Sannyasi to step down from their efforts to preach because of past mistakes???

[krsna 3]

What the Lord takes into account

 

 

 

 

<!-- end .post-top --><!-- the main section of the post goes here -->

 

 

Dear Devotees,

I would like to offer a statement by His Divine Grace Srila Prabhupada from the Srimad Bhagavatam 7th Canto. In the normal course of events we may lose sight of the most important “essence” of Lord Chaitanya’s mission; which is no less than the ultimate liberation of all living entities in this universe by means of the Samkirtan Yajna - the reverent and affectionate recitation of the Holy Names of Hare Krsna Hare Rama!!!

This single verse and purport fully illuminate the simplicity of the purpose and actions of the Lord and His devotees.

This “essence” was personified by Srila Prabhupada and all his actions. While many devotees have called for the resignation of HH Dhanudar Swami - I would like to highlight the importance of the Holy Name and point out what is obvious to those of us who had the blessed good fortune to serve Srila Prabhupada while he walked amongst us. There were many instances, during Srila Prabhupada’s lila, where different devotees were discovered to be deficient in some manner or had had some “lapse” in their service or committment to their rounds or their adherence to the regulative principles. But later - given the chance to renew their committment to Srila Prabhupada’s instructions and their own spiritual progress, he would demonstrate little or no regard for their lapse and immediately show keen enthusiasm to embrace and more importantly ENGAGE them in a practical and useful way - in his efforts to spread Krsna Consciousness and the Holy Names of Lord Krsna. This was a very important aspect to the exemplary lila of Srila Prabhupada. He always said “utility is the principle”. We must calculate the “utility” of anything and ANYONE, in respect to their ability to be of some use to His Divine Grace Srila Prabhupada and Lord Chaitanya Mahaprabhu. Our desire to see this or that “happen” should by all means reflect the understanding that each devotee who comes to the shelter of Lord Chaitanya, has done so as a direct result of the life and teachings of Srila Prabhupada and his servants. We may offend or even hurt eachother at times in the process. But our discomfort with eachother - should not prevent our understanding that we all enjoy the “privilege” of Srila Prabhupada’s shelter; it is not a “right”. Privileges can be withdrawn. Rights are inalienable and God Given. It is Srila Prabhupada who granted the privilege of his guidance and service to each of us - and that includes HH Dhanudara Swami AND all those who he offended. So calling for continued attention of various degrees to be directed to HH Dhanudhara Swami and the history associated with Vrindanvana Gurukula must reflect the manner in which Srila Prabhupada customarily handled such matters.

Generally Srila Prabhupada handled such matters very privately so as not to risk the ambition of the various devotees in their pursuit of Krsna Consciousness. He was also always willing to forgive, and reposition a devotee in such a way as to capitalize upon that man or woman’s talents and impetus to assist him somehow. He had a mission and he was not about to permit sentiments of anger, resentment or the collective need for punishment or revenge to dictate what needed be done. He never played “Pontius Pilate” to a mob’s demand for Crucifixion. He never permitted the influence of a “demogague” any chance to influence the devotees. Srila Prabhupada well knew that a devotee poorly positioned could wreak havoc, both on his and other’s devtional service, yet their proper placement could allow them to serve a most delightful purpose in the sharing of Krsna Consciousness. There are countless examples of this!

Sannyasa is a vow - not unlike marriage. It cannot be casually renounced. It is itself a committment to the Spiritual Master in the fullest sense. At least that is its true purpose. Those calling for the resignation from sannyasa by Dhanudhar Swami simply do not understand that this cannot be casually done. It is as much an internal committment as one’s committment to one’s spouse or children. Or a soldier’s committment to his country and the chain of command that he serves! It is a man’s committment to Srila Prabhupada and to whimsically forsake it - because “The Crowd” is calling for that - would be an unpardonable sin. It would constitute a most vile form of renunciation. Those calling for it are doing so under the influence of ignorance. Srila Prabhupada would never desire this. He would simply ask - and I am certain he has - Maharja to recommit to preaching with greater vigor than ever, the glories of the Holy Name and the need to submit to mission of our Parampara.

What was done - was done and cannot be undone. But the world needs the Holy Name of Lord Krsna - much more than “The Crowd” needs vengance or satisfaction. Calls for Justice are futile. Justice is inherent in every single moment of each of our lives. There is not a single “reaction” to a single “action” in this world - that is not directly overseen and/or permitted by the Lord Himself. In fact - in the case of devotees - the “reactions” we endure are greatly reduced; down to a fraction. Whatever the chidren of that period were forced to endure - as unpleasant as that may be for some to consider - was a mere fraction of what they would have experienced - were they not devotees. This is the teachings of Lord Sri Krsna Himself. We need to accept it.

HH Dhanudar Swami did what he did - because he wanted to. It demonstrated a very serious character flaw. Very serious. He cannot escape that. But the solution is not to do other than what Srila Prabhupada would do. Srila Prabhupada would merely change his service and task him mightily in some way to more effectively UTILIZE his capacity in the service of Lord Chaitanya Mahaprabhu. Most men and women who remember the ways of Srila Prabhupada know this to be a fact. I could list many such instances but won’t, simply because it would highlight the lapses or slip-ups of various men or women and this would neither please His Divine Grace or serve to spread the Glories of the Holy Name.

Please read the following verse and note the incredible mercy of Lord Krsna. Then ask yourself - “Would the Lord or Srila Prabhupada ask a sannyasi to step down from - or step up - their efforts to spread the glories of the Holy Name - merely because that sannyasi erred in his dealings with anyone?”

Srimad Bhagavatam 7:1:25 TEXT yan-nibaddho ‘bhimano ‘yam tad-vadhat praninam vadhah tatha na yasya kaivalyad abhimano ‘khilatmanah parasya dama-kartur hi himsa kenasya kalpyate

TRANSLATION Because of the bodily conception of life, the conditioned soul thinks that when the body is annihilated the living being is annihilated. Lord Visnu, the Supreme Personality of Godhead, is the supreme controller, the Supersoul of all living entities. Because He has no material body, He has no false conception of “I and mine.” It is therefore incorrect to think that He feels pleasure or pain when blasphemed or offered prayers. This is impossible for Him. Thus He has no enemy and no friend. When He chastises the demons it is for their good, and when He accepts the prayers of the devotees it is for their good. He is affected neither by prayers nor by blasphemy.

PURPORT Because of being covered by material bodies, the conditioned souls, including even greatly learned scholars and falsely educated professors, all think that as soon as the body is finished, everything is finished. This is due to their bodily conception of life. Krsna has no such bodily conception, nor is His body different from His self. Therefore, since Krsna has no material conception of life, how can He be affected by material prayers and accusations? Krsna’s body is described herewith as kaivalya, nondifferent from Himself. Since everyone has a material bodily conception of life, if Krsna had such a conception what would be the difference between Krsna and the conditioned soul? Krsna’s instructions in Bhagavad-gita are accepted as final because He does not possess a material body. As soon as one has a material body he has four deficiencies, but since Krsna does not possess a material body, He has no deficiencies. He is always spiritually conscious and blissful. Isvarah paramah krsnah sac-cid-ananda-vigrahah: His form is eternal, blissful knowledge. Sac-cid-ananda-vigrahah, ananda-cinmaya-rasa and kaivalya are the same. Krsna can expand Himself as Paramatma in the core of everyone’s heart. In Bhagavad-gita (13.3) this is confirmed. Ksetrajnam capi mam viddhi sama-ksetresu bharata: the Lord is the Paramatma–the atma or Superself of all individual souls. Therefore it must naturally be concluded that He has no defective bodily conceptions. Although situated in everyone’s body, He has no bodily conception of life. He is always free from such conceptions, and thus He cannot be affected by anything in relation to the material body of the jiva.

Krsna says in Bhagavad-gita (16.19):

tan aham dvisatah kruran samsaresu naradhaman ksipamy ajasram asubhan asurisv eva yonisu

“Those who are envious and mischievous, who are the lowest among men, are cast by Me into the ocean of material existence, into various demoniac species of life.” Whenever the Lord punishes persons like demons, however, such punishment is meant for the good of the conditioned soul. The conditioned soul, being envious of the Supreme Personality of Godhead, may accuse Him, saying, “Krsna is bad, Krsna is a thief” and so on, but Krsna, being kind to all living entities, does not consider such accusations. Instead, He takes account of the conditioned soul’s chanting of “Krsna, Krsna” so many times. He sometimes punishes such demons for one life by putting them in a lower species, but then, when they have stopped accusing Him, they are liberated in the next life because of chanting Krsna’s name constantly. Blaspheming the Supreme Lord or His devotee is not at all good for the conditioned soul, but Krsna, being very kind, punishes the conditioned soul in one life for such sinful activities and then takes him back home, back to Godhead. The vivid example for this is Vrtrasura, who was formerly Citraketu Maharaja, a great devotee. Because he derided Lord Siva, the foremost of all devotees, he had to accept the body of a demon called Vrtra, but then he was taken back to Godhead. Thus when Krsna punishes a demon or conditioned soul, He stops that soul’s habit of blaspheming Him, and when the soul becomes completely pure, the Lord takes him back to Godhead.

I believe that the answer to this entire matter lies in the essential message contained within this verse and purport given us by Srila Prabhupada. HH Dhanudhara Swami is not OUR servant. He is a servant of Srila Prabhupada. Srila Prabhupada was sent with a mission and that is to give everyone a chance to “open and account” with the Lord. As it is stated above “The Lord takes into account - how many times we all chant “Krsna Krsna” and in due course of time this chanting - executed either in praise or blame of the Lord - will allow us re-entrance into the Lord’s company!!! Srila Prabhupada needs as many of us as possible to offer this opportunity to the conditioned souls. We all need to analyse our motivation in all of this: is it to serve the purpose of Srila Prabhupada or is it a manifestation of the contaminations of desire - or hate.

 

With Respect Praghosa Das (ACBSP-NYC)

[suchandra 1]

 

“Would the Lord or Srila Prabhupada ask a sannyasi to step down from - or step up - their efforts to spread the glories of the Holy Name - merely because that sannyasi erred in his dealings with anyone?”

 

 

Long text - short meaning, since there're recently almost complete books being written in support to Danurdhara Swami, he should do what he said: "I feel attached to initiate my own new disciples." Since Praghosa das and all of his GBC comrades anyway dont care about the opinion of thousands rank&file devotees who do all the work within ISKCON, they should happily go ahead with their present policy as usual and see what happens.

Why PRAGHOSA DASA (ACBSP - NYC) writes such a long article, when he wrote just yesterday: Don't Waste Your Time ?

[Kulapavana 0]

"Sannyasi to step down from their efforts to preach because of past mistakes???"

 

he may be asked to step down from his position as an Iskcon recognized guru. he can still preach. he does not have to be a guru or a sannyasi to preach or perform other services.

 

dont confuse position with service. many in high positions performed great DISSERVICE to our movement, while countless devotees with no position continue to preach and inspire people to join the movement every day.

[Jahnava Nitai Das 2]

He doesn't even have to leave sannyasa vows, just externally put on white and internally remain a sannyasi. It's the least he can sacrifice to make up for his offenses to devotee children. All he has to give up is his position and prestige, and just be a regular devotee like everyone else. But as he said, he is attached to initiating his own disciples. Oh well, perhaps its better to let the courts deal with him then.

[Guest guest]

 

But as he said, he is attached to initiating his own disciples.

 

What is the source and context of DDS's statement?

 

 

Oh well, perhaps its better to let the courts deal with him then.

 

 

From the perspective of both statute of limitations and jurisdiction, that will not happen. Correct me if I'm wrong but even US civil court wouldn't be able to do anything.

[Guest guest]

Danuudhara Maharaja is a convenient scapegoat for the deeper responsibility shared by the gbc and all those who allowed the gurukula abuses to go unchecked. Despite his initial mistakes in dealing too harshly with the children of other godbrothers in vraja Danudhara M did as much or more than any other admnistrator in iskcon to stop the pedophile infiltration of the gurukula system after its nefarious face was unmasked. While never getting much support from the gbc he insisted that known offendors should be excluded from contact with devotee children.

 

The real "blame" lies with the gbc and their blind supporters who continue to propagate the false conception that "guru" can be appointed by a committee of conditioned souls, and that sannyasa is some kind of a "knighthood" like position, rather than the third initiation the jiva accepts in his march toward krsna prema.

 

Danudhara M would be better off free of an institution, that has tried to "legitimize" Vaisnava aparadha and makes sadhu-sanga "illegal." Free of such sectarian conceptions Danudhara Maharaja could freely seek the association of higher vaisnavas without interference, and he could take his disciples with him for the siksa of such self realized souls. The real problem is that Danudhara M appears to be more attached to the institutional rubber stamp and the "guru" abhimana he thinks he has. The principle of actually helping himself and his sincere followers to get free from the cycle of birth and death is lost in the cloud of institutional loyalty. He has not been able to see clearly beyond this cloud for some years now. Pratishta (false prestige) is so nefarious that it fails to acknowledge itself.

 

 

from Gaudiya Kantahara:

 

Bogus Gurus

 

1.47

 

paricarya-yaso-lipsuh sisyad gurur na hi

 

One who accepts disciples for personal service and fame is unfit to be a

guru. (Visnu Smrti)

 

 

 

1.48

 

guravo bahavah santi sisya-vittapaharakah

durlabhah sad-gurur devi sisya-santapaharakah

 

Many gurus take advantage of their disciples and plunder them. They exploit

their disciples for sex, and use them to amass wealth, but a guru who can remove the miseries of his disciples is very rare. (Purana-vakya)

 

 

 

The Injunction to Abandon a Bogus Guru

 

 

 

1.49

 

guror apy avaliptasya karyakaryam ajanatah

utpatha-pratipannasya parityago vidhiyate

 

A guru addicted to sensual pleasure and polluted by vice, who is ignorant

and has no power to discriminate between right and wrong, or who is not on the path of suddha-bhakti must be abandoned. (Mahabharata, Udyoga-parva, 179.25)

 

 

 

1.50

 

snehad va lobhato vapi yo grhniyad diksaya

tasmin gurau sa-sisye tat devata sapa apatet

 

If a guru, disregarding the standard for giving diksa, gives the mantra to

his disciple out of greed or mundane affection, he is cursed by the gods along with that disciple. (Hari-bhakti-vilasa 2.7)

 

 

 

1.51

 

yo vyakti nyaya rahitam anyayena srnoti yah

tav ubhau narakam ghoram vrajatah kalam aksayam

 

One who assumes the dress and position of an acarya, who speaks against the conclusions of Srimad Bhagavatam and other scriptures, or performs kirtana opposed to the proper glorification of Sri Krsna, certainly goes to hell for countless lifetimes along with his disciples and whoever else hears such non-devotional talks and kirtanas. (Hari-bhakti-vilasa 1.101)

 

 

 

1.52

 

vaisnava-vidvesi cet parityajya eva. "guror api avaliptasye" ti smaranat,

vaisnava-bhava-rahityena avaisnavataya avaisnavopadisteneti vacana-visaya tvacca.

Yathokta-laksanasya sri-guror-avidyamanatayastu tasyaiva maha-bhagavatasyaikasya

nitya-sevanam paramam sreyah.

 

A guru who is envious of pure devotees, who blasphemes them, or behaves

maliciously towards them should certainly be abandoned, remembering the verse "guror api avaliptasya" (See 1.49). Such an envious guru lacks the mood and character of a Vaisnava. The sastras enjoin that one should not accept initiation from a non-devotee (avaisnavopadistena... See 1.54). Knowing these injunctions of the scriptures, a sincere devotee abandons a false guru who is envious of devotees. After leaving one who lacks the true qualities of a guru, if a devotee is without a spiritual guide, his only hope is to seek out a mahabhagavata vaisnava and serve him. By constantly rendering service to such a pure devotee, one will certainly attain the highest goal of life. (Bhakti-sandarbha, Annucheda 238)

 

 

 

A Materialistic, Professional, Family or Vyavaharika-guru Must be Given up

 

 

 

1.53

 

paramartha-gurvasrayo vyavaharika-gurvadi parityagenapi kartavyah

 

 

 

One should not accept a spiritual master based on hereditary, social or ecclesiastical convention. Such a professional guru should be rejected. One must accept a qualified spiritual master, who can help one advance towards the ultimate goal of life, krsna-prema. (Bhakti-sandarbha, annucheda 210)

 

 

 

Who Rejects a False Guru Must Accept a Real Guru

 

 

 

1.54

 

avaisnavopadistena mantrena nirayam vrajet

punas ca vidhina samyag grahayed vaisnavad guroh

 

One who gets his mantra from a guru who is a non-devotee or who is addicted to sensual pleasure is doomed to a life in hell. Such a person must immediately approach a genuine Vaisnava guru and again accept the mantra from him.

 

(Hari-bhakti-vilasa 4.366)

[Guest guest]

Like it or not the system of being “awarded” sannyasa or being given permision to initiate in ISKCON is determined ultimately by the GBC. And what the GBC giveth the GBC can taketh away. So devotees should stop trying to equate these positions in ISKCON with their counterparts under the same names outside of ISKCON. They are different. If devotees want a system that is sastric concerning how people can take sannyasa or take disciples then the GBC must relinquish it’s control over these choices. I am not proposing anarchy, simply that the GBC manage and let others decide who is qualified for themselves. This is the natural sastric system. Those who are renounced become naturally sannyasins, not those who simply want some status. Those who are preaching and making people devotees become those very devotee’s gurus (both siksha and even diksha) by a process of mutual sastric testing. This is not the job of the GBC. Just as it is not the job of the GBC to marry off certain individuals to other individuals or legislate who can become a father or mother. The GBC can guide us all with sastric standards for being married, having children, taking sannyasa and being disciples and gurus. And these things are all given in Srila Prabhupada’s teachings. But their mistake (yes I say mistake) has been to over regulate these positions in an institutional way which is never approved of by the sastra.

 

“It is imperative that a serious person accept a bona fide spiritual master in terms of the sastric injunctions. Sri Jiva Gosvami advises that one not accept a spiritual master in terms of hereditary or customary social and ecclesiastical conventions. One should simply try to find a genuinely qualified spiritual master for actual advancement in spiritual understanding.”

 

There is no commitee that can sastically elect a guru, or a sannyasi, or any of these other positions in society. The qualities must be manifest according to sastra and the individuals will be self evident. Guna Karma Vibhagasah. People see by one’s activities and qualities if one is rightly situated. No one offers a bogus swami or bogus guru any respect. Yet people will naturally revere those who show advanced qualities even though they may not have high institutional status. When someone with high institutional status falls down the institution itself is weakened. How can we have faith in a system that cannot guarantee that the people that it chooses for leadership positions are advanced and qualified for those postitions. The answer is simple. The institution should NOT put itself in the postion of guaranteeing that such individuals are advanced.

 

If there is no one telling me who I should revere as a sannyasin or guru then I am forced to investigate the actual character of that person rather than just accepting him as advanced because I am told that the GBC accepts him as such. What is even more fitting is that if I do not take the time and effort to really judge by sastra who is advanced and who is not, then I have no one to blame but myself if I am mislead. I cannot say that I was duped into revering a person who was pesented to me by the GBC as an advanced devotee. No, I must become educated in the qualities and symptoms of advancement by inbibing Srila Prabhupada’s teachings.

