Please accept my humble obeisances. All glories to Srila Prabhupada.
Devotees are beginning to approach me, in the capacity of my service for the Child Protection Office (CPO), about the situation of Lokanatha Maharaja. I understand why in the past there have been special efforts to not publicize the case (e.g. the psych. report that there is minimal chance of recurrence, the preaching mission, etc.).
But every other case that has come to the attention of this Office has been put on a list of cases to resolve. As I see it, the case is exacerbated by ISKCON continuing to place Lokanatha Maharaja in a high profile position. I'm afraid that this will simply cause devotees who know, or who have heard rumours, about the situation, to become increasingly irritated.
For instance, I've just received a message from a devotee who recently read the Prabhupadanuga Newsletter, which apparently had an article by Lokanatha Maharaja. The devotee knew something about his transgression of a few years back, and this article really aggravated her.
I'm getting similar feedback from various sectors. I think Lokanatha Maharaja is also the ISKCON Minister for Social Development. Devotees are asking, at least implicitly, why has ISