Jayadvaita Swami Speaks Out


Three documents are featured here. Comments where added in italics. The first item is a list of reasons why some take shelter of the ritvik idea, though it is heretical. These reasons however, a sort of social commentary on our society and are therefore valuable for us to consider in light of the basic theory that dysfunctional dynamics bring about authoritarianism, alienation from self, and alienate sincere devotee from our positive alternative society.

 WHERE THE RITVIK PEOPLE ARE RIGHT 

by H. H. Jayadvaita Swami, 1996

From my point of view, it's easy to see where the ritvik people are wrong. Their theories are supported by matchsticks and held together with Scotch tape. They tell us what Srila Prabhupada "must have" intended, not what he clearly and repeatedly said. In short, they are speculating, and their speculations are defective.

But what concerns me at this point is not where they're wrong but where they're right. What is it they see about ISKCON's present way of doing things that makes them want to go in for even such a poor alternative as the ritvik one?

Some are just "sour grapes." They have rendered themselves unfit to serve as gurus, and now that they can't be gurus, no one can.

Others, clearly, have simply been warped by the material energy. Their brains are in their feet and their tongues in their armpits, at best.

But some, it's equally clear, are sincere, intelligent, thoughtful, and devoted to Srila Prabhupada and Krsna.

So scratch the first two bunches. What's driving these other people? Even if we reject the point they've come to, how did they get there?

In part, of course, they are responding to history, both old and recent. Let's take a look at some unpleasant facts:

FACT: ISKCON gurus in good standing have fallen.

FACT: The ISKCON GBC has supported even fallen gurus and tried to paper over their falldowns.

FACT: ISKCON gurus have opposed, oppressed and driven out many sincere godbrothers and godsisters.

FACT: ISKCON gurus have usurped and misused money, and diverted other ISKCON resources for their own personal prestige and sense gratification.

FACT: ISKCON gurus have had illicit sexual intercourse with both women and men, and possibly children as well.

FACT: Some ISKCON gurus still in good standing have had such serious personal difficulties that the GBC has been obliged to suspend them from initiating.

FACT: Other ISKCON gurus have snapped back into line only after "narrow misses."

FACT: ISKCON gurus recently led a movement advocating a premature and inappropriate emphasis on rasika-bhakti.

FACT: Some ISKCON devotees have felt obliged to accept a new guru twice or even three times over.

In contrast, Srila Prabhupada was staunch, unfailing, always perfect in his discretion and determination. He was indisputably an exalted and empowered acarya, a pure and intimate personal associate of Krsna.

Is it any wonder, then, that some devotees feel that only Srila Prabhupada can give them shelter and that no one else deserves the same surrender and trust?

And when it comes to the subject of gurus, who trusts the spiritual guidance of the GBC?

First the GBC gave us the "eleven pure devotees appointed by Srila Prabhupada," each deserving the fealty of his godbrothers and destined to be your guru if you joined the Hare Krsna movement in his zone.

Then the GBC told us the gurus were never appointed. Or, rather, members gave us at least two different stories, some GBC men declaring emphatically that Srila Prabhupada never appointed anything more than ritviks, others sure, to this day, of having been appointed "regular gurus."

The GBC itself then appointed new gurus--or did it? The word "appointed" is never used. But there are "candidates for initiating guru," votes are taken, and those who make it through the procedures become "ISKCON-approved" or "ISKCON-authorized" gurus.

To boost your confidence: On one hand the GBC encourages you to be initiated by a bona fide, authorized ISKCON guru and worship him like God. On the other, it has an elaborate system of laws to invoke from time to time when your ISKCON-authorized guru falls down.

One might perhaps be forgiven for thinking that for all the laws and resolutions the role of guru is still a perplexity even for the GBC.

Some devotees have no problem with any of this. They have their guru. They trust him. They are making advancement. They are happy.

But others can only lament the passing of the days when Srila Prabhupada was the only guru and the position of guru was sure.

Merely to "smash" the theories of the post-samadhi ritvik people, then, will not make such theories go away. We must honestly fact the underlying issues.

