that's just the point from what Prabhupada wanted us to save by living within a healthy Vaishnava community. Two years ago Prithu dasa, who brought me to KC in '71, invited me into his preaching center and afterwards I realy regretted of having gone there. When I told him the situation within Iskcon - new disciples worshipping their gurus - is set up in such a way that it made the presence of non- initiating Prabhupada disciples impossible, he just laughed and said, wrong, nonsense, they all blubbed, weren't fixed up enough to make it after the disappearance of Srila Prabhupada. For me that was like a knife in my heart and I thought how can he say that? Till today I havent found the answer and Jayapataka Swami's JSSS sounds to me like the same: we are all blubbed and imature, fallen and in great need to receive urgent help for our "vicissitudes of tender spiritual life".

http://www.victoryflag.com/jsss.htm

"...To provide facility for nurturing and culturing the disciples of His Divine Grace in their understanding of the Guru Tattva and serve as a guide in stabilisinng their services in the face of the many material vicissitudes of tender spiritual life.

Posted by Jatayu das @ 04/28/2005 10:02 AM PST

Following is the second email received from the individual who privately wrote to me, in response to my letter, above. He writes:


Dear Prabhu,

Thank you for the reply, and for posing two good questions.

In answer to your first question:

First and foremost, due to my own conviction and my ability to articulate that Srila Prabhupada is a Sampraday Acarya, I am not confused by the arguments set forth by the ISKCON diksa guru pandits. ISKCON authorities have a very difficult time disagreeing with my thesis, especially when I make it absolutely clear that I am not proposing that we do away with diksa initiation. If I, as an older devotee, advise the un-initiated to first become thoroughly educated by reading, hearing and worshipping, thereby establishing a deep, loving relationship with Srila Prabhupada, the Sampradaya Acarya, there isn't much they can say against my position. It's difficult to argue with the advice that a neophyte should get fully absorbed in Srila Prabhupada as a proper precursor to diksa.

No one in ISKCON can give a philosophically sound argument for why newcomers should be in a rush to take diksa. Even Bir Krishna dasa Goswami agreed with my stand on the over-emphasis within the institution on obtaining diksa initiation as soon as possible. Of course, while he acknowledged that over-zealous, immature disciples act as recruiters for their diksa guru, his attitude was that there's not much that can be done about the phenomenon

I have discovered that both the un-initiated, trained up bhaktas as well as the relative newcomers can easily understand and appreciate my explanations in this regard. In fact, many seem genuinely relieved to hear things logically explained from this angle, and they're comfortable with taking a slow, careful approach to preparing for initiation. It is unfortunate that by accepting the slower, more methodical path to initiation, they have to live with the social stigma of having the prefix "Bhakta" or "Bhaktin" placed before their karmi name. While this practice was applicable during Srila Prabhupada's ISKCON lila era, for obvious reasons it is just a subtle form of social pressure in today's environment. Why not allow the local siksa gurus to choose an appropriate spiritual name for trained up bhaktas who are not yet ready to be initiated? They could have a ceremony, fire yajna, or whatever to memorialize the event. This would allow those who have not yet decided upon their diksa guru to identify themselves as dedicated followers of the Sampradaya Acarya, and they can point to their siksa gurus as instructors for the time-being. I also don't support the current institutional practice of immediately having to identify oneself as "belonging" to a particular diksa guru, even placing their initials behind one's name. This practice may seem practical in the digital world of email, but it isn't sastrically sound, and it's become a transparent ploy by those in the institution to exploit the emotions of the newcomers who just want to feel that they belong.

The question before us is how does the Sampradaya Acarya concept allow me to relate to devotees who have reposed their faith in people and systems that are not in line with this vision of Srila Prabhupada? I'm not saying it's not completely easy – I am saying it's easier now than it used to be. I've explained above how I can relate to the un-initiated and newcomers. It's not difficult to talk with my Godbrothers and sisters about Srila Prabhupada's elevated status as a Sampradaya Acarya, because most of them fundamentally agree, in their hearts. In many cases, it's most difficult to try and relate with the disciples of my Godbrothers. The biggest difference is that I can now speak on the whole question of initiation with far more conviction and clarity than in previous years. I've carefully thought out the potential questions or challenges, I have my responses in the forefront of my brain, and I have a certain degree of realization. On the other hand, their position is not only philosophically weak, they're not clear about their own positions.

Perhaps the bigger question is between-the-lines of your question: can I get away with taking the Sampradaya Acarya position and still be an ISKCON insider? I suppose that depends upon the particular temple, GBC, local authority, Board, or whatever. I've found that most of the aforementioned have a hard time defending ISKCON's position on the topics mentioned above, so they shy away from the discussion. When the die-hard religionists want to rid themselves of free thinkers such as myself, they usually look for other reasons, such as that obscure Dharma Mela posting presented by Bir Krishna dasa Goswami.

In the case of ISKCON Portland, both the Board members and Bir Krishna dasa Goswami stated that they didn't want to "debate" philosophy with me. Instead, they recommended that I confront their deputed heavyweight philosopher, Hridayananda Swami. When an attitude such as this is coming from an older sannyasi/GBC/diksa guru, how can we deny that we are witnessing the telltale signs of entrenched religiosity disguised as spirituality? I told them that if they could arrange such an encounter with Hridayananda Swami, I'm certainly up for it. I would welcome a lengthy, written debate with him. Of course, everyone involved knew very well that orchestrating such a debate would be "mission impossible". In other words, they admitted their own inadequacies in order to defend the GBC's nebulous resolutions.

In answer to your second question:

The entire experience at the temple, from beginning to end, was mixed in the sense that initially it did seem that it was positive. The personalities with whom I was principally associating were spiritualists, namely the two brahmacaris (Trikalajhn dasa and Bhakta Joe) and a strict, dedicated householder couple (Nityananda Rama and Krishna-mayi devi). My wife got engaged in conversations with many of the women at the temple, but time didn't allow for us to actually develop relationships with many of the other householders. We had even less interaction with the Board members. In hindsight, I have to say it appeared that the Board members were purposely avoiding me, because none of them really invited me talk, take prasadam, ask questions, nor did they inquire into my life. In due course I found out why, but at the time I was somewhat oblivious to the underlying hostility.

So, a positive version would have been the absence of the negative factors such as ignorance, fear, impersonalism, arrogance, duplicity and so on. Of course, even during the nostalgic ISKCON lila period when Srila Prabhupada was present, it wasn't the "ideal world" you refer to. Still, my Portland temple experience wasn't anything like what I experienced in the old days. Back then, the temple authorities (which included me) were always on the lookout for qualified personnel. The atmosphere throughout ISKCON was surcharged with the gung-ho mood of so much to do, so little time, money and devotees. If someone walked in the door who was enthusiastic, capable and willing, we got them involved and engaged as quickly as possible. Today, a laid back, lackadaisical mood seems to prevail, especially in terms of preaching. During my Board roast, Govardhana dasa told me that he thought the painting of the temple had been a waste of time and money. When I tried to explain how important it was for preaching to create the right atmosphere, bright and suchi, he just couldn't comprehend. I think that's because he doesn't see the temple as a preaching center, just as place to come to every weekend. I'm sure he'd disagree with this assessment, but actions speak louder than works. My perspective is that Paramatma reciprocated with the spiritualists in providing the temple facility, not with the religionists represented by the Board members. To the spiritualists, everything possible should be done to improve the circumstances, post haste. To the religionists, Mañana… what's the hurry?

Ideally, the Board members would have made it their business to engage us quickly and directly after the first or second visit. Instead of making themselves scarce, they would have talked to us at length each Sunday, asking a lot questions aimed at getting to know who we were, why we had come, what we hoped to gain there. They would have simply opened a healthy channel of communications. Had they done so, they would have discovered that Jahnava and I are both honest, open and articulate in expressing who we are.

Much could have been disclosed, in both directions, sincerely and humbly. Had we done that, we would have pretty quickly zeroed in on points of disagreement and contention. Talking privately, we then could have agreed to disagree on certain things, and committed to talking and exploring together much more in future to try and really understand our differences (istagosti). If they felt the need to do so, the Board could have worked with us to establish ground rules, and we would have agreed to stay within certain boundaries so everyone could comfortably go forward. For example, the Board could have isolated potentially problematic issues from their standpoint (e.g., Prithu's departure, diksa initiation, GBC directives, HareKrsna.com content, etc.) that they don't want discussed at the temple, mentioned during a Sunday lecture, etc. My wife and I would have been happy to comply with such a request. In this way, contentious issues could easily have been kept isolated and discussed privately, philosophically, amongst the Board and more senior devotees. Jahnava and I would have been very agreeable to such a situation, and would have diligently worked to stay within such boundaries. We would have welcomed the private, philosophical discussion and debate. Everybody would have learned a lot, the temple would have benefited from our service, and we would have benefited from getting darshan of the Deities and having the association of the devotees. Win-Win..

