OppositeRule

I am considering whether to abandon this blog, perhaps to start another.  I started this blog with the intention of documenting my happy advancement in Krishna consciousness, but instead it quickly turned into a chronology of outrage, grief, and disappointment in the Hare Krishna movement.  I’ve had little good to say about it for the past six years. 

I’ve never thought of the Hare Krishna movement as separate from Krishna, as if it was out of His control.  If He isn’t even the Lord of the devotees, then who?  I spent fifteen years directing my love and worship up the parampara, and now the blame gas to go up too.  Prabhupada created a monster with ISKCON that hurt many lives very deeply.  Where is Krishna?  Who can fix this?  I asked if Krishna could be nice, if He would help, but He continues only remain as if He did not exist.  What is this??  What kind of God arranges the torture and rape of His devotees’ children when He should be protecting them, and who otherwise does not seem to care?  One who should be disregarded. 

So my search has ended, but not in the way I hoped or expected. 

BG 2.24: “This individual soul is unbreakable and insoluble, and can be neither burned nor dried. He is everlasting, present everywhere, unchangeable, immovable and eternally the same.”
http://vedabase.net/bg/2/24/en

Yesterday I happened upon a list compiled by Time Magazine of its selection of the top 50 web sites from last year, and on it was the Sesame Street web site. I hadn’t thought about Sesame Street in a while, maybe because I haven’t lived with a television since I was a kid. Maybe they don’t have the “which of these things doesn’t belong” segments anymore, but it was pretty common when I was a kid. There would be a square divided into quarters, with a different image in each one. Three of the pictures would share some distinct trait the the other one lacked.

That little game reminds me of Srila Prabhupada’s translation of Bhagavad-gita 2.24.

The verse begins by identifying the subject as “This individual soul.” Clicking on the Sanskrit for this phrase (“ayam”), seems to indicate that the word normally just means “this,” but it seems quite common for Srila Prabhupada to elaborate on the meaning of words when he translates.

Krishna then goes on to list various qualities, which Srila Prabhupada has indicated are describing the individual soul. They are:

unbreakable
insoluble
can’t be burned
can’t be dried
everlasting
present everywhere
eternally the same

Immediately I see one of these is different. I noticed this very early in my Bhagavad-gita study, but tried not to think about it.

So… “Present everywhere” is different. Srila Prabupada taught that the individual soul is localized and has a diameter of 1/10,000 of the tip of a hair. I guess that means a hair of about average size, but I guess it could relate to the diameter of Krishna’s hair or of Vyasa’s hair. It seems to be anybody’s guess. The problem with th is is that Srila Prabhupada says in the purport that the all-pervasiveness of the soul is not due to its numerical strength, because there are “living entities are all over God’s creation.”

We have seven adjective phrases describing the soul, except that one of them does not describe the “individual soul,” which Srila Prabhupada said was the subject, but rather all the souls together, which many years ago I heard was a definition of the name “Narayana.”

Why would Krishna include this adjective indicating omnipresence that we are told applies to infinite numbers of souls together, when we are also told it refers to the individual soul? It seems like very sloppy grammar, not exactly what I would expect from Krishna. On the other hand, if the grammar is understood in a way that makes logical sense, it would seem that all the qualities Krishna gives describing the “individual soul” actually refer the soul in a way that does not make sense to think of numerically, something leaning more toward nonduality than the Hare Krishnas’ idea of bhakti.

One little piece of trivia I’d like to add… If one takes a look at the Devanagari for this verse in Bhagavad-gita As It Is, either the 1983 original printing or the 1994 reprint (I don’t have any in between to check, but I presume it’s in all the printings in between), a wrong word is used. Instead of saying acchedyo ‘yam adhayo ‘yam, the Devanagari reads acchedhyo ‘yam acintyo ‘yam. I wonder how that happened. At some point the error was fixed though. I’m not sure when, but I think it was after I wrote to the BBT about it. I don’t suppose many people read the Devanagari, but I have and first noticed this myself.

I submitted a comment to Dandavats.com last week simply asking how to report violations of ISKCON Law 3.5.5.1.3.9, related to notifying ISKCON communities when a person known to have abused children is being maintained at the temple or staying on temple property. Several comments on other subjects have been approved and published since mine was submitted, but my question has so far been ignored. The top article on the site right now brags about a child protection project, but I cannot help but feel like ISKCON has a predominantly cover-your-ass mentality with the leaders more concerned about protecting their reputations than protecting the vulnerable persons in ISKCON.

Does anyone know an easy way to report serious violations of ISKCON Law by GBC members to the GBC body? In this case, reporting to the Child Protection Office is not a very good option, because one of the persons who participated in breaking ISKCON Law 3.5.5.1.3.9 at Gita-nagari in 2005 was Tamohara, the Director of the ISKCON Child Protection Office. The others were Radhanatha, Malati, and the late Bhakti-Tirtha.

These four, Bhakti-Tirtha, Tamohara, Radhanatha, and Malati, all disregarded ISKCON Law 3.5.5.1.3.9 when they facilitated Vakresvara Pandit to come to Gita-nagari and stay as a V.I.P. for a few months, despite his failure to meet the principle conditions for allowing his participation with ISKCON after the Child Protection Office determined that he had repeatedly molested a child girl only 1/3 his age. The rectification plan in the Official Decision pertaining to Vakresvara Pandit says that he had to comply with its first two requirements or not be allowed on ISKCON property or any participation in ISKCON functions, yet he showed only contempt for the established rectification process. How, then, did these GBC members consider Vakresvara Pandit a safe person, what to speak of his being qualified to sit on the Vyasaasana and give class?!!!