Who is a bona fide spiritual master? What qualifications must he have? Are the gurus in ISKCON factually qualified--all of them, some of them, or any of them? If all or any of them are less than fully fit, what implications does this have for their disciples and for ISKCON? In ISKCON today, how can one be sure that the spiritual master to whom one is surrendering is genuine and infallible? Above all, how can every member of ISKCON be connected with Srila Prabhupada as his disciple, his follower, in a true and legitimate sense?

The spiritual leaders of ISKCON ought to recognize the importance of these questions and deal with them honestly, openly, sincerely, and deeply.

Hare Krsna.

 

Jayadvaita Swami has made some good points and raised some valid questions at the end. Note however, that while he questioned the ISKCON word juggling procedure of approving gurus by non-appointment, he has not addressed the heresy of gurus by appointment or by approval.

Another significant point about the above "FACT" list, is that with only two or three exceptions on the GBC, all the people on the GBC are also gurus. Therefore many of the points apply to them. In other words, incompetent or malfunctioning gurus are doing double duty as incompetent or malfunctioning GBC officers. This is borne out by the next document of Jayadvaita Swami, although that one is more than ten years old.

Also, in terms of the discussion on guru in this volume of Our Mission, a point that bears repeating is that we may consider putting the responsibility of who one takes as guru back on the candidate rather than in the hands of the institution. If the leaders think a particular person unqualified, they may surely make their opinion public so that people can take that into consideration, but beyond educating people to know what is a guru and what is a disciple, the institution should not try to police an affair of the heart.

Letting people make their own decision about guru would remove all stain from the institution should that guru suffer a falldown. It would not reflect badly on the people who "approved" but did not appoint said guru. And letting the candidate decide for his or her self who to accept as guru would put us in line with our parampara philosophy. "Whoever follows, as Srila Prabhupada said, "can lead. We have no such thing as here is your leader."

* * * * *

The next document dates back to 1987, however several of the 32 items in Jayadvaita Swami’s list of grievances are still valid to this day. In some cases the severity of the complaint has increased:

SEVERAL GRIEVANCES

AGAINST THE MEMBERS OF THE GBC

by Jayadvaita Swami, 1987

 

The grievances listed here are meant for thought and consideration. I have tried to include only items pertaining to all or many present GBC men, not only one or two and not only those no longer active. The extent to which these complaints are true, the depth of what they mean and the best way to respond, I leave up to the Vaisnavas, and each GBC man himself, to reflect upon and decide.

Jayadvaita Swami, March 5, 1987

1. In 1977, Srila Prabhupada was lonely ("I have become poisonous"), he wanted many devotees to come be with him in Vrindavana. But the GBC falsely conveyed that what he wanted was GBC men and very senior devotees. The GBC then arranged to send only a handful of men, in rotation, and preached to the other devotees that "for service" they should stay home. The devotees stayed home, and Srila Prabhupada left the world.

2. In 1977, most GBC men abandoned Srila Prabhupada in Vrindavana. They flew in when they heard his departure was imminent, then flew out when they found there was no way to know how long he might stay on.

3. The GBC has shown gross incompetence and neglect in regard to the construction of Srila Prabhupada's samadhis.

4. The GBC instituted, encouraged, and for many years belligerently and obstinately defended symbols, rituals, practices, teachings, and structures subversive to the unique importance of His Divine Grace A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada, Founder-Acarya of the International Society for Krishna Consciousness.

5. The members of the GBC have, with few exceptions, neglected their pledges to take on, in rotation, the personal seva of Srila Prabhupada at his Vrindavana samadhi and the Radha-Damodar temple. 

This has not gotten better. It has gotten worse with the passage of time. And when a sannyasi came along who was steady in this service and willing to do it indefinitely, he was politicked out of the service. The sons fighting affects the service of the father.

6. The GBC has failed to adequately implement the last will of His Divine Grace A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada in regard to trusteeship of properties.

7. The GBC has failed to adequately maintain and protect the reputation and prestige of the Society. 

"Failed" is a very mild way of putting it. And when the body does rally to protect the reputation and prestige of the our society, as testified by the next document from Jayadvaita Swami, it is more by public relations gimmickry than by authentic honesty and conduct backed by consistent integrity. We have no taste for balanced justice. Saving face is the essence.

8. The GBC has failed to maintain and protect the spiritual standards of the Society. 

The GBC has failed to maintain and protect the spiritual standards of the GBC itself. The credibility of the body is at its lowest ebb, and justifiably so. In Europe, a brahmacari attempted to poison a sannyasi, two months later the GBC officer appointed him temple president. The brahmacari’s guru praised the appointment.

In 1996, the year a book was published analyzing our society and pointing out the peril of authoritarian dynamics, guess what, for which the GBC body wanted to punish the author, a GBC man went to Bombay and made an ultimatum to a leading temple manager there, that he had to go. Like it or not. The devotee decided go down fighting in the war against irrationality. When the smoke cleared, the GBC man had to go. The irony of this is that the same GBC man is world renowned in ISKCON for his seminars on the seven habits of highly effective people. One of those seven habits, believe it or not, is "Think win/win." Of course, another habit is "Begin with the end in mind." Perhaps that was precisely what he did in Bombay.

Another GBC man went back to college, even though he has a zone that accounts for one quarter of the world’s population. He was heard to declare, that when he gets his Ph.D. then he can do whatever he wants, which is reminiscent of yet another GBC man who once screamed, "I don’t care whether it is Krsna conscious or not, it’s what I want."

Meanwhile we have social development conferences and committees. How about sannyasis setting the spiritual standards for our social body by modeling renunciation? Why is the title "maharaja" being misconstrued to be like mundane kings instead of "master of the senses?"

In 1997, a disciple of a GBC officer attempted to commit suicide, because she could not make her collection quota. This quota was to replace money that her guru had lost in some investment scheme with funds of the society. Which also raises the question of all the "personal" and unaccountable funds that passes through the hands of these GBC-gurus. Meanwhile in the conversations we see Prabhupada saying again and again the GBC’s should not handle money.

Yet another guru was tested by his female disciple. She told him that she was pregnant from a rape incident and put on a whole performance of bereavement and so on. The expert transcendentalist, representative of God, advised her to get an abortion. And so it goes. . . like sands through the hourglass, the world of ISKCON turns in the age of quarrel and hypocrisy. Where will is stop, nobody knows.

9. The GBC has allowed the material and spiritual deterioration of ISKCON's projects in Vrindavana and Bombay. 

Vrindavana temple is supposed to be one of our showcase centers. Certainly one of the most international of our centers, but the stench of the sewage problem which has prevailed for years would make any thinking person wonder what exactly is the priority of the management. Now it seems that something will be done about this problem.

10. The GBC has allowed the spiritual deterioration of ISKCON's project in Sridhama Mayapur.

11. Competing for zonal primacy and undue control over disciples and prospective disciples, the members of the GBC have helped undermine Srila Prabhupada's plans for the International Gurukula in Vrindavana. 

This is certainly still true. The question today is, considering the ruckus being raised by former gurukulis, whether the credibility of the gurukula is in question among parents who may be fearing to send their children to the gurukula, or, are the GBC/gurus still undermining this project as Jayadvaita Swami alleged in 1987?

The rates of initiation continues. The numbers of student age children are certainly on the rise, but the Gurukula building remains more than fifty percent occupied by the temple, because the school cannot use all the facility. As of December 1997, we have less than a hundred boys enrolled in the school. Ultimately, the grievance comes back to the fact that the GBC has never made gurukula the priority it ought to be in our society.

12. On the whole, the members of the GBC have failed to maintain in their own lives a proper standard of Vaisnava behavior.

("The GBC should personally observe strictly all the rules and regulations and they should become the practical example to others. Then everything will be all right." -- Letter to Bali Mardan, May 9, 1974) 

This problem of sub-standard behavior certainly continues. With "Truth is not the issue" and other curious utterances issuing from the GBC officers lips plus numerous cases of questionable ethics such as one-sided justice and other anomalies this grievance of Jayadvaita Swami hits home in 1997.

13. After Srila Prabhupada's disappearance, for many years the GBC systematically misrepresented Srila Prabhupada's teachings and instructions about carrying on the disciplic succession. 

And continue to do so unabated by tacitly demanding blind following, by rubber-stamping gurus by non-appointment, by not fully taking responsibility for maintaining a sattvic atmosphere in the society. . .. Readers are invited to add to this list as per individual experience.

14. The GBC instituted, encouraged, and for many years belligerently and obstinately defended symbols, rituals, practices, teachings, and structures meant to create and perpetuate for a small group an elite status to which they were never entitled. 

This grievance refers to the zonal acarya blunder. After the so-called reform of the mid-eighties, all the above still applies. This time to the GBC body as a whole.

15. The GBC pushed and pressured disciples of His Divine Grace A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada to worship selected GBC Godbrothers as though on the same level as Srila Prabhupada himself. 

This problem, thank God, is not current. In any event, today it would not be a big problem, because we have so few disciples of His Divine Grace A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami active in the society in the first place, having being pushed or pressured out of the institution, in which the whole world can live, except those who think for themselves.

16. The GBC members have allowed, have failed to halt, or have arranged for or demanded gross misappropriation of facilities and funds for their own self-aggrandizement. 

Here is an item that has changed. It has gotten worse. The undisclosed amount of unaccountable funds that passes through various hands is something to inspire awe. There are rumors of numbered Swiss accounts and all sorts of financial shenanigans. (And where there is smoke, we find fire,) One GBC man told me, "You are worried about the intellectual corruption of our society. Well, I am concerned about the financial corruption. I think it is a far greater problem, because that is a place where people are more attached." Yes, so few devotees appreciate that the guru daksina they surrender may later be part of the reason they have to look for a new guru, once, twice, thrice. . .

17. Various members of the GBC have unfairly pressured devotees to accept initiation from persons the devotees were legitimately reluctant to accept, and have needlessly canvassed or competed for disciples, even against the expressed wishes of local ISKCON leaders. And this is still going on. 

Still going on in 1997. The GBC makes rules and then the same individuals, wearing the hat of guru, transcends the rules. Isn’t spiritual life inconceivably wonderful? The first responsibility of a guru after all is not to show how he can cooperate with the very rules he voted in, but how he is absolute and therefore transcendental to the rules. Simultaneously one and indifferent.

18. The GBC has needlessly kept incompetent, fallen, or deviant persons as active members of the GBC body, suppressing, denying, and misrepresenting the nature of their incompetence, fall, and deviation. 

Still going on. And add to this that they keep incompetent, fallen, or deviant persons as authority figures in their zones, because the only proven competence if that such persons is that they are reliable henchmen.

19. The GBC has failed to insure adequate shelter for distressed and wronged persons who appealed to its members for protection.

("If a person is able to care for or give protection to old parents, a chaste wife, children, the spiritual master, brahmanas and other dependents but does not do so, he is considered already dead, although supposedly breathing." --Krsna, Vol. 1, page 354, latest edition.) 

I have personal experience that in 1996 I had a justice issue with the GBC and after appealing to the full body for a committee to hear out my concerns, which the body approved, the committee chairman wrote me a letter with a list of ultimatums. There was no discussion. Apart from my experience, I know of other similar cases. So this grievance is very much alive and well in 1997.

20. The GBC and its members have allowed, have failed to halt, have defended, have encouraged, and have deliberately brought about mistreatment and persecution of innocent persons. 

Still going on. As pointed out earlier in this volume, the paradox of our time is that those with power are too comfortable to notice the plight of those who suffer, and those who suffer have no power. And when we have reform, those who get power, forget what it was like not to have it.

21. The GBC, both indirectly by impure acts and directly by confrontation and force, has driven large numbers of Srila Prabhupada's disciples out of their service, out of their homes, and out of ISKCON.

("You should always deal things so tactfully that people may not fall away. Every living being is important in Krsna conscious service, and we must take all precautions that one may not fall away." -- Letter to Tamal Krsna, Oct. 18, 1969) 

Ah, but now, in the name of defending Prabhupada’s interests we justify chasing off anyone who questions, because he or she is not cooperating (as in "blindly follow) to show love for Srila Prabhupada. The thinking is that if you disagree with the GBC you are "against Srila Prabhupada." Presumably, when Prabhupada disagreed with the GBC, hmmm, who was he against?

22. The GBC displayed naiveté (sic), incompetence, crudeness, offensiveness, and gross self-interest in dealings with B.R. Sridhara Maharaja. 

