Bhaktipada or Bhaktifraud?

In his initial and subsequent article on HH Umapati Swami, Navadvipchandra dasa mentions that he was inspired to make his comments on account of an article I had previously written in regards to HH Radhanatha Swami "Wonderful Story". It appears that Navadvipchandra is far more 'in the know' in terms of what went on at New Vrindaban than I am. My personal experiences were more wide-lens, in the sense that I was serving in Eastern Canada at a period in time when Kirtanananda was appointed as the Zonal Acarya of Eastern Canada (Toronto, Montreal, Ottawa), During that period the whole of America was impacted by the influence of New Vrindaban and Kirtanananda, and not in a positive manner in many circumstances. To my knowledge, the only temples that got any real benefit were the New Vrindaban satellite temples such as Cleveland and Pittsburgh.

One name that Navadvipchandra prabhu forgot on his list is Dharmatma dasa, a Canadian devotee who joined New Vrindaban by absconding with a sankirtana bus full of devotees from Vancouver. On the encouragement of Bhaktipada, these devotees just arbitrarily decided to mutiny and stay there at New Vrindaban, rather than return to home base with our bus. Dharmatma dasa later got his just desserts, being recruited and engaged by Bhaktipada to be the head of the women's party and the "sankirtana leader", as they liked to call it. In reality, their focus wasn't on distributing books, but just on collecting money for New Vrindaban. So because Dharmatma had so much knowledge of the sankirtana areas in Canada that were juicy, he and his roving bands of outlaws moved into Canada and swarmed all of our choice sankirtana area, causing all sorts of disruption to the Canada Yatra.

Rather than repeat what has already been told of this history, following are links to the last series of articles that focused on Kirtanananda's pastimes, including those of his close associate, Dharmatma:

When Kirtanananda Was King
Sun Poll Results on ISKCON/Kirtanananda Alliance
The Big Lie
Response from Dharmatma's wife, Dwijapriya devi dasi
Rocana's Reply to Dvijapriya dasi

In his article, Navadvipchandra dasa addresses the circumstances surrounding New Vrindaban after Kirtanananda was ousted from ISKCON along with his entire band. Consequently, the people that he lists, regardless of how much they try to divorce themselves from that set of circumstances, had to make a choice between ISKCON and Kirtanananda. For a great deal of time, many obviously chose Kirtanananda… at least until they could see the blood in the water, so to speak, and abandoned ship.

So when we hear from Umapati Swami, and from HH Radhanatha Swami, and from devotees like Dharmatma dasa, we hear the same kind of message over and over -- namely that they didn't agree with Kirtanananda, they cooperated with the legal authorities to see that he was incarcerated, and so on. They distanced themselves from being implicated in murder charges, but insofar as they helped support him until that crucial situation unfolded, there is actually no doubt in anybody's mind that they were at New Vrindaban and were major players and supporters of Kirtanananda.

I also find that one of the common denominators in the minds of these individuals is that they have convinced themselves, out of guilt or political expediency, that they are in no way implicated in any of the offensive activities and the maha-aparadha that was taking place at New Vrindaban. Not only that, they commonly will not accept the fact that their service at that time was not essentially "devotional service" under the guidance of a pure devotee, so consequently their service did not award them the kind of spiritual results they believe they deserve. In fact, it could obviously be just the opposite, and that's really part of what's in debate here. Where they doing a disservice to Srila Prabhupada and to Lord Caitanya Mahaprabhu's sankirtana movement? In their own minds, they cannot live with that conclusion. Consequently, they are fooling themselves into thinking that their story is legitimate, wherein they are not culpable or implicated. Of course, to most other observers, this is just ludicrous.

To say, for instance, that they didn't know about Kirtanananda's homosexual activities, when everyone else in the movement knew about them, is just total denial. Kirtanananda had been sleeping with Hayagriva's young son, in the same sleeping bag, for years. To say you didn't know about that is just total illusion or lying. This had been going since the 1970's, when Srila Prabhupada was here, let alone going on during the whole ten-year stretch of the Zonal Acarya period.