 

 

Comment posted by Gaura Keshava das on July 20th, 2006

[Jahnava Nitai Das 2]

 

From the perspective of both statute of limitations and jurisdiction, that will not happen. Correct me if I'm wrong but even US civil court wouldn't be able to do anything.

 

I am no expert in legal matters, but I have heard (just hearsay) that many states have now extended the statute of limitations for child abuse to 30 years after the victim turns 18. If that is true, then these cases can be tried for many years to come. Again, I don't know if this is an accurate statement or not.

 

ISKCON justice is really a joke. Here we have a case where if this person were tried in a court of law in the US he would end up serving 20 years in jail. But in the ISKCON "court of law" he is not even willing to give up his right to be worshipped equal to God. He is demanding that he continue to be worshipped as sakshat-hari, directly equal to Bhagavan. ISKCON leaders are so out of touch with reality that it is sometimes just incomprehendable. It is obvious Dhanurdhar hasn't made up for his offenses to the children, nor has he been forgiven, otherwise he wouldn't have been beaten over the head with a stick by one of the kids. When Krishna beats you over the head with a stick, but you still don't get the message, it's only a matter of time before Krishna comes with something more than a stick.

[Guest guest]

 

But in the ISKCON "court of law" he is not even willing to give up his right to be worshipped equal to God. He is demanding that he continue to be worshipped as sakshat-hari, directly equal to Bhagavan. ISKCON leaders are so out of touch with reality that it is sometimes just incomprehendable.

 

Are any of ISKCON's gurus sakshat-hari? They were all voted in by the same system that elevated this child abuser to a diksa guru. Where did Srila Prabhupada institute this?

[Guest guest]

 

Here we have a case where if this person were tried in a court of law in the US he would end up serving 20 years in jail.

 

 

There is nothing preventing anyone from going to the police and raising the issue. The fact is that DDS's abuses happened in India not the US. US courts do not have jurisdiction. I believe that only recently countries have started prosecuting the sexual abuse of children by their citizens who performed those crimes in other countries but it isn't the norm. DDS has not been accused of sexual acts against children however.

 

Can you please also address my earlier question as to where the quote about DDS being attached to initiating comes from? I think it is important to address that rather than have everyone automatically ascribe that statement to him just because someone in this thread posted it. There are enough accusations against him without hearsay or non-contextualized statements being thrown in.

[Guest guest]

JN, perhaps you will not like this posted here but I'll try anyways. I believe that you are associated with a person who formerly lived in Mayapur who had some issues with regard to their behavior. Have you personally discredited those allegations or have you accepted them and found something of value? The situation seems not too different from that confronting those who have found inspiration from DDS.

[Jahnava Nitai Das 2]

 

JN, perhaps you will not like this posted here but I'll try anyways. I believe that you are associated with a person who formerly lived in Mayapur who had some issues with regard to their behavior.

I am associated with Atmatattva prabhu in the sense that I am friends with him. I probably see him for one or two weeks a year as he passes by. He used to teach in the Mayapur gurukula up till 1991. But there is a great difference between personally abusing students (i.e. Dhanurdhara Swami, who personally abused children), and abuse occuring in a school you were teaching at without your knowledge. If there are any students with claims against Atmatattva prabhu personally they would have been brought up long before. But the fact is I know most of the students from the Mayapur gurukula at that time, and they all love him. One of them was here just yesterday telling how great it was in gurukula hearing the ramayana stories every evening. There are no complaints from students of the Mayapur gurukula against Atmatattva prabhu.

 

The situation seems not too different from that confronting those who have found inspiration from DDS.

The situation isn't at all similar. Dhanurdhar Swami personally beat small children till blood came out. If the GBC really wanted justice, they could file a criminal case against him in India. But they are just trying to sweep everything under the carpet and pacify the public. The fact that Bhavananda is now back in Mayapur in a position of authority proves that the GBC is corrupt and not interested in justice. And add to this that ISKCON is today virtually ran by Kirtanananda's ex-henchmen. What justice can we expect from them?

 

But to answer your implied question, if Atmatattva prabhu (or anyone else) personally beat kids till they bled like Dhanurdhara Swami did, and if he happened to be a guru and sannyasi in ISKCON (which he isn't), then I would support him being punished according to his crime and being removed from any position of authority within ISKCON.

 

You can replace his name with my name, your name or anyone's name, and I will still agree with it, because justice should be applied to everyone equally.

 

 

Can you please also address my earlier question as to where the quote about DDS being attached to initiating comes from?

When I get some time I will go through Dhanurdhara Swami's website again and find the exact quote. I do recall reading it there before the guest brought it up, so I am pretty positive it is an accurate quote (though the exact wording may be different).

[Kulapavana 0]

 

The fact that Bhavananda is now back in Mayapur in a position of authority ...

 

wow! can you elaborate, please? I have heard he was giving classes there several times in the past few years (which seemed bad enough). Is there more to it?

[Jahnava Nitai Das 2]

He now lives in Mayapur and is one of the main "consultants" for the temple project. He still walks with the same mood that he owns the place. And he is also giving regular Bhagavatam classes there. All of the bengali devotees treat him like a guru... some people never learn.

 

I have heard that he is being paid a salary for his "consultation" work, but I have not been able to confirm that.

 

The following picture shows him in Mayapur. I found this photo on an official mayapur website with the caption "old boss and new boss" or something. It was so unbelievable I had to save it. It is clear that he has been protected by ISKCON insiders from the begining (several gurus and also Ambarish). Even when he was exposed in 1985, he was suspended and again reinstated after a year. What were they thinking?! They knew everything about him, yet they reinstated him as a guru. Of course the second round flopped just like the first, but still they arranged a position for him in Australia, where he hung around in ISKCON with good pay till he was given a job in Mayapur.

 

By the way, yesterday I had asked the Mayapur gurukuli who was visiting here if he remembered Bhavananda. He said Bhavananda would come to the gurukula, have all the kids lined up in their kaupins, and then "check them for dirt". If he found any spot of dirt on you, he would have another boy scrub you clean with one of those big toilet scrubbing brushes with thick bristles. He said they would have to scrub you till you were all scratched red and bleeding. He also said it was impossible not to have dirt on you, because you were living in mud huts and the entire area is dusty. After working and playing whole day in the dusty fields of Mayapur, there is no way you aren't going to have dirt on you.