Although these GBC members apparently felt no need to comply with ISKCON’s child protection laws, rules, and official decisions (they made up their own rules for this occasion and broke them too), my wife and I were alarmed to have a child molester living luxuriously in our community, especially without the community knowing of him as a potentially dangerous person. Because I pursued this as a concern consistent with my official duties, I was driven out of the community and eventually out of ISKCON, which I find so obscenely wrong that it undermines everything Srila Prabhupada taught.

Judging by the results at this point — especially when I consider the abuse of over 500 ISKCON children in the gurukulas that Srila Prabhupada founded and had filled by his order, topped off by my experience of losing a popularity contest against a child molester (thanks to such big gurus praising him so much) even while our community was trying to come up with $35,000 to pay part of the child abuse settlement — after fifteen years of chanting Hare Krishna, I can no longer take ISKCON seriously as a spiritual movement. It is time to move on.

A few days ago I read the 2011 GBC Resolutions and was surprised to see the “Letter of Censure to Bir Krishna Das Goswami.” I don’t have any special interest in BKG, having never met him, but I noted the reference to ISKCON Law 3.5.5.1.3.9. and was awestruck. If I had known about that law six years ago, it seems like I’d still be an aspiring devotee today. Instead, largely because of three prominent GBC members — Bhakti-Tirtha, Radhanatha, and Malati — violating that law in my community, ISKCON and the whole Hare Krishna movement is becoming less relevant to me with each passing day. It so happens that Bhakti-Tirtha was dieing and is mostly excusable on that account. Malati has been kind to me on several occasions, but it doesn’t change the facts here. Radhanatha just blew me off and left town when I asked to meet with him about his bringing someone whom the ISKCON Child Protection Office had found guilty of child molestation, although I was told he was agreeable to meeting with my wife without me!

Nobody seems to know much of ISKCON Law, but I was able to get the actual text of this section with some help from a friend. It reads:

“3.5.5.1.3.9 Child Protection Concerns Persons, who after an ISKCON investigation, are confirmed to be guilty of child abuse must report their status to the local Temple President upon their arrival in an ISKCON community. Also, it is the obligation of a Temple President to determine for every member joining his community, if the newcomer is a confirmed child abuser. The Temple President is then obliged to notify the local householders and GBC of the offender’s presence. The local GBC should be advised if a Temple President knowingly arranges for a confirmed child abuser to be supported by a temple, or live on temple property without first notifying the householder community as per ISKCON laws. The local GBC is to supervise the situation to be sure the Temple President follows the following GBC guidelines: 1. “In no case should a confirmed perpetrator remain in the local community unless the local ISKCON authorities obtain the written authorization of no less than three-quarter of the parents of children at the project or in the community. 2. The local government authorities and/or the ISKCON Board of Education will make the final determination of the appropriate degree of segregation. (1990-119.4)” 3. Every GBC make sure the temples presidents in his zone are made aware of this resolution and GBC guidelines.”

I was further surprised to see that the GBC issued this letter of censure fifteen years after the fact, which tells me that the law has been in effect at least that long. I so much wish I knew of it back in 2005.

That was a very pivotal year for my aspiring Krishna consciousness. It was the same year I started this blog, intending to document my happy progress in Krishna consciousness. However, it did not continue on that trajectory very long.

At the beginning of that year, I was very enthused about trying my best at Krishna consciousness, and I suppose that was noticed because I was elected to the Gita-nagari community board that spring, although not on my own initiative. I chose not to vote for myself, deciding that I would only accept the service with substantial support from the community. I was also afraid of the potential for offenses that would come with having authority over devotees, so I sincerely prayed to Sri Sri Radha-Damodara to help me serve Them nicely and protect me. It seems that They had something more disruptive in mind.

It was around that time that Vakresvara Pandit arrived as a guest of honor with full red-carpet treatment. I would later learn that it was done through an agreement between the Child Protection Office and Radhanatha and Malati, because Bhakti Tirtha Swami had come to Gita-nagari to die, and he wanted Vakresvara Pandit to lead kirtan as he was dying. The CPO, its Director later told me, intended to authorize something minor but it so happened that this “benediction” made Vakresvara into a big celebrity and he clearly exploited that for his sense gratification. I saw him engage with kids in several dangerous activities that I thought put the whole community at risk, which I won’t go into now but which were documented at Oppositerule when they happened.. During the same period, I happened to learn that Vakresvara Pandit had a behavior problem including a child molestation record and was not following the rectification plan assigned to him by ISKCON’s Child Protection Office (“CPO”). Since my wife was on the Child Protection Team, and I on the Community Board, that seemed like something we should find out about. To my surprise, I was unable to get much help from the CPO, but fortunately I was able to get from someone else a copy of the Official Decision finding Vakresvara guilty of child molestation and prescribing a rectification plan for him.

In short, the Official Decision found that when Vakresvara was about 40 years old, he had sexual intercourse about 8 times with a vulnerable devotee girl over the course of a year, beginning when she was thirteen years old. One devotee attorney I who was familiar with the details indicated in correspondence with me that in his view Vakresvara was a sexual predator. The Official Decision stipulated several conditions that Vakresvara had to obey to participate in ISKCON, with maximum importance stressed upon the first two conditions: 1, That Vakresvara write a letter of apology to the girl, submitted to the CPO; and 2, that Vakresvara pay $3,000 in restitution. The Official Decision stipulated that unless Vakresvara complied with at least these two requirements, he could not be allowed on ISKCON property or any affiliation with ISKCON projects. Not only did he fail to comply with these requirements, he actually displayed serious contempt for them and for the Child Protection Office.

As I was learning of this, I felt great anxiety because the mood at Gita-nagari was overwhelmingly absorbed in Bhakti-Tirtha Swami, whom I was repeatedly told was a pure devotee. I was upset because he was leaving his body, and I was never able to get to know him very well. I was also perplexed over his invitation to Vakresvara, why a pure devotee would want an unrepentant child molester to sing for him at such a special time.

I tried to have my concerns addressed as discretely as I could, but months went by without any progress. Then the night BTS passed away, I found myself in a little altercation with Vakresvara over his neglecting the big bonfires he had built in the woods. It might have been a minor disagreement, considering the circumstances, but I was upset at the notion of arguing with a devotee and offered him my humble obeisances, which he expressly rejected. I was shocked, unprepared for such Vaisnava behavior, and I was glad to see him leave because it had seemed like he was going to hit me. The next day my guru, Bhaktimarga Swami, arrived and I asked for his advice about my concerns over Vakresvara Pandit, and he encouraged me to follow through with it.

I also found out around that time that while Vakresvara was at Gita-nagari, he had an appeal trial over the child molestation determination, but I was initially unable to get information from the CPO. Eventually I broke down and begged him to have mercy, and Tamohara (the CPO Chief) relented and shared the Appeal Decision with me. I looked and immediately noted that they found all of his objections without merit and affirmed the finding of guilt. The only two points in Vakresvara’s favor were based on errors, and these points were corrected after I pointed them out to the CPO. Specifically, appeal judges opted to declare Vakresvara’s rectification period complete with time served and noting that the sex was consensual; however there was more than sufficient proof available to show that he never followed the rectification plan and practically flaunted his disobedience to it. Also, nowhere in the USA is there legal validity to the notion of a thirteen year old child consenting to sex. In the end, the CPO appeal panel had affirmed Vakresvara’s guilt but waived the apology letter and restitution and maintained some very minor restrictions for one year.

After about three months of headaches worrying about this, realizing that going through “proper channels” is exhausting and wholly unproductive, I posed a question to the BTSwami e-mail group, asking if anyone knew what BTS thought about Vakresvara’s child molestation issue. The response was harsh. In short, my community rejected me and undermined my relationship with my guru by getting him to try to bring me in line. Unfortunately, in this situation my guru lied to me, broke a promise to me, and changed his advice supporting me into an order to stop (with no discussion of why). He also rejected me as a candidate for brahmana initiation because I was documenting these events on my blog, apparently without personally reading it.

That put me into about 18 months of severe depression, which I eventually sought to end, knowing no other way besides rejoining devotee society. I apologized to everyone and begged for forgiveness, but the only apology anyone gave me was from the fellow who had actually threatened me. To come back, I had internalized all the faults and accepted them as my own, but I eventually realized that was unnatural and I could not sustain it. In due course I got on board with the rtviks, but I could not stay with them because I consider Srila Prabhupada responsible for ISKOCN and the chain of command that he put in place. After fifteen years and chanting Krishna’s names around 100 million times, the Krishna consciousness has become painful to think about, enough that it has become a relief to forget about Krishna when possible.

I’m reached the point where I don’t want to care about this movement anymore and I am trying to get free. There is so much hypocrisy that my head could explode. So now I learn about ISKCON Law 3.5.5.1.3.9. It could have done me a lot of good back in 2005, but maybe that’s just wishful thinking. However, maybe I’d still be trying to be a devotee if that law were respected.

As I read this law, the responsibility initially falls upon the Temple President, but the responsibility for ensuring compliance goes to the GBC. Our TP then was a disciple of BTS, who was our GBC. Of course, BTS was in no condition to act as GBC, but we had two other GBC members on extended visit: Radhanatha Swami and Malati Mataji. As I understand it, they were the ones who somehow got the CPO to stick its head up its ass and pretend that everything was OK with having an unrepentant child molester as a V.I.P. at Gita-nagari.

I had wanted, along with my wife, to meet with Radhanatha Swami about our concern over Vakresvara, but he would only agree to meet with my wife if I was not there! I have to admit I felt insulted and that it was a very improper condition for a sannyasi to impose. We said my wife would not be comfortable with that arrangement, and instead of giving a reply, he just left with no meeting.

Radhanatha and Malati, as the responsible GBC members at Gita-nagari in spring-summer 2005, should have been making sure that “In no case should a confirmed perpetrator remain in the local community unless the local ISKCON authorities obtain the written authorization of no less than three-quarter of the parents of children at the project or in the community.” Instead of trying to get permission from my wife and me, for bringing Vakresvara to our community, they were collaborating with the CPO to prevent the Gita-nagari community from knowing that their good friend Vakresvara whom they had invited as a great Vaisnava was in fact an unrepentant child molester. I was trying to get the information needed to understand the situation, so I could properly perform my duty as a community board member and assist my wife on the Child Protection Team, and for this I was rejected by my so-called Vaisnava community and sent down a path where I eventually lost faith in Srila Prabhupada’s teachings due to the gross misbehavior of his leading disciples and the chain of command he established.

I won’t hold my breath waiting for ISKCON poster-boy Radhanatha to be censured by his pals. LOL.