Coming to this kind of an arrangement is relatively easy to do. Of course, a key ingredient to making such an agreement work is that both sides have to be sincere and honest. You have to want it to work. You have to actually follow-through with istagosti: talk at length, get to know one another, discuss openly and honestly, allow free thinking and free speech, and work together to come to agreements that let everyone associate together nicely.

Had Bir Krishna dasa Goswami come to town and spent time discussing issues philosophically with me, as one would expect a sanyasis/GBC to do, who knows what we might have learned or accomplished together. Whatever boundaries I'd agreed on with the temple could have been explored more thoroughly between he and I, on the philosophical platform, between Godbrothers.

So all of this is not rocket science. It's just good communications, personalism, and Krsna Consciousness. A lot to hope for, I know…. But you can't fault me for having high hopes.

Your servant,

Rocana dasa

Posted by Rocana dasa @ 04/28/2005 09:25 PM PST

Dear Jatayu das,

Obeisances and all glories to Srila Prabhupada.

Thank you for sharing the reader's digest version of your personal story. One of the first articles I wrote many years back was a piece called "Oh! I Remember You", wherein I described my traumatic experience in 1978 in Seattle involving one of the most notorious Zonals of them all, Hansadutta. Writing it was very therapeutic. Putting these stories in writing is also practical. I no longer have to continually tell the story – I can just point people to the URL and let them read it. Perhaps you, too, should immortalize your "stories of an exile". I'm sure they'd be an important contribution.

Interestingly, soon after I arrived for my recent meeting with Bir Krishna dasa Goswami, we began swapping Zonal era horror stories -- like army war vets. He told his Miami temple experience with Hridayananda Swami, which I topped by listing off all the Zonals I served with, from Hansadutta, to Jayatirtha, then Kirtanananda. The final GBC who pushed me over the edge is still a big time GBC/diksa. He wasn't one of the original eleven, just an original clone, some of whom were worse. As I told these stories, I could mentally hear the Swami's mind saying " Oh! No wonder he's so bitter and scarred." It's a bit like a Jew listening to an Auschwitz survivor.

Bir Krishna dasa Goswami explained how in 1978, he too was driven from his Temple President position in Miami soon after the arrival of the high and mighty Zonal Acarya, Hridayananda. Bir Krishna reluctantly left his service in Miami and moved to North Carolina. With the help of his parents, he started his own community. In fact, Bir Krishna explained that during this period, he had actually left ISKCON altogether. Before he returned to the fold, there was a significant period of time when his New Goloka center wasn't considered a part of ISKCON. I'm sure his faithful followers today don't consider his time outside of ISKCON as being the same as Godbrothers like you and I, who departed but haven't returned. I wonder if any of them recognize the hypocrisy of that inequitable conclusion.

The last time Bir Krishna dasa Goswami and I met was during the meetings in Towaco, NJ in the mid-eighties, when the local leaders "plotted" to rid ISKCON of the Zonal Acarya system. After partially accomplishing our goal, but caving on many critically important points, he, Ravindra Svarupa and others were allowed to initiate. But that's a story for another time.

Coincidentally, you mentioned meeting with Prithu dasa. While it's not emphasized in my article, our Portland temple experience actually has a lot to do with him, as he was the founding guru of this temple. No doubt the readers are up-to-date with the current headlines wherein Prithu dasa made some sort of vague admission of a "fall down", and consequently resigned from his responsibilities as diksa guru, GBC, and so on. I was told that he was mercifully taken-in by the other local GBC, Hari Vilasa dasa in Seattle. I asked Bir Krishna why it was that Prithu dasa was shown so much mercy, whereas I was being shown no leeway. I pointed out that I hadn't left Srila Prabhupada's movement in disgrace or with great fanfare. My departure hadn't in any way negatively impacted the image of the Society nor damaged the faith of followers, like Prithu dasa's departure had. Bir Krishna's only answer was that unlike myself, Prithu dasa hadn't publicly bad-mouthed his old elitist friends or placed any blame on the GBC.