 

Well the good news is he is back in charge in Mayapur... So it is true that Dhanurdhara Swami is just a scapegoat. He should be punished, but so should all these other people who are being protected by ISKCON GBC and other rich insiders.

 

 

[Guest guest]

I am all for cleansing ISKCON and upgrading the standards for being guru or some authority.

At the same time, I sense that there a lot of bitter "gurukulis" out there who have no regard for the improvement of ISKCON but they simply want to assault and attack ISKCON with a feeling to destroy ISKCON.

Many of those "gurukulis" rejected Krishna conscousness altogether and sinmply joined in the law suit to cash in and try to get money for sense gratification.

 

These are the bad apples that really cast a shadow on the gurukuli war against the ISKCON administration and guru elite.

 

Wanting to see ISKCON get better and wanting to simply attack and assault ISKCON with prejudice and malice are two different things.

 

There should be some way to weed out the ISKCON haters from the ISKCON lovers who want to see ISKCON succeed.

 

I think a lot of the bluster and publicity is coming out of hate and bitterness and has nothing to do with dealing with the problems in a Krishna consciousness manner.

[Guest guest]

Onlooker, yes, I agree but unfortunately ISKCON provided them the ammunition to do so. There is nothing in this world that can justify the abuse of kids so it only seems fair to cop a ton of wrath--some of it undeserving--for doing so. Those who are gung-ho about DDS's situation will have to realize that the world views ISKCON in the same manner.

 

It's an intriguing situation, the macro and microcosm: should ISKCON/DDS/we be humble, honest and responsbile and perhaps suffer on that account, or should we fight? Can we do both without seeming defensive and insincere?

[suchandra 1]

 

Onlooker, yes, I agree but unfortunately ISKCON provided them the ammunition to do so. There is nothing in this world that can justify the abuse of kids so it only seems fair to cop a ton of wrath--some of it undeserving--for doing so. Those who are gung-ho about DDS's situation will have to realize that the world views ISKCON in the same manner.

 

It's an intriguing situation, the macro and microcosm: should ISKCON/DDS/we be humble, honest and responsbile and perhaps suffer on that account, or should we fight? Can we do both without seeming defensive and insincere?

 

Since there're presently many ISKCON devotees engaged to write day and night big volumes of academic dissertations about DDS being "not so bad and fully 108% healed" or "in fact amazingly surrendered and extremely humble", it should be clear that DDS has a powerful agenda of supporters right on the GBC board. The decision is already made, if we havent decided yet or made the wrong decision, DDS's deftly typing pool supplies us daily with new papers (read below) that read like Harvard expertises and which make the rank&file class of devotees who signed the zero tolerance petition gradually feel unexplainable threatened - something like, it's sink or swim.

 

 

 

Impartial We Stand, Biased We Fall

 

BY: LAKSMI NRSIMHA DAS

 

 

 

Jul 22, ALACHUA, FLORIDA (SUN) —

I, like many devotees around the world, have been following the chain of events and subsequent opinions surrounding the Dhanurdhara Swami case. I have patiently listened to all points presented to date by the concerned Vaisnava community and would like to make a humble attempt to put forth my observations regarding this pivotal decision facing the GBC at present. My approach to this case comes from a slightly different perspective, so I humbly beg the reader to bear with me to its conclusion.

 

 

My first recommendation is plain and simple. I implore all GBC members to read and become thoroughly familiar with the entire 200-plus page case file, not just the summaries as proposed. Summaries give us an abbreviated version of the inquiry, while the actual case file, with recorded exchanges between the investigator and witnesses, reveal a tone which gives insight to the points about to be made. I have provided specific quotes from the case file to give some perspective into the angle in which this investigation was approached, and the attitude in which it was pursued. If the GBC cannot honestly commit to this then they should appoint a panel of trained professionals, devotees or otherwise, to scrutinize the manner in which this case was handled.

 

 

After perusing the entire case file, a comprehensive analysis of the investigative procedure employed by the previous CPO administration, in my opinion, would be in order. I emphasize this point because the strategy of the investigation and the subsequent conclusions are the foundation by which the current intensified negative perception of DDS is built. My contention is this: the DDS case was handled in a prejudicial manner, both by the lead investigator and the CPO office. This may seem like a speculative or insensitive determination, but follow my line of logic and then draw your own conclusion.

 

<CENTER>

Parallel History

</CENTER>

 

 

Consider this; in the early history of child abuse investigation in the U.S. during the 1970’s and 80’s, when child abuse first popped on the radar screen of media awareness, a decisive and aggressive posture was assumed by both Social Services and law enforcement agencies. Prior to this time period, Social Services primary concern revolved around children who were homeless. Mainstream America was outraged by the horrific and heart wrenching revelation that children were being maltreated, sexually and physically.

 

 

In the initial stage of child abuse investigation, it was assumed that anyone accused of such a crime was automatically at fault and it became the mission of Social Services to prove that guilt. Little attention was paid to the concept of objectivity and the investigation and interview process lacked the sophistication needed to apply proper discrimination. The concept of a child lying or embellishing on their story was not considered and there was very little research to address this notion. The investigator, by virtue of the strong emotional pull child abuse has on the heartstrings, felt compelled to protect the child at any cost, and fell prone to motivated lines of inquiry to draw out the preconceived “truth.” At that point in time, there was a general lack of awareness of how a witness could be directed into giving answers that placated the adult they were dealing with. An alliance, a bond so to speak, was formed between the investigator and the victim that emphasized the assumption that the accused was undeniably guilty.

 

 

The end result of those costly mistakes, which primarily involved biased investigative and interview procedures, ended up, in all too many cases, with slanted convictions. By the early 1990’s, as a consequence of successful appeals and a heightened awareness of proper interview procedures, Social Service agencies were forced to acknowledge the fact that serious mistakes had been made in investigative strategies. Many of the guilty verdicts were overturned and the whole process was seriously revamped. The problem of child abuse had been compounded by overzealousness and over-reaction that often resulted in irrevocable damage to all parties concerned, the accused, the victim and families of both.

 

<CENTER>

Perception Ain’t Everything

</CENTER>

 

 

Although in reference to the DDS case guilt has been admitted, and there is evidence that substantiates this, the concern should be on accurately establishing the degree of his guilt in a mature environment free of persuasion. Bhaktivinode Thakur, in his Caitanya Siksamrta, has indicated that it is incumbent upon Vaisnavas to display righteous conduct, one of the many facets being the execution of proper judgment. Proper judgment requires fine discrimination. Fine discrimination comes from purified intelligence firmly fixed in Krsna Conscious connectiveness. I won’t wax philosophical in this regard, as I believe that Satyaraj Prabhu (in his articles posted on Dandavats.com) has dealt with the philosophical perspective quite effectively. Rather I’ll continue my line of reasoning with some further food for thought.