UPDATE Dec. 11, 2010: A second article has been published wherein Mahavidya notes that he received no response to his first. I responded with what I have written below, with a few later edits, but Rocana rejected it with no indication that he had read it, instead referring to an incident from a few months earlier when he had told me to never write to him again. At that time I had addressed his heavy criticism of Gauridas Pandit prabhu at Bhaktifest and refusal to publish Gauridas’s response, with a brief, sarcastic e-mail, trying to suggest that he be more tolerant of how others work to develop bhakti. Rocana mentions in an editorial today, which I don’t care to link, that there were responses, but none supporting Srila Prabhupada’s rtvik order were mentioned.

———————

Hare Krishna.

In his recent article on the Sampradaya Sun, titled “Automatic?,” (http://www.harekrsna.com/sun/editorials/11-10/editorials6768.htm) Mahavidya Prabhu argues that the supporters of Srila Prabhupada’s rtvik order are denying him his right to reject aspiring disciples. I’ve appreciated Mahavidya’s writing on many occasions, but that accusation is wrong.

There is no need for Srila Prabhupada to accept (or reject) individual disciples now, because historical record shows that he chose to distance himself from that role and delegate it to rtviks instead. This can be shown clearly in four events in 1977:

1. April 22, Tamal Krsna Gosvami tells Srila Prabhupada that he does not think any of Srila Prabhupada’s disciples are qualified at the level of guru, and Srila Prabupada agrees, telling TKG that he is waiting for someone to become qualified. This contradicts any earlier evidence someone may put forward saying that he had authorized gurus. As of April 22, 1977, he had not.

Conspicuously absent is any mention by Srila Prabhupada of how he supposedly authorized everyone to be initiating guru with a private letter to Tusta Krsna swami several years earlier.

2. On May 28, Satsvarupa das Gosvami formally asked Srila Prabhupada how initiations were to continue after his disappearance, and he immediately replied, “Officiating acarya… Rtvik, yes.” They surely knew what this meant, but as if unsatisfied with this, his disciples brought the conversation around to discussion of gurus, and Srila Prabhupada emphasized it would be upon his order, an order that apparently was never given.

3. Srila Prabhupada signed a document dated July 9, 1977, indicating that the rtviks listed therein were to act on his behalf in accepting disciples, which would then be Srila Prabhupada’s disciples. (TKG mentioned on at Topanga Canyon on Dec. 3, 1980, that Srila Prabhupada told him more rtviks could be added.) With this document, Srila Prabhupada materially removed himself from the decision-making process in accepting disciples, having already clearly established his standard of 16 rounds, 4 regs, etc. Nowhere in this document is there any termination clause or any other contradiction of Srila Prabhupada’s prior expressed choice to employ the rtvik method for accepting disciples in ISKCON after his disappearance.

4. That Srila Prabhupada dismissed himself from the decision of accepting disciples was confirmed on October 18, when the desire of one man to become his disciple was presented to Srila Prabhupada, and Srila Prabhupada referred five times to the “deputies” he had made to go to instead. Reading the conversation gives me the impression that he was a little annoyed at being bothered to verbally accept a disciple when he had already delegated that role. Why would he turn away aspiring disciples? This was a disturbance.

Leaving aside other supporting evidence for the sake of time and space, these four events clearly illustrate the relevant decision that Srila Prabhupada actually made, to continue accepting disciples after his disappearance via the rtvik method he instituted. Therefore it is far better to focus on honoring Srila Prabhupada’s expressed order rather than worrying that someone might wrongly accept a disciple on his behalf and force Srila Prabhupada to save another soul and deliver another devotee to Krishna against his will. Yeah, it sounds ridiculous. Have we forgotten Srila Prabhupada’s mercy?

The way Mahavidya presented it, one unaware might think Srila Prabhupada was big on rejecting his aspiring disciples. We know he accepted several thousand, including some who were just passing through and many whom he never met. How many did he reject? Mahavidya acts as if he knows of one but yet calls him a disciple, so that suggests Srila Prabhupada accepted him too. I would like to know what, if any, evidence anyone has to suggest that Srila Prabhupada would reject an aspiring disciple who would meet the criteria for initiation that he established for ISKCON. In the absence of such evidence, I find it extremely mislead for anyone to stand in the way of aspiring disciples wanting to take shelter at Srila Prabhupada’s lotus feet.

Some, including Mahavidya Prabhu recently if I recall correctly, have presented an argument they seem to find very clever, that if we can be initiated as Srila Prabhupada’s disciples even now, then that means we could just as well be initiated as disciples of any past acarya. They say, devoid of logic, that the rtvik system is invalid because I could become the godbrother of Krishna’s spiritual master, for example. This again ignores the bold fact that Srila Prabhupada created a worldwide institution and a rtvik method within that institution for accepting disciples in his absence, and he said this was the method to be used after his disappearance. The previous acaryas came in a different time, place, and circumstance, and did not do that. History shows that Srila Prabhupada did.

Others present the idea that somehow a guru cannot accept disciples after his disappearance. I’m not sure whether they think this is a limitation on Krishna’s abilities, on the guru’s, or both.

Considering that an ordinary rich person can give his material wealth after his disappearance to someone he has never met but who meets certain qualifications, I find it impossible to believe that on the spiritual platform a guru cannot give his spiritual wealth in an equivalent situation. Materially, it happens every day. Someone has loads of money and establishes a foundation, with funding, trustees, criteria for awards, etc., and money is given as designated, even after the founder’s death. Srila Prabhupada’s establishment of the rtvik system in ISKCON during his manifest pastimes provides a similar infrastructure, making that system possible even now. The ISKCON GBC was wrong to tear that down and install themselves as gurus in his place, and they knew it.