What are Prithu dasa's "heart-broken" ex-disciples in Portland, who are now recommended by the GBC to become re-initiated, supposed to feel when their original diksa moves into an ISKCON temple community a few hours drive away? The duplicity and hypocrisy of this supposed "merciful gesture" to save poor Prithu dasa, while simultaneously forbidding me from becoming re-involved, was totally lost on the straight-faced Bir Krishna dasa Goswami. Govardhana dasa, an ex-Prithu dasa disciple and a recent re-initiate by Bir Krishna, was also incredulously in full agreement. I couldn't believe my ears.

About 12 years ago, I spent one month with Prithu dasa in a health retreat near Bangalore. I had reservations to spend a month there. He needed treatment a lot more than me, so I recommended he join me. It was just the two of us, living together in the same room for a month. Throughout this period, he told and re-told to me his recent sad story of having being mercilessly cheated by Satsvarupa Goswami and his disciples. They wanted and got him out of his temples in Ireland because Satsvarupa Goswami had decided he wanted to retire in Ireland and write. Fortunately for Prithu dasa, he had been granted his guru-ship a year or so prior to this incident, so he had enough of his own disciples and some money for a fresh "grub-stake". At the clinic, Prithu and I also shared Zonal Acarya war stories about his early post-samadhi battles in Germany. This resulted in him being driven out by Harikesa Swami, and then taking shelter of Jayatirtha, who granted him Ireland as his mini-zone.

There was so much "gobblee -gook" in Prithu dasa's recent cryptic public apologies, wherein he blames his problems with deep depression, hazy fall down, and chronic family neglect on being too absorbed in preaching and serving Srila Prabhupada's ISKCON. In fact, I know that much of his personal trauma originated with the Germany and Ireland experiences. In truth, he was manically driven by revenge, competitiveness, one-upmanship and bitterness for many years after his shell shock from the coup d'etat in Ireland.

After many years of friendship, Prithu dasa and I had our falling out in the late nineties, while we were up at Saranagati Village in Northern BC. He had journeyed up there for the first and final time, prospecting for new ex-disciples after Jagadisa Swami made his ignominious fall-down departure. Prithu and I exchanged some very heated words at Saranagati, and later we exchanged a web-published series of vitriolic emails around our disagreement on current ISKCON/GBC policies surrounding re-initiation. By then he was spiraling down, losing his Krsna Consciousness and sanity, all on account of seriously playing the institutional guru game. In another sense, he is yet another victim of a tragically flawed religious system. Now, he's ISKCON's equivalent to the Roman Catholic's Cardinal Law, spirited away to private retreat "on the inside" after his big public scandal.

Someone recently shared with me a statement by Jayapataka Swami*, found on Istagosti.org:

Bir Krishna dasa Goswami said virtually the very same thing to me. That confidentially, behind closed doors and without disciples present, we could discuss anything I wanted. I found it very strange that at the same time, he had insisted on having his new disciple, Govardhana dasa, present during our long conversation. Bir Krishna went on to say that senior members and Godbrothers vent privately to each other on a regular basis, and it's good therapy, male bonding and the like. I replied that if any GBC or senior ISKCON official had ever made any attempt at all to contact me over the last fifteen years since I left, perhaps I wouldn't have felt compelled to "vent" over the Internet.

Too late now, the die is cast. In a world with Goggle search, my fate is sealed…. I'm crushed. As we witness right here on this Blog, contributors still feel they have to remain anonymous for fear of being banned by ISKCON. How these seemingly rational, intelligent "authorities" can adopt, and have the audacity to defend, this type of media control policy is beyond me. The fact is, devotees are one of the most wired groups on the planet. All around the world, we see countries, cultures and societies being transformed as a result of the free distribution of information across the Internet. There is an undeniable global move towards openness and transparency -- not towards secrecy and control! Today, even China and Japan are engaged in a public challenge to disclose and acknowledge the truth of their painful history. Why does ISKCON think they're exempt? They are only postponing the inevitable, and Srila Prabhupada's preaching mission is paying the dear price.