 

 

We should be crystal clear that on one side this case involves child abuse and its consequences, and on the other, the imposition of sanctions on a senior disciple of Srila Prabhupada which has no clear-cut precedent. The rights of all parties involved in any unbiased investigation must be carefully and objectively analyzed and systematized in service to future generations.

 

 

No one can fault a family member of an abused child for having an aggressive stance against the accused. This is a natural response to such an alleged violation. Our Iskcon society, in many ways, is a large family. How fair would it be if we allowed a family member to investigate the accusations against the accused, especially at that point in time when the revelation that there was child abuse in Prabhupada’s house reverberated around the world. Our family was shocked, angered, emotionally devastated. Paradise had been invaded by pedophiles. Even if that family member assigned to investigate this and other cases, had some social work training, it would be nearly impossible to exercise objectivity, especially with no proven oversight system in place. If a social worker or therapist becomes too emotionally entangled in their case, and transference is detected by their mentor, they are normally removed from the investigation.

 

<CENTER>

The Inquisition

</CENTER>

 

 

During and immediately after the investigation I familiarized myself with this case and many of its details. In addition, several respected, mature devotees who are not members of the GBC, some with experience in the psychological and legal field, read the entire case file (all 200+ pages) and independently came to the same disturbing conclusion: there was an element of prejudice against Dhanurdhara Swami both on the part of the investigator and others involved with overseeing the process. In addition to what I had read in the case files, I had conversations with the lead investigator on several occasions, being a part of the same Iskcon community where she resided, and came away with the uncomfortable feeling that I was speaking to the prosecutor rather than the investigator. A definite red flag went up at that point. The following are quotes taken from the lead investigator’s email message to one of the youth who testified against DDS:

 

 

“I just finished formatting your evidence against DDS. It is so very sickening and powerful! Your detail is amazing.”

 

 

She then states her purpose:

 

 

“I want to make it (the case against DDS) as awesome as possible, not that it isn't already.”

 

 

In the following statement, I summarize, (to avoid mentioning names) a documented interview (from the case file) between the lead investigator and a potential witness.

 

 

In an interview with the younger brother of a witness, the lead investigator tries her best to influence him. She tells him what his older brother has said. She twice makes the argument that the older brother, being four years older, would have the story straighter than this witness who really can’t remember it himself (by his own admission). She tries another tactic. ÒWell, here's what several of your peers are saying." She offers her own value judgment: "It was just atrocious." But still, no luck: the witness replies, ÒI don't even remember the incident."

 

 

The above quotes I refer to are all in the case file and these are just a few glimpses to give us some insight into the investigator’s mood. Words like “so sickening,” “awesome,” and “atrocious” are far from objective inquiry. The investigator is making a statement of judgment, rather than searching for the truth. If this is in the case file, then what subtleties are not in the case file? A witness will respond to the signals sent by the interviewer, especially if they seem empathetic and encouraging. There is ample research evidencing this point. If she was the prosecutor or therapist, that attitude would be understandable and acceptable, but an investigator’s prime duty, particularly in child abuse, is to find out what events had actually occurred as impartially as possible, and not transfer or impose directive feelings to those being interviewed. Unfortunately, the lead investigator was allowed and encouraged by the CPO and N.A. GBC to wear four hats during the inquiry: prosecutor, lead investigator, judge trainer and child protection advocate, even though they were warned against this by a devotee clinical psychologist that this was inappropriate. It is standard practice in the field of psychology and social work that each case worker has a trained mentor to monitor the case worker and victim so that they are not adversely influenced by the strength of emotion of the case. There was no such standard observed here, in fact, quite the contrary. Is there any possibility of conflict of interest here?

 

 

Besides being a new devotee with limited experience and maturity in KC, the lead investigator also experienced circumstances in her own family history that would likely prejudice her towards a male accused of child abuse. In assigning someone to a case this fact would also be taken into consideration. In addition to the above-mentioned items, a psychological assessment of DDS was ordered by the CPO (to test for anti-social behavior). The lead investigator hired a NYC social worker to do the assessment. Two things were wrong with this scenario. First, the social worker hired to do the assessment was a former colleague of the lead investigator, and secondly, the man did not have the qualifications to administer or assess the MMPI Test. The MMPI is a testing tool developed by psychologists to detect any emotional or characterological disorders. At present, it is the most accurate tool a psychologist has at his disposal. DDS was accused of being a psychopathic deviate by the investigator and the CPO and this test would have picked up on that fact.

 

 

Just for the record, the test did not confirm that DDS had any problems psychological or otherwise. However, the hired “expert” disregarded the test findings and stated that DDS did have problems based on his (the social worker’s) conferring with the lead investigator and an interview with DDS. All this was pointed out by a devotee psychologist who specializes in psychological assessment and who reviewed the findings, only to be disregarded-without reason or explanation-by the then head of CPO and the lead investigator. It is also important to note in this regard that DDS was advised to get representation in his case, specifically regarding this testing, but he refused because he wanted to fully cooperate with the investigation.

 

 

In addition, assessment tools such as the Luscher Color test (which were taught by the lead investigator to temple presidents in ISKCON-sponsored seminars) were used in the DDS case and other cases. In my research, I found out that this test is deemed quackery by the American Psychological Association.

 

 

I recently asked two judges involved in this case if they at any time felt there was bias against DDS during the investigation. Both, with very little hesitation, said yes, they felt there was bias coming from the CPO office and the assigned investigator. In addition to all of the above, the current head of CPO stated in a recent email to me this admission “Despite the fervor of her service, the investigator, who occasionally went “over the top,” I think we do have a fairly accurate picture of what happened.” Interesting characterization of the investigator in question: fervor, over the top, and fairly accurate. Over the top is my point exactly.

 

<CENTER>

Why, Why, Why

</CENTER>

 

 

One may ask why this issue is being raised at this point. Is this an attempt to exonerate DDS from his guilt? At this juncture I must say that guilt has been established and accepted by DDS. But this determination as to whether or not there was bias in the investigation is a necessary consideration that may aid in determining the degree of guilt, and balance the current perception of DDS’s involvement.