Fast forward to nineties, being consistent in that we do not learn from our mistakes, the GBC now scapegoats B.V. Narayana Maharaja. This brand of naiveté, incompetence, crudeness, offensiveness and gross self-interest is preferred over focusing on our own performance and sincerely addressing the failings in our society that cause people to scurry to the shelter of Narayana Maharaja. But who can blame those people after the list of facts presented in "Where the ritvik people are right"? Who can blame them after the list of grievances in this document, many of which are still current, and after the example of ISKCON leaders, themselves gurus, who took a siksa-guru, and then rejected him, at the insistence of the full GBC body, which is surely offensive, and subverts our philosophy. The sastra proclaims that there is no difference between the siksa and diksa-guru--that both are representatives of Krsna. How can advanced devotees, gurus themselves, reject the representative of Krsna? Who wants to follow such bewildered people?

23. The GBC members have displayed gross, rampant impurity in their dealings with one another. 

Still going on. And subtle rampant impurities as well, which is a more dangerous brand of impurity.

24. The GBC, in neglect of its own rules, has consistently failed to promptly, fully, and accurately publish its annual resolutions. In 1986 its executive committee deliberately held back selected resolutions from the published minutes and misrepresented to the members of ISKCON that it was constitutionally entitled to do so. (In 1972, a similar act was among the GBC moves that led Srila Prabhupada to revoke authority from the GBC). 

This was done again in 1995. To this date the mass of ISKCON members are unclear about the conclusion of the gopi-bhava controversy. All related resolutions are "secret". By contrast, regarding the origin of the jiva controversy, what is widely know is the conclusion. The "secret" in this instance is that there was no philosophical discussion about the issue and the body voted to ban a book based on sastra, without having read it. Then a book purporting to be the official GBC version, also not read by the body, was published. A published and widely distributed rebuttal to a banned book is enough to make any sane person question the ethics of a one-sided debate, but in our positive alternative society, this was hailed as a great victory for truth and justice. Nobody or very few found the ethics strange that a book is banned, and yet another book is published to refute it. And this in an social system where the customary practice is open debate. As Alice said, in that marvelous wonderland, "Curiouser, and curiouser. . .".

25. The GBC, in concert with the BBT trustees and against the expressed will of the ISKCON temple presidents, deliberately suppressed publication of Srila Prabhupada's letters, even in edited form. 

Actually, if we study Prabhupada’s directives for how the GBC and the temple presidents are supposed to function, the practical decision-making power is in the hands of the temple presidents and the consultation function is the realm of the GBC. In practice, however, a temple president today is ideally a yes-man for the GBC officer. Actual competence at being a temple president can be a disqualification. He might have some ideas of his own. At the other extreme we have GBC who leave everything to the temple president and they come to visit and enjoy, collect a little daksina, feast, fax, and fly.

26. Various members of the GBC have permitted, encouraged, or demanded the use of ISKCON funds to publish books, magazines, newsletters, records, etc., that excessively advertise their own glories, blaspheme other Vaisnavas, propagate falsehoods, and disturb the peace of the Society. 

Still going on.

27. The members of the GBC have systematically misrepresented--and allowed and encouraged others to misrepresent--Srila Prabhupada's teachings and instructions about business and sankirtana.

28. The members of the GBC have neglected and misrepresented numerous other teachings and instructions of His Divine Grace A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada.

("So if there are any defects within our Society it is only symptom that the instructions of the Spiritual Master are being neglected." -- Letter to Karandhara, Feb. 10, 1973) 

Still going on. For example, despite the clear statement by Srila Prabhupada, that the conclusion is no one falls from Vaikuntha for it is the eternal abode, so-called learned and realized devotees claim that the true siddhanta is that associates of the Lord can falldown to become conditioned souls, despite several sastric statements that say it is impossible.

29. The GBC has failed to adequately respond to just and ongoing pleas for self-reform. 

Not only that, some promise us that there will be no change.

30. Faced with the above grievances, GBC men have tried to avoid individual responsibility for acts - or failures to act - for which they are clearly responsible. 

Still going on. We only accept responsibility for our successes. Our failures, that’s Krsna’s mercy, will, or your fault.