Given that Srila Prabhupada provided the means for accepting disciples after his disappearance, directly said to utilize the rtvik method after his disappearance, widely promulgated a written order following that, referred to the same in later conversations and letters, and never subsequently contradicting this order… if the “walks like a duck, quacks like a duck” logic is good for anything, then rtvik system is undoubtedly what Srila Prabhupada wanted to do.

Therefore one should accept the decisions Srila Prabhupada made rather than falsely accusing others of stealing from Srila Prabhupada a decision that he formally delegated.

Hare Krishna

I’ve been listening to Srila Prabhupada’s audio recordings nearly every day for a while, and a few days ago I completed hearing the whole 19 CD collection.  It’s over 1,000 hours of Srila Prabhupada, and most of the MP3s I’ve heard more than once.  For me, nothing compares to hearing Srila Prabhupada for purifying my consciousness, driving out maya, putting my mind at ease, and reminding me of Krishna.  I couldn’t wait to start over with MP3 CD#1.

There’s been a lot of commotion recently over the 500 or so tapes that the Bhaktivedanta Archives has yet to release, and I even helped promote the petition for them to just do it already.  However, considering that we have so many recordings and that Krishna consciousness is conceptually simple, I would be surprised if there is anything being withheld that he hasn’t said somewhere else already.  Of course without hearing the tapes one cannot be sure, but my main interest is the tapes that never made it to the archives.

I say that with a little reserve, because I don’t have absolute PROOF, however I’ve heard many devotees talk about some large number of tapes that went missing, apparently more than one batch.  The most often number I’ve heard was about 150.

That’s hearsay, I know, certainly not the most reliable form of evidence, but there’s more.  First consider the following conversation:

Tamala Krsna: We tape everything Prabhupada says. Everything he says, we tape, whether you’re here or not here.

Guest (3): No, I don’t want to talk on the machine.

Tamala Krsna: We’re not taping for any other purpose, but our Guru Maharaja’s words are very sacred to us, so we tape all the time, whether you’re here or not here.

>>> Ref. VedaBase => Short Dissertations — May 24-25, 1977, Vrndavana

Please take note of the date too, because it’s just a few days before Srila Prabhupada announced that initiations would be conducted by rtviks after his disappearance, and (not) coincidentally also just a few days before the frequency of available audio recordings of him radically dropped.  It looks like a coup.d’ISKCON, and please read on to see why I dare suggest this.

Naturally Tamala Krsna was saying exactly what anyone would expect.  Every morning devotees would chant, “My only wish is to have my consciousness purified by the words emanating from his lotus mouth,” that being Srila Prabhupada’s lotus mouth.  These tapes would ensure that we could listen to Srila Prabupada practically forever, and others (like me) could hear him too.  I’m grateful for these recordings, and so glad that they were so diligent in recording his speaking.

When the issue of tapes being withheld arose recently, it reminded me of a document I received last year that contained copies of the records of tapes from 1977 in the Bhaktivedanta Archives’ possession.  Recently I decided to do some basic statistical analyses on these data.  I think the findings are quite interesting.

Unfortunately the data I have are interrupted in two places, so I analyzed them in three groups that are still useful for comparison.  First, the overall distribution:

The bar lengths represent the frequency of a certain number of tapes per day that are held by the archives, and third order polynomial trendlines are added to aid with visualization. For example, the tall red bar means that for May 28 to November 14, 1977, the Archives has zero tapes on over 56% of the days. One can also look at the absence of a blue bar over the zero column (to the left of the tall red line) and understand that from January 2 – 9, 1977, there were no days without tapes, or in other words, the Archives has at least one tape every day during that time period.

Notice that the first series, colored blue and dated from the beginning of January 1977, resembles a slightly irregular bell curve.  A majority of days had 2 or 3 tapes.  The second series, colored green and covering late winter 1977, is another bell curve skewed to a plateau shape.  This again would be a fairly normal distribution.  The third series, which is most interesting is not a bell curve at all.  It is a sharp decline, indicating that on most days there are ZERO tapes and the overall shape suggests that taping was abnormally rare.  Another explanation that seems more likely, given other circumstances briefly discussed below, is that some tapes were hidden or secretly destroyed. I have heard multiple accounts of devotees claiming some knowledge of that happening.

The first set, below, goes from January 2, 1977, to January 9, 1977.  In this series there were an average of 2.875 tapes per day, with the most often number of tapes being 2, with that number on 37.5% of the days. Every day had at least one tape.

The second series, below, goes from January 22, 1977, to March 2, 1977, with an average of 2.375 tapes per day.   In this group, we had a fairly even distribution of numbers of tapes per day, with five days without any tapes, eight days each with 1, 2, 3, and 4 tapes, and three days with 5 tapes.

The third series, which coincidentally went from May 28, 1977, to November 14, 1977, was the most interesting.  In this time period there was an average of only 0.8 tapes per day.  More than half the days (56.14%) have 0 tapes.  The distribution was as follows:

Probably the most notable anomaly was that during one stretch (August 18 – October 1) there were 45 days in a row with zero tapes!  In the 85 days between July 9 and October 2, there were only 15 tapes.  That’s only 1.2 tapes per WEEK, compared to almost 2.5 tapes per DAY before the May 28, 1977, data presented here.  Has a plausible explanation been given for the dearth of tapes at that time? This is precisely when I would expect Srila Prabhupada to be responding to questions about the July 9, 1977, document and elaborating on how he wanted initiations to be conducted after his disappearance.