 

 

In this regard, there is punishment and there is perception. The support for a hard-line stance towards DDS is, in reality, based on the buy-in of a perception gleaned from what I contend came from the source; biased investigation. I am not saying that every single interview has been influenced in this way, nor am I saying that every single witness has had their story altered by bias or is lying. Be clear on this. What I am saying, however, if there was a prejudicial attitude (that should have been checked by the CPO and the GBC during the investigation), and a stated mission by the investigator to “hang ’em high,” then the case has been compromised. One may argue that besides the investigation in question, there is new testimony as a result of the Turley case that further implicates DDS. My answer to that would be they are allegations which have yet to be substantiated by the kind of professional, trained scrutiny I have been talking about.

 

<CENTER>

2+2=4.78

</CENTER>

 

 

Everything that has been said by proponents of the zero-tolerance policy and the proposed sanctions against DDS is based on the assumption that the investigation of this case was undeniably fair, comprehensive, and within the realm of acceptable investigative and adjudication procedures. (refer to Malati’s article on Dandavats.com).

 

<CENTER>

How Guilty?

</CENTER>

 

 

In any legal system, and particularly with child abuse, degree of guilt, and the process which establishes guilt are very important components in determining how to mete out the proper punishment. That’s why Social services and law enforcement agencies are now so careful in this process. The investigators are trained specialists in the science of the interview so as not to fall prey to this pitfall, and there is expert supervision to make certain fairness is maintained. They’ve made their mistakes. We should consider the fact that we are not above making those same naïve yet well-intentioned mistakes.

 

 

For example, if someone takes the life of another person, there are many considerations, like motive, mental stability, etc. The act is the same; one life is taken by another. But so many details are there to determine whether it is manslaughter, insanity, first or second degree murder. When the degree of guilt is firmly established through proper procedure, then the perpetrator is charged accordingly and thus receives a suitable sentence. Closer to home is the fact that the legal system is very careful to make such distinctions between the various types of child abuse, sexual being the worse, and thus strict in its sanctions, and secondarily physical. Even within those types of abuse there are varying degrees, which result in a specific punishment that matches the specific crime.

 

<CENTER>

A Lesson From History

</CENTER>

 

 

Consider this point again from actual historical cases: a forensic interviewer who is prejudiced against the accused can lead a witness or victim into an embellished or even false conclusion which serves the cause of establishing guilt rather than to discern what is the truth. Refer to the McMartin case in Los Angeles and the Kelly Michaels case in New Jersey, which upon review found the investigators to be motivated against the accused. Thus their line of questioning led victims into either embellished or false testimony.

 

 

However, the CPO denies the relevancy of this point. Their claim is that only small children can be influenced by a prejudiced line of query (as demonstrated in the aforementioned cases which involved young children). After all, the devotees who stepped forward to levy allegations against DDS were young adults and not young, malleable children. Preliminary examination of this opinion by a licensed clinical psychologist with years of experience in child assessment indicates the contrary; there is ample research proving that even adults can be affected by prejudiced interviewing procedures. Even from a logical perspective, what about advertising, subliminal seduction or disinformation and its effect on adults?

 

 

There are a host of reasons as to why an adult can be influenced in this way; financial reward, recognition (fame, adoration and distinction) and peer pressure to name a few. As an example, one may refer to the national news media coverage of two young adult devotees who publicly claimed they were abused. It is known for certain that at least one of the two who made that claim was never abused, and spun a convincing tale, complete with tears, to millions of unsuspecting viewers.

 

 

In the present climate of child abuse in ISKCON, at least from the general devotee perspective, and in the age of the Internet, the perception that has been promoted is that child abuse is all one homogenous, heinous crime, no matter what degree of guilt or involvement. Although from one angle any substantiated act of abuse to an innocent child is detestable, from the perspective of properly applied punishment, fine tuned discrimination must be utilized, regardless of how emotionally strenuous a task it is.

 

 

It must be taken into consideration that the resultant stigma attached to such a determination is life altering, unfairly so, if tainted by bias. DDS has voluntarily done what no fallen leader has ever done before; approaching those he has offended and begging their forgiveness as per the prescription given in sastra. He is not only doing this through words but through practical action such as financial support and assistance with therapy if needed and has committed to this ongoing effort. So this voluntary display on his part at the very least warrants a comprehensive, objective review of the procedure used to convict him, because from this conviction all claims and perceptions have subsequently sprouted.

 

 

If we allow unreasoning fervor (a synonym for fanaticism), amplified by the Internet, to sway our thinking, then we will never be certain that the final decision was the truly just one and we will never be able to undo the damage inflicted. Instead of helping our children, in their name we will have created another crime that will seriously impede the healing process now and in the future.

 

 

Please consider what has been observed herein, and I think there is ample reason to at least revisit this investigation with an open mind and adequate, impartial information. At this point, however, my fear is certain members of the North American GBC body are incapable of being impartial because circumstantially they have borne the brunt of pressure from some members of our young adult community and their supporters, and have thus been influenced to take an irreversible, hard line stance against DDS. ISKCON is an international society and this ruling will be applied universally throughout our movement. If we perpetuate a system that is flawed then all of the good and sincere endeavors of the CPO will be severely marred as a result.

 

<CENTER>

The Spanking Culture

</CENTER>

 

 

The GBC should have a dialogue regarding the historical context in which these actions took place. Out of context, an act can be perceived and judged more severely than it actually was. In saying this I am not condoning excessive corporal punishment. But it is a relevant and sensitive point to consider when we examine the degree of culpability that DDS has for his actions.

 

 

To my knowledge, most of the child abuse cases against the Catholic Church that occurred in the distant past involve sexual abuse, which is considered the worst form of abuse that can be afflicted on a child. In many states, charges of sexual abuse have somewhat flexible and liberal statute of limitations because of the degree of severity both mentally and physically. However, in Pennsylvania and other US states, physical abuse does have a definite statute of limitations because often times it cannot be clearly ascertained after a period of time what was excessive and what was not.

 

 

Many cultures in the world either passively or explicitly condone corporeal punishment. In a survey conducted by Psychology Today magazine, the average US mother (white middle class) admitted to spanking her child an average of 150 times a year. In saying this, I ask that you please keep in mind that I am not advocating carte blanche, brute physical force, but in doing everything within our power to make certain our perspective does not fall prey to the same mistakes that were made by the social services system. Why was it included in the Official Decision on DDS the “he was not a danger to children?” It seems to me that mindful, cruel, excessive uncontrolled punishment would not have elicited such an official response. And why was he asked by the GBC to return to the gurukula in 1989 and allowed to remain there until 6 years later? Apparently, during his later stint, there were no substantiated instances of physical or sexual abuse.