GBC, like the two Swamis above, should refrain from presuming to speak for the whole Vaisnava population on such philosophical questions as guru fall-down. Kings and queens used to make a mockery of religion by presuming to be its caretakers. What most of them really wanted was a kind of religion that would justify their rule while pacifying the populace. Our GBC representatives are prone to the same temptations. The religion that Srila Prabhupada's supposed caretakers practice and promote often smells of sanctimony, manipulation and self-idolatry.

Individual Srila Prabhupada followers can be trusted to find their own appropriate ways to express their spiritual convictions, realizations, and virtue. What the people need from GBC leaders are the virtues of truthfulness, justice, practical wisdom, courage, vision and a kind of compassion whose effects can actually be discerned in the lives of the grassroots Vaisnavas. Sadly, compassion is exclusively for the disciples and the guru club members, not for old Godbrothers like us.

your servant,

Rocana dasa

[* This name has been corrected. Ed.]

Posted by Rocana dasa @ 04/29/2005 11:31 AM PST

Hari bol Prabhuji. Dandavat Pranams.

All glories to your preaching seva. I think it is great that you are preaching on your own and trying to remain within Prabhupada's ISKCON. I myself actually live somewhat near you. I am in Olympia, so I am between you and ISKCON Seattle.

Anyway, my question was: since you agree that the tradition of diksa should not be stopped--whom would you recommend for giving diksa if such a time came for someone you were preaching to?

Thanks in advance,

ys, jagat-purusa dasa

Posted by jagat-purusa dasa @ 04/29/2005 09:30 PM PST

Dear Rocana prabhu,

You are not alone in feeling the sting of censorship. In the book, Srila Prabhupada:The Prominent Link, Dhira Govinda prabhu says the following:
"Tones tend to be hushed in such conversations due to an apprehension that such expressions would incur the disfavor of members and leaders of the institution. There is a perceived culture of fear and repression in the ISKCON organization, masked by a pretense of openness to frank discussion of issues.

Ostensibly ISKCON wants innovative, thoughtful members who bodly apply their intelligence, within the framwork of guru, sastra and sadhu, for gaining a deeper understanding of devotional principles. In practi ce, as experienced by many, if one does not conform to the organizational line on issues such as those addressed in PL, then the institutional leadership, without rational discussion or genuine attempt at understanding, often condemns the dissenter and discourages members of the organization to honestly look at issues from unorthodox perspectives. The implied message is "We have already thoroughly considered these issues. So you needn't apply your intelligence here, because we've thought it through for you." Such stance is unlikely to attract and retain independent thoughtful members. There is in the organization a veneer of broad-mindedness, accompanied by an implicit assertion that views such as those espoused in Srila Prabhupada: The Prominent Link are not to be found amongst persons in good-standing in the organization. If someone in the organization advocates such convictions, they are then branded and condemned, and pressured to leave the institution. Once they have left, it is again safe for the leadership to declare to the members that no one in good-standing would hold such views as expressed in essays such as The Prominent Link, and anyone who thinks that way is deviant, and so you'd do better to not even consider thinking in that way.

Authoritarian dynamics, wherein the leadership is fearful of permittting subordinates to analyze and discern for themselves, may be somewhat prevalent in today's religious institutions, but they are not conducive for Vaisnava society or relationships. Such reluctance to allow members to fully utilize their cognitive faculties may stem to a substantial degree from a benevolent desire to protect. The ISKCON organization may also benefit, however, from introspectively looking at other motivations for this authoritarianism, such as fear that members, upon analysis of facts from an alternative perspective, may realize that they are being, in some ways, misled.

We understand that this imperious leadership style is not extant throughout the organization, but it is manifested with sufficient regularity and pervasiveness that many, perhaps most, of Srila Prabhupada's followers, both inside and outside the institution, feel alienated and stifled. Thus, for the purpose of attracting and maintaining satisfied, intelligent members, it is, we believe, imperative for ISKCON leadership, especially at the top levels, to seriously assess its mode of addressing issues and concerns. As Balavanta writes in the Preference to PL, spiritual matters in Srila Prabhupada's society must be resolved through "open and frank discussion amongst mature devotees whose voices are not suppressed."

Posted by Hanuman @ 04/30/2005 06:41 AM PST