One may assume that Srila Prabhupada was too ill to speak, but in Tamal Krsna Gosvami’s diary there is an entry dated 4 September 1977
which definitely contradicts that idea:

Prabhupada announced, “As soon as I get green card, I will go to New York.”
“How long will you stay there?” I asked.
“As long as you like.”
“Srila Prabhupada, you are just like a cow.  You will go wherever we lead you, but you never stop giving milk.”
“That is because I am a surabhi cow. …”

It sounds like a nice discussion; too bad we can’t listen to it. Two days later the Vedabase shows there is a letter dictated by him indicating that he was at the Bhaktivedanta Manor, mentioning his frail health but is clearly very spunky and says he is looking forward to touring all over the world to see all his disciples and the temples again. Obviously he was speaking, so there must be another reason why there are no tapes.

I think Tamal Krsna Gosvami gives the real answer here:

“Actually Prabhupada never appointed any gurus. He appointed eleven ritviks. He never appointed them gurus. Myself and the other GBC have done the greatest disservice to this movement the last three years because we interpreted the appointment of ritviks as the appointment of gurus.”  (December 3, 1980)

In order to scrap the rtvik system Srila Prabhupada established and institute a zonal acarya system instead, any relevant instructions Srila Prabhupada may have given would have needed to be suppressed. Don’t believe for a moment that Tamal Krsna’s confession was entirely honest. He could not have misinterpreted what Srila Prabhupada was saying. If he were fully honest, he would have said “fraudulently interpreted.”

A little over a year before Srila Prabhupada’s disappearance, he made this strong statement:

“Why this Gaudiya Matha failed? Because they tried to become more than guru. He, before passing away, he gave all direction and never said that “This man should be the next acarya.” But these people, just after his passing away they began to fight, who shall be acarya. That is the failure. They never thought, “Why Guru Maharaja gave us instruction so many things, why he did not say that this man should be acarya?” They wanted to create artificially somebody acarya and everything failed. They did not consider even with common sense that if Guru Maharaja wanted to appoint somebody as acarya, why did he not say? He said so many things, and this point he missed? The real point? And they insist upon it. They declared some unfit person to become acarya. Then another man came, then another, acarya, another acarya. So better remain a foolish person perpetually to be directed by Guru Maharaja. That is perfection.”

>>> Ref. VedaBase => Room Conversation — August 16, 1976, Bombay

Considering Srila Prabhupada’s obvious frustration with his godbrothers’ failed attempt to appoint gurus independent of any order from Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati, it is completely unbelievable that Srila Prabhupada would be negligent in the matter of giving clear orders on the subject of guru succession in ISKCON.  Sometimes devotees say that the matter of guru succession was obvious, and that everyone knew whatever that particular devotee thinks.  But it was certainly not obvious, and the proof of this was the fact that Satsvarupa, speaking on behalf of the GBC, felt the need to ask Srila Prabhupada directly:

Satsvarupa: …Then our next question concerns initiations in the future, particularly at that time when you’re no longer with us. We want to know how first and second initiation would be conducted.

Prabhupada: Yes. I shall recommend some of you. After this is settled up, I shall recommend some of you to act as Officiating-Acaryas.

Tamala Krsna: Is that called Rtvik-Acarya?

Prabhupada: Rtvik. Yes.

(May 28, 1977)

If the GBC already knew the answer to this based on Srila Prabhupada’s prior teachings, then they would not have wasted his time asking that. I’ve read the complete conversation on that topic many times, and for a long time I just found it incomprehensible.  My impression was that the discussion seemed like their communication was broken, almost incoherent, like Srila Prabhupada and his disciples had different ideas in mind and could not bridge the gap.  I remember when I would get to the point where Tamal Krsna said “That’s clear,” and I would practically exclaim “What?!  That’s not clear at all!”  Then last year I finally got a clue about this and it all made sense.

I don’t know how it happened, but in 1997 the GBC passed a resolution to have this tape examined by a forensic specialist, and they employed Norman Pearle for the job.  It was the same year that Mr. Pearle was recognized as “NAIS High Tech Investigator of the Year.”  (http://www.pimall.com/nais/n.perl.html)

Mr. Pearle had this to say about the tape:

“In conclusion, this recording exhibits strong signs suggestive of falsification. I do not believe that these deficiencies might possibly be the product of some mechanical process or problem within the recording or duplication process and I believe that they exist at what is considered to be a higher degree than that of a coincidence. I strongly recommend that an independent Forensic Analysis be conducted the Master recording in order to determine the authenticity and originality of the evidence. This analysis requires what is represented as the original recording and the original tape recorder upon which this recording was represented to be made.”  (September 22, 1997)

This was the so-called “Appointment Tape” that the Zonal Acaryas claimed gave them the seats as Srila Prabhupada’s authorized successors.  It should be no great surprise that the tape was not made available to the devotees until several years after the so-called Zonal Acaryas had taken their thrones, nor is it a surprise that the GBC did not heed the investigator’s advice to provide the ORIGINAL tape and equipment for a more conclusive analysis.