One can tell by Umapati Swami's reaction in the letter sent to Navadvipchandra that he has worked it out in his own mind that he's completely free of complicity and shouldn't feel guilty or responsibility at all for what went on at that time. This includes his involvement in performing the sannyasa initiation ceremony for Tirtha dasa, what to speak of his own sannyasa (which he received from Kirtanananda). How can anyone who took sannyasa from Kirtanananda at that time, especially if they lived right at New Vrindaban, think that their sannyasa is legitimate? I mean, if Kirtanananda's diksa disciples had to be reinitiated in order to stay in ISKCON, what about his sannyasa initiates?

Tirtha may have made a deal with the prosecutors in order to get a lighter sentence, by testifying against Kirtanananda, but to this day, he is tight-lipped about any of the other associates of New Vrindaban, including his past associates, Umapati Swami, Radhanatha Swami, and whoever else participated in the murder of Sulocana. The big question that police still haven't uncovered is who killed Chakradhari, whose body was found buried in the creek bed at New Vrindaban? That crime has still not been solved, and it doesn't seem like Umapati Swami or anyone else is worried about seeing that the person(s) involved in that are prosecuted.

Kirtanananda never did get charged with being conspiratorially involved in the murders. But if he didn't do it, we have to assume that Tirtha did not do it completely on his own, so who was it that instructed him and gave him the assistance to carry out this order? Tirtha didn't have anything personally against Sulocana; it was Kirtanananda and the hierarchy who wanted to make sure Sulocana was silenced. As the story goes, Rameswar was also implicated because he was angry at Sulocana for getting hold of the microfiche of Srila Prabhupada's letters which the Zonal Acaryas were trying to keep from becoming public. Thankfully, we now have the letters as part of Srila Prabhupada's written legacy in the Folio.

After reading Umapati Swami's response, one has to assume that all the things he was accused of by Navadvipchandra dasa, but doesn't address or rebut, must all be true. Namely, I refer to the assertion that Umapati Swami is not living like a sannyasi. Navadvipchandra said that he lives alone, and mentioned various things regarding his lifestyle. Umapati Swami didn't deny these things, so they must be true. Essentially this means that being a sannyasi and guru is a part time business, or maybe a hobby. If these “private” facts are common knowledge, how is it that our GBC tolerate this unsanctioned, precedent setting, “private” arrangement? The answer to that is that a lot of them live under similar circumstances, so if they get on Umapati's case, then there are many other modern swamis with untraditional lifestyles they would be obliged to straighten out in a similar manner. Consequently, they just ignore it. That's why Umapati Swami explicitly shouts “Stay out of my private life”! But is a sannyasi disciple of Srila Prabhupada authorized to keep a portion of his life “private”? Srila Prabhupada never told people to stay out of his life, because every aspect of his life was an open book, by his own design. As far as we know, that's what it means to be a Vaisnava sannyasi/guru within the institution set up by the Sampradaya Acarya. Of course, you wouldn't know it to see ISKCON today.

Having visited Umapati Swami's website, I read what he had to say about the JonBenet Ramsey article that he referred to. It's interesting to note that the fellow who supposedly confessed to being the murderer turned out to be a total fraud, and was just looking for publicity. Of course, Umapati Swami's message is, don't jump to conclusions about who's guilty until it's proven. It's hard not to think that he's really insinuating that he himself isn't guilty of anything that happened at New Vrindaban. Why else would he chose this particular story to comment on, with all the big news events going on in the world? Why focus on this one, about a little girl? In fact that's what his message was, everyone was blaming the parents and supposedly this confession exonerated them, even though in the end, it didn’t. So I think Umapati Swami likely carries guilt and fear about being implicated in what went on at New Vrindaban. He and all the people that Navadvipchandra dasa listed, as well as many others who were more grassroots, are all implicated in these events to different degrees. Anyone who's remaining silent is complicit. Things like this just don't go on in a community as close as New Vrindaban without a lot of people knowing exactly who the players are and what their motives are likely to be. But who's saying? So there's a big cover-up, which means there will be reactions for the lack of honest disclosure. You're either fully disclosing everything you know about that time and circumstance, or you're guilty, too.

Umapati Swami ends his letter by revealing his true colors. And I'm sure that if you prodded and hit the right buttons with Radhanatha, Dharmatma, Malati, and all the others, you'll find that they also feel that Kirtanananda contributed a great deal to Krsna consciousness, many devotees were benefited, and so forth. But that's not how it looks to those on the outside who were the victims of Kirtanananda -- not just those who were murdered -- they're just the tip of the iceberg. Kirtanananda seriously impacted Srila Prabhupada's movement in general, disrupting many small temples with his 'sankirtana bandits', having books and magazine articles written about him, continued bad press for ISKCON, etc. All this is now on the Internet forever.

So when it all weights out, was Kirtanananda a demon or a devotee? Obviously Umapati Swami thinks he's a devotee, for obvious reasons. So does Dharmatma dasa, so does Radhanatha Swami, or else why would they visit him? Why would they have anything to do with Tirtha or Kirtanananda? All this goes to prove that everything Navadvipchandra dasa says is basically true.

Umapati Swami states that Kirtanananda simply has problems, and people like "harping on Kirtanananda's mere problems". We should just forget his problems instead of thinking about them, and all the ramifications they have had to Srila Prabhupada's movement. It's better for us to think about all the help he gave many devotees and all the wonderful things he's done. So if that's the case, then why doesn't Umapati Swami write a nice long dissertation, or a book, about all the wonderful things Kirtanananda has done? Does he think that's a good way to spend his time? Does he dare to do that?

We all gave Kirtanananda the benefit of the doubt for way too long based on the principle that we should think about all the good things. As a result, it made the whole situation worse and worse and worse. Kirtanananda should have been nipped in the bud long before it got to the point that he was taken down, because people like Umapati Swami were essentially telling everyone the same things he's telling us to do now. ISKCON left Kirtanananda to his own devices, giving him all sorts of unchecked power. And he did a great deal of harm, not just to the murdered individuals, but generally to Srila Prabhupada's movement and to himself as well. He converted over to his Christianity-morph immediately after he left ISKCON, so that was in his heart all along. He really believed he was as good as Srila Prabhupada, which is even scarier. According to Umapati Swami, he left in 1988, so he was there with Kirtanananda for at least two years while Kirtanananda was up to his Christianity-crossover activities. Besides the fact that this wasn't what Srila Prabhupada said we should do, the fact that he immediately embarked on this journey after being released from the scrutiny from his Godbrothers means that he had this idea for a long time, and was just waiting to implement it. I think this desire goes right back to the time Srila Prabhupada was present, and this concocted idea was never purged. So in that regard, he never did surrender to Srila Prabhupada. And it's obvious that Umapati Swami either wasn't intelligent enough to understand this, or he just wanted to believe what he wanted to believe.

I have to applaud Navadvipchandra dasa's excellent presentation on this whole thread, although Umapati Swami, and now Hrishikesh dasa, disagree with what he has said. I assume they also disagree with what I've said. Navadvipchandra has basically proven by his statements the many accusations leveled at those who were at New Vrindaban, not only as leaders, but also as followers. For their own personal reasons, they have decided to look kindly upon all the sinful activities that preceded Kirtanananda's eventual falldown. Hrishikesa dasa claims that there were 700 people living there who were in total ignorance of what was going on. He says just a few people knew, and they were the leaders. Supposedly the leaders concluded that it was best to keep the grassroots devotees in illusion about what lay below the surface there. This is almost like the defense given by inhabitants of the towns near the concentration camps in Nazi Germany. They didn't have a clue what was going on just a few miles away… which of course is nonsense. The fact is that they would have ended up like Chakradhari or Sulocana had they recognized what was right in front of them and confronted it.

We have to keep in mind that New Vrindaban was like a small town, and regardless of how much people were chanting, worshipping the Deities and serving there, they had enough time to gossip and compare notes with one another. There were plenty of rumors going around about what Kirtanananda was up to, and many people knew enough to know that they didn't want to look at what was really going on. If they did, their position at New Vrindaban would be in jeopardy - in fact, their life may be in jeopardy. So much money was being raised via the drugs, prostitution, copyright theft, and nefarious activities, which a few of the criminals were eventually nailed on. This money was supporting all the grassroots devotees in their lifestyles and service positions at New Vrindaban. Naturally they didn't want to put their own personal circumstances into jeopardy.

The way that Hrishikesh presents Sulocana speaks volumes about how he feels. He basically suggests that Sulocana deserved to die due to his "poor scholarship". But if it was such a crazy book, then no one would have listened to him, so why were they all so afraid of what he had to say? It is an undisputed fact that Kirtanananda interfered with his marriage, taking his children away. That's a whole story in itself. I don’t believe many husbands wouldn't hate the person who did that to them, so we can understand Sulocana's anger.

As for his defense of Umapati Swami, from a relative point of view I suppose that Umapati should be given a little bit of credit for jumping ship before some of the others on the list Navadvipchandra presented. It's all relative. At the same time, I don't remember Umapati making a campaign or a crusade to expose Kirtanananda or New Vrindaban after he left. Until the actual U.S. law enforcement got involved surrounding the Sulocana murder, little was broadcast about the details of what was going on. The law enforcement agencies eventually got Kirtanananda in the same way they got Al Capone, on a lesser charge. Because the people in the mob didn't dare say anything against him, they couldn't prove the murders and more serious crimes. And that remains a fact to this very day. Consequently, they had to be satisfied with just charging Kirtanananda with the crimes they did, although it's always been obvious that he's actually implicated in more than one murder.

Hrishikesh is stating a fact when he explains how Srila Prabhupada's Palace of Gold made a big positive impact from a media point of view when it first opened. It was a labour of love from the point of view of the devotees who helped build it. But it was essentially a house of cards. While it first drew media attention to New Vrindaban, when Kirtanananda was exposed and the Monkey on a Stick book came out, all the media turned in the opposite direction. It's hard to determine whether it just neutralized all the positive things that this long-term resident of New Vrindaban likes to believe made it all worthwhile. In other words, was it worthwhile to commit murder, run drugs and engage in prostitution so this Palace could be built, or so that 700 devotees could find shelter in New Vrindaban on the strength of all these activities? Because basically we're talking about where the money came from that built and ran the whole enterprise, not just the fact that people did these other activities because they were renegades or outlaws. The whole cash flow of New Vrindaban depended on those activities taking place. Basically this was blood money to all the people involved. Whether they like to believe it was all for the good, as Umapati Swami, Radhanatha Swami, Dharmatma and Kuladri believe, that's up to them to work it out.

The main point that Navadvipchandra dasa makes is lost on both Umapati Swami and Hrishikesh dasa, and that is that ISKCON today has been influenced in the way that it operates on account of the mentality and attitude injected collectively by all the people that were at New Vrindaban. They impacted how ISKCON is operated today, and it is not positive. If you look collectively at all the individuals mentioned by Navadvipchandra, you can't help but admit that the Kirtanananda influence is still impacting today's overall ISKCON circumstance. And this is true in more ways than most devotees realize. Of course, those who were the underlings don't want to admit this because they don't want to believe that so many years of their life and devotional careers were wasted, or not as great as they think. They can't deal with the fact that it was a huge mistake on their part to stay involved when the writing was so clearly on the wall.

Like all histories, people tend to break New Vrindaban's history up into eras. Once Kirtanananda was free of any ISKCON influence after they threw him out, he launched into his 'great experiment', as Hrishikesh dasa likes to call it. But no one, not Umapati Swami, Hrishikesh, or any of the others I hear from, admits or reflects upon the fact that Kirtanananda was always on a 'great experiment'. In other words, he was doing it his way, and not Srila Prabhupada's way. You had to be dedicated more to Kirtanananda than to Srila Prabhupada in order to stay at New Vrindaban, because there were so many aspects of Kirtanananda's mood, style and program that was the antithesis of Srila Prabhupada's program. You were forced by that very situation to have more faith and dedication to Kirtanananda than Srila Prabhupada, or else you couldn't live there. And that in itself resulted in Krsna having to take care of getting rid of Kirtanananda - not the GBC, not the local people, but Krsna, through the agency of the FBI and the American legal system. That in itself is a huge embarrassment in my mind. The inhabitants, or what Kirtanananda liked to call the 'inmates', where under the whammy, almost mass hypnosis, because Kirtanananda was a true cult leader.

They were members of a cult, and we can clearly see the remnants of that fact today, in Hrishikesh's mentality. You prod them, and this is what you get from Umapati Swami and Hrishikesh - no apologies on their part, just defense of the sick leader Kirtanananda, and telling people to go to hell. In fact, they're the ones that are more likely to go to hell than those of us who are questioning, and pressing for full public disclosure.