31. The GBC has lost the trust of a majority of Srila Prabhupada's disciples. 

That has worsened. Now even members of the next generation are withdrawing their trust. And the ranks of other Vaisnava communities swell. The rational and concerned response would be to try and address the problems that cause this breech of trust. The irrational response is to project blame onto the "rival" vaisnava communities and their preachers and point out how these devotees are not committed to Srila Prabhupada, are demons, are going to hell and perhaps should be beheaded etc, etc, etc.

After all, "Srila Prabhupada preached three important things: Follow the GBC; cooperate with devotees; and never leave ISKCON." And, of course, "Whether our critics are right or wrong it does not matter, because truth is not the issue." Asatyam param dhimahi.

32. By allowing, advocating, taking part in, perpetuating, and defending these and other forms of contamination and decay, the members of the GBC have brought the ultimate managing authority of the entire International Society for Krishna Consciousness to a state of disrepute and pollution. 

Three cheers for Jayadvaita Swami, the truth shall set him free. Satyam eva jayate! 

 

* * * * *

This last item is a letter to Prthu prabhu, who had written a letter to the effect that Dhanurdhara Swami, to appease the former gurukula alumni, who were threatening ISKCON with a lawsuit, should give up his sannyasa, his role as guru, give up preaching, and live outside ISKCON. The copy of the Jayadvaita Swami’s letter that I received was unsigned and undated, because it was sent by e-mail. It was written in the summer of 1997.

Dear Prthu Prabhu,

Please accept my humble obeisances. All glories to Srila Prabhupada.

You have sent me a message you have written about Dhanurdhara Swami, and you write: "I would be glad to hear what you have to say."

I’m not very familiar with the exchanges concerning Dhanurdhara Swami on the "GBC Discussions." In March I suspended my membership in that conference, and I’ve kept it suspended ever since.

What little I know of the issue comes from having read Nirmal Candra’s web pages, having spent some time with Dhanurdhara Swami and having spoken briefly about the matter with some GBC friends.

I can, however, add something from my personal experience.

Back in 1986 when I was on Padayatra in South India, a Western devotee joined our party named Ananta Rupa Dasa. The party consisted of a grab-bag of Westerners and Indians, most of whom had a hard or impossible time communicating with one another. So when we got Ananta Rupa, who was fluent in Hindi, fluent in Bengali, and capable of getting things done, we were pretty happy.

But soon we starting getting letters from Dhanurdhara Swami. He had found out that Ananta Rupa had been sodomizing the kids in Vrindavana. And after kicking Ananta Rupa out of Vrindavana, Dhanudhara Swami was adamant that Ananta Rupa should not only be out of Vrindavana and away from every ISKCON school, but out of India entirely, and pretty much out of ISKCON.

In keeping with the ethos of the day, those of us on the padayatra thought: Well, first of all we haven’t heard all the evidence. And second—ok, even if he might have buggered a kid or two, there weren’t any kids on padayatra, and this is where people come to do austerities and be purified, and the man’s got to do "something", so why not let him stay?

But Dhanurdhara Swami was adamant: This man has got to be out. And Dhanurdhara Swami was so strong and persistent about this that soon Ananta Rupa was out; he was off our party.

But from what I later heard, Ananta Rupa didn’t quite leave India. Instead he went to Secundarabad, where the local GBC man then put him in charge of their school.

When Dhanurdhara Swami got word of this, he was outraged. He at once sent a clear, strong message to those responsible for Secundarabad: Ananta Rupa has got to go.

But he didn’t go. The leaders kept him. And so Dhanurdhara Swami brought the matter to the ISKCON Ministry of Justice, and later went to Mayapur to appeal to the GBC to get Ananta Rupa out.

But those were the days when ISKCON took child abuse lightly. So the GBC men he appealed to did nothing.

So where does that leave us?

Is the then-GBC man for Secunderabad—still with us—ready to resign from the GBC? To give up initiating? To give up preaching? To live outside ISKCON?

And how about the other GBC men who failed to act when Dhanurdhara Swami appealed to them to get Ananta Rupa out? Are they ready to resign? To forget about initiating and preaching? To live outside?