 

 

Our Vrndavana gurukula disciplinary methods in the 70’s and early 80’s were influenced by local standards of that country and culture (Indian School system) and that was allowed by the GBC minister of education and the GBC body. Parents, for the most part, were aware of this fact or at the very least, should have been, so the responsibility should be shared by the GBC, the parents, and DDS.

 

 

What GBC member has been implicated in any of these cases and particularly in the DDS case? And if it is determined that there was bias in this investigation, what GBC member will be held accountable for not only allowing it to happen, but for vigorously supporting and contributing to the current feeding frenzy!

 

 

Children suffered and are working through their suffering. They have bravely stepped forward and we should legitimately validate that and help them work through their pain with empathy and effective healing strategies both spiritual and psychological. However, simultaneously we should also keep a clear vision on what needs to be accomplished now and what will be accomplished in the long run by decisions based on unreasoning fervor. We currently have devotees who are trained in the field of psychology and social work, particularly in the US, and who work with children and these types of issues on a daily basis, and for some reason their views have not been solicited by the NA GBC or CPO to help us wade through this highly-charged emotional quagmire. Why?

 

<CENTER>

The Honey

</CENTER>

 

 

The last point I would like to make is an obvious one: there must be a serious commitment by the GBC to the process of discerning what actually has taken place in the past, impartially investigating and adjudicating what is happening in the present, and providing protective and educational measures for the future. This can only be accomplished if there is a commitment to properly fund the CPO. If the CPO budget was reviewed both now and during the days of the DDS case, we would find it sorely lacking. The CPO’s job is multi-fold, and in order to accomplish what it needs to do in the way of investigation, adjudication, and education, a high level priority must be set by the GBC. At this time, our focus must be on the human element of our ISKCON society, not bricks and mortar, both in healing and in preventative measures through education.

 

 

I thank the GBC for all of their sacrifices and with straw between my teeth beg them to seriously consider what I have shared in this observation. I know your task is a great burden of love and a very difficult, often unappreciated one.

 

 

Please forgive me if I have offended anyone during the course of this written plea. Your servant,

 

Laksmi Nrsimha Das

 

New Raman Reti, Alachua, Fl.

 

 

[Guest guest]

All the Dhanurdar supporters keep saying "everyone should read the complete case file, as it shows Dhanurdar isn't actually so guilty". But they say this because they know no one has access to the case file. Why not? Because Dhanurdar has told the Child Protection Office NOT TO RELEASE IT.

 

1) Dhanurdar forbids the CPO from releasing the case file

 

2) Then he has his supporters say "everyone should read the case file because it shows he is innocent

 

3) They know no one has access to the case file, so everyone will assume there must be something there that shows he is innocent.

 

Good trick, better than that David Blaine guy.

[theist 1]

 

"Sannyasi to step down from their efforts to preach because of past mistakes???"

 

he may be asked to step down from his position as an Iskcon recognized guru. he can still preach. he does not have to be a guru or a sannyasi to preach or perform other services.

 

dont confuse position with service. many in high positions performed great DISSERVICE to our movement, while countless devotees with no position continue to preach and inspire people to join the movement every day.

[theist 1]

 

He doesn't even have to leave sannyasa vows, just externally put on white and internally remain a sannyasi. It's the least he can sacrifice to make up for his offenses to devotee children. All he has to give up is his position and prestige, and just be a regular devotee like everyone else. But as he said, he is attached to initiating his own disciples. Oh well, perhaps its better to let the courts deal with him then.

 

Courts yes. On Earth and after.

 

It's like a well known "goswami" who goes to bed naked with a married woman devotee, admits to it, and then instead of carrying on with the repentance process he insists on maintaining the title "Gosvami" making a farce of the whole idea of repentance.

[Guest guest]

In my practice a Hypnotherapist and councilor I have clients all the time who suffer from the worst of childhood trauma. To be truthful, I have no suitable description for their attackers, and to see these pictures of B. is frightening to say the least. Why has Iskcon become so weak? Don’t answer that, I know. To put any person who who acted like he did in the past, in any position of authority or salary today, is beyond my understanding. It is well known that such people need lots of therapy and professional help and even after completion of such treatment, this will not help them to be taken of their life long sex offender register.

 

This does not mean B should not be given a chance, Pot washing yes, cleaning toilets yes, hanging around chanting, eating prasadam and humble pie, yes, living in the ashram close to any child, a definite BIG NO, allowed to be building a following again? Bloody hell!!!...Please excuse my french this is almost unbearable to witness.

 

People like him have caused untold disturbances within Iskcon and broken so many devotees hearts, made so many devotees leave, caused immense pain and depression, disturbed devotees faith everywhere. How they can they be allowed in any position of trust??????

 

I find it very difficult to forgive what happened, on the other hand I lost lots of interest in the institution of Iskcon and I am more concerned with my own progress of Krishna Consciousness, which does not include politics stones marble and arrogant people in positions who use charm and talking to impress vulnerable people. Iskcon for me means everyone who chants and serves with love and devotion inside or outside of the walls of instituions, pleasing Radha and Krishna.

 

I am friend with any devotee, no matter which organisation they come from and who exhibits proper conduct in terms of being simple and humble being genuinely interested to serve Radha Krishna.

 

Even so there is reason to believe, that some or even many of my god brothers have become pure devotees, Iskcon has failed in so many respects and the pictures of B. are just one proof of it, they are enough to throw anyone straight back into disbelieve and distrust, sorry!

 

Devarsirat das

[Kulapavana 0]

 

He now lives in Mayapur and is one of the main "consultants" for the temple project. He still walks with the same mood that he owns the place. And he is also giving regular Bhagavatam classes there. All of the bengali devotees treat him like a guru... some people never learn.

 

 

ouch!... that is insanity... proof positive these deviants must be fully brought to account for their past misdeeds while there is still time. this guy is one of the most disgusting people to ever disgrace our society.

[Guest guest]

if you want the case files, you can ask the CPO office. they won't release it, in part because so many gurus and GBCs, some of whom have thousands of disciples, get named for their involvement in past child abuse. can you think of any big swami's, GBC's and gurus who have played a major part in managing iskcon, especially in india? these guys have all been involved in protecting pedophiles and abusers, and been involved in covering up child abuse. iskcon can't afford for their leaders to get smeared like that.

[gHari 0]

Seems I should go to Mayapur and protect the kids the way I should have in the first place. I will break every bone in his body if I catch his evil doings.