Despite the fact that serious doubt about the integrity of the tape has been raised through professional forensic analysis, it still has some validity in the sense that an impeached witness can still incriminate himself. In other words, “anything you say can be used against you,” although a criminal suspect’s words in their defense are not necessarily trustworthy. Even though this tape that GBC apologists have called the “appointment tape” has been disqualified for supporting their position, they continue to quote from it out of context as if it were reliable. Still that is not a problem for their opponents, as Srila Prabhupada’s begins by indicating that initiations after his disappearance were to be conducted by rtviks and concludes by saying that they could become regular gurus only on his order, an order which he apparently never gave.

Considering all these facts along with many others too numerous to mention, I find it impossible to believe that the Zonal Acaryas erroneously thought Srila Prabhupada had appointed them as his successors.  It was fraud and an almost unimaginable offense against the parampara.  As stated by Visvanatha Cakravarti Thakur, “apujya yatra pujyante pujyanam ca vyatikramah. (In the place where those who are not to be worshiped are worshiped, there is offense to those who are actually worshipable.) and “pratibadhnati hi sreyah pujyapujya-vyatikramah. (Improperly understanding who is to be worshiped and who is not to be worshiped will impede one’s progress in life.)” >>> Ref. VedaBase => SB 10.74.30

They say there was reform, and many devotees want more reform so that anyone can become guru if they can somehow get an aspiring disciple, but none of it was authorized by Srila Prabhupada within ISKCON.  Srila Prabhupada’s order was abandoned practically as soon as his body stopped breathing, just as leaders ignored many of his orders even before.  Said Tamal Krsna, “Guru, oh wonderful! Now I am guru, and there is only eleven of us.” (December 3, 1980)   So now there are many gurus, and many have fallen, but none were appointed by Srila Prabhupada.  Nor is the GBC authorized to appoint or vote for them.  “A guru can become guru when he is ordered by his guru. That’s all. Otherwise nobody can become guru.”  (Srila Prabhupada Bg. Lecture. October 28, 1975)

So now I look back at the Bhaktivedanta Archives’ collection and it makes perfect sense why there are only fifteen tapes in the 12 weeks following July 9, 1977. Unfortunately it leaves to the imagination exactly what Srila Prabhupada was saying then, but any sane person would expect that he had been giving instructions on how to manage ISKCON after he was, as Satsvarupa put it, “no longer with us.” Considering so many corroborating facts, including:

• Srila Prabhupada’s response to that May 28, 1977, question, saying “officiating acarya… rtvik, yes.”,
• the forensic report saying that recording “exhibits strong signs suggestive of falsification,”
• the content of the July 9, 1977, letter, with its opening reference to the question of initiations after Srila Prabhupada’s disappearance,
• Srila Prabhupada’s apparent choice to not name any successor acaryas,
• Srila Prabhupada’s criticism of his godbrothers’ disobedience to their guru in the matter of succession,
• the obvious desire of the 11 appointed rtviks to illegitimately capture the title of acarya,
• numerous self-appointed and voted-in guru fall-downs,
• the extensive corruption in ISKCON’s history,
• one devotee’s testimony of personally hearing Srila Prabhupada say in early July that he wanted the rtvik system to continue,
• various reports devotees have given about tapes that disappeared,
• Tamal Krsna’s assertion that everything Srila Prabhupada spoke had to be recorded,
• proof that Srila Prabhupada was speaking and even travelling during the period of no tapes,
• and many other facts,

…the conclusion becomes obvious. These tapes are gone because that was necessary for railroading Srila Prabhupada’s order for initiation to be conducted by rtviks on his behalf and the creation of false acaryas instead. The next question is what to do about it.

Hare Krishna.

P.S.  Source Data is available for download here:  Source Data (199)

Hare Krishna. A few days ago we had an exciting event in my family. My son, Caitanya Gopala Howard, whose hair has been getting longer since his birth in June 2008, got shaved up. It was pretty strange for all of us at first, but I think we’re getting used to it. It’s really nice, I think.

I’ve been keeping a sikha and shaving once or twice a week for several years, and it’s good that now he looks more like his dad than his mother and sisters. He always gets excited when we have kirtan, and he loves to play the mrdanga. He even has his own kid-size mrdanga and is surprisingly good with it. So now he looks the part too.

I wonder what his grandparents will say. “Hare Krishna,” I hope.

Although I began this blog with the full intention of describing how wonderful is the process of advancing in devotional service from my perspective, many readers have remarked that it’s overly negative. In fact, the theme of this blog is in describing my journey, and I’ve stuck to that even though it’s not been nearly as smooth and ecstatic as I expected. Although it may not be as inspiring to some people, I still think it has value.

But why must I be negative, peope ask. I don’t see it that way. To advance in any endeavor, obstacles must be overcome. What is an obstacle for one person may not be an obstacle for another, and visa versa. My challenge is that so far I have found that the men acting as gurus in Iskcon are a huge drain on my inspiration, enthusiasm, and hope for advancement in Krishna consciousness. There’s not much I can do about that externally; but it feels like they have some sort of psychic tentacles reaching into me, and I need to get them out. My writing here is a way of doing that.

I can appreciate them as aspiting devotees, but my spiritual connection is through Srila Prabhupada. Before my so-called initiation, I reluctantly accepted their version that serving them was the key to coming closer to Srila Prabhupada, but at least for me that has proven false. My initiation felt more like betraying my relationship Srila Prabhupada, and I am still struggling to recover from that mistake.

I could probably coexist peacefully even with these men posing as gurus, but they don’t allow it. They’ve labeled people like me as heretics and enemies. When I go to an Iskcon temple and someone asks me who is my guru, I’m obliged to lie. I’m not permitted to say Srila Prabhupada is my guru, and if I formally enter into a guru-disciple relationship with him, I expect I may be banned outright. At least I would have to pretend it didn’t happen.

Sometimes it’s said that one can be Srila Prabhupada’s disciple by following his instructions, but in Iskcon culture that does not hold true. For example, last year I debated with an anti-rtvik crusader, and when I did not find his arguments at all persuasive, he posted a series of derogatory e-mails about me to the “Prabhupada Disciples” PAMHO e-mail group. Because he is recognized as a disciple of Srila Prabhupada, he could do that, but I was not permitted to answer in my defense. It was only a few weeks earlier that he told me that following Srila Prabhupada makes me his disciple, but then he quickly proved the real value of that idea in Iskcon. I wonder if he noticed the irony.

This is the kind of stuff that has been going on in my interfacing with Iskcon devotees lately. A few weeks ago I remarked on a Facebook status update that my predominant feeling about my initiation in the six years since has been regret. One local mataji responded saying that attitude would destroy me. I countered by questioning her judgement based on the fact that she was worshipping a guru who, as a somewhat elderly sannyasi, had tried to have sex with his disciple, who was married to another disciple, after several years of manipulating her life based on his lust. (http://www.chakra.org/announcements/persDec26_07.html). That’s so spiritially abusive that it seems almost unreal. Being or accepting such a person as guru strikes me as a gross insult to the guru parampara. This was the same man who directly asked Srila Prabhupada on May 28, 1977, how initiations were to be conducted after his disappearance and was answered “Officiating Acarya,” a.k.a. “Rtvik.” Yet he went on to be a zonal acarya instead, which put him in a position to accept his crush as a disciple. He and his GBC/guru peers concealed Srila Prabhupada’s answer to the May 28 question for many years (the Lilamrta version is vastly different from the various transcriptions), undoubtedly because it stood as a threat to their desire to enjoy the role of guru. Even the tape itself was apparently doctored, as revealed in a professional forensic analysys commissioned by the GBC. How anyone can trust these people is beyond my comprehension.

Then in the past week one devotee took it upon himself to harrass me. I posted to the PAMHO Free Forum a link to the petition for the release of the rest of Srila Prabhupada’s audio recordings, which prompted a personal response from the Bhaktivedanta Archives. Then somehow this other devotee, who had harrassed me before before in e-mail, in the comments here, and in an online devotee forum. This instance was similar to the others, with his telling others that I’m just like a barking dog and should be ignored. As it turned out, I figured out that ignoring him was the only way to make him go away.

So I have so many people like this always trying to intrude on my sacred relationship with the man whom I’ve accepted as spiritual master and whom I believe intended to accept people like me. It is highly offensive to me, and sometimes it makes me angry. All I want to do is cultivate my relationship with Srila Prabhupada and with Krishna, being accepted in their temples, and not have people trying to force me to do it their way. For me, putting my spiritual life in the hands of another man is very difficult to do, but I trust Srila Prabhupada. I do not trust these other men at all, and I think there are more than enough reasons why.

This is my life, or at least part of it. My spiritual life at home is very nice, peaceful, and happy. But these self-appointed and voted-in gurus are a big obstacle to me, and moving forward includes getting their influence out of my life. I also feel like I should be free to attend and serve at the temples Srila Prabhupada established. I think he would want that. Ignoring the gurus won’t make them go away, so here I am writing and working through my issues with a little hope that a few more people will understand. Hare Krishna.

P.s. Please forgive any typing errors; I’m using thumbs on a BlackBerry.

It was 1999 and I had gone to Mangala Arati at the Philadelphia Temple one Sunday morning. I lived about a half-hour drive from there (maybe a little quicker at 4 a.m.), but it was something I wanted to do. My family was new in the area, and my job was only one mile from the temple so had started getting lunch there frequently and visiting with my wife and daughter on Sundays.

So, after the morning program we had breakfast, and there was plenty extra so someone told me to take a plate home. So I got the plate and a few minutes later I passed near Ravindra. He looked at my plate and then at me, like one might look at a thief. I suddenly felt uncomfortable, and a few minutes later one devotee apologetically told me he had to ask if I was giving donations. I replied that every Sunday I was giving my daughter money to put in the box. He asked me to write a monthly check so they could see how much I was giving. I said that since I was already doing $20/week, would $80 a month be ok? He seemed to think that was a very nice donation. I’m not sure if he knew that we were quite poor, but it was actually a lot of money for us.

Unfortunately it wasn’t a very good first impression. I felt insulted and did not appreciate being treated like a potential thief. It was a huge buzz-kill following the morning program. But worse was that it was the end of teaching my little girl to put money in the box whenever we go to the temple, because I was already giving as much I could afford by check.

I haven’t thought about that in a long time, but it just came back vividly to me today.  Mostly when I think of Ravindra now, it is remembering how he led a meeting at my local temple two years ago when he said that the rtviks were enemies of ISKCON.  Hearing that made me curious why devotees would support a view that was strongly opposed by the GBC, and upon careful investigation of the issue I could not help but conclude that the rtviks were right.  So now I’m burdened with the knowledge that the co-GBC who rules over my local temple considers me an enemy, even though he probably doesn’t know it.  I’m always amazed at how the modern gurus have the phenomenal ability to drain me of my natural inspiration for Krishna consciousness.  Is it any wonder why I just want to focus on Srila Prabhupada and Krishna?