For the better part of two decades, Dhanurdhara Swami was among a small handful of devotees who kept pleading with the GBC for men and money for the Gurukula: "We should be giving the Gurukula our best men! We should be investing our best resources in these kids!"

And meanwhile our GBC leaders, if they gave any men at all, usually gave their rejects. And as for money: Remember the days of the "11 pure devotees"? And the pure devotees who came next? Remember the Rolexes and the silver plated and the swanky cars and the knock-‘em-dead lunches and the closets full of kashmir sweaters? Remember how our authorized pure devotees derailed Srila Prabhupada’s society, luxuriated in its resources, lorded it over their godbrothers and godsisters, and drove so many sincere people out?

Some of these pure devotees are still with us, right on the GBC. Are they ready to resign? To forget about initiating? Give up preaching? Live outside of ISKCON?

Even in more recent memory, some of the pure devotees sitting right with us on the GBC body are the same people who had thousands of dollars to spend on their own constructions projects but who were perennial deadbeats when it came to paying Dhanurdhara Swami the nominal fees for their sons in the Vrindavana gurukula. Are such men now among the noble leaders demanding that Dhanurdhara Swami dissolve into virtual nonexistence for the sake of ISKCON’s integrity?

To take things further:

Some of our North American GBC leaders now putting on the pressure for tests and investigations and justice are the same men who not long ago were playing "Krsna and the gopis" with their female disciples. Resignations, anyone?

And as you and I know, as most GBC men know, and as it’s common knowledge outside the GBC, we’ve got at least one or two devotees on the GBC body right now who, almost unquestionably, don’t even chant 16 rounds a day. And yet on they go, initiating more and more disciples, and getting them to vow strictly to chant at least 16 rounds daily.

So if your on a campaign for justice, and honor, and responsibility, and the reputation of ISKCON, and detachment from position, then great—bully for you.

But then the blade should cut evenly. As the English saying goes, "What’s good for the goose is good for the gander." That is: The same principle that applies to the accused should equally apply to the accuser, and to everyone else. Not merely that for the sake of "protecting ISKCON" we make one man the scapegoat and skin his hide, while carefully protecting our own. A society willing to stoop to that is a society from which any halfway bright member of our second generation—and most of them are very bright—would want to keep a long distance.

Thank you for inviting me to comment.

Hare Krsna.

Hoping this finds you good health,

Your servant,

Jayadvaita Swami.

 

These three pieces from Jayadvaita Swami, although not as in-depth in their analysis of the roots of our problems establish that the slant of the Our Mission books is not simply one isolated view. Also, Jayadvaita Swami’s point that the blade should cut evenly is something all old-timers connected in any way with ISKCON would like to see. His point about halfway bright members of our second generation wanting "to keep a long distance" from our dysfunctional society is excellent, but it falls short. Why should only the halfway bright members of the second generation choose to keep a distance? It seems that unless one is willing to be proactive about the dysfunctional dynamics of our society the only sane alternative for any generation is to keep a distance.

The purport to all the above considerations is the average member of ISKCON cannot be naïve. If you care about the mission, you must be proactive. You must take responsibility to see that the ship is on course. Don’t be a passive participant. Don’t be simply led by the nose. Don’t follow blindly. Stand up and assert your right to have a say in the direction of the society. Question irrationality. Fulfill Srila Prabhupada’s desire and become an independently thoughtful man or woman.

Specifically, show your love him by cooperating with his scheme, not just cooperating blindly. Have the courage to protest irrational demands and policies of our leaders. Take responsibility to see that the ISKCON ship is on an even keel. Don’t go elsewhere. Make your personal policy that when ISKCON is right, I want to keep it right. When ISKCON is wrong, I want to set it right. This is love for Srila Prabhupada. So Srila Prabhupada happy. Show your love for him. Love for him is love for Krsna. Make ISKCON a sane society, a positive alternative society.

Do not be faint-hearted. You are not powerless. You are powerful. In any social system, the bottom line is that the people are the leaders. Let us follow those who want to lead us where we want to go, not where they want to take us. This is the core solution to the problems confronting our mission. Hare Krsna.

http://www.saragrahi.org/Header%20Links/Vaishnava%20Theory%20And%20Practice/The%20Three%20Modes%20Of%20Material%20Nature/Afterword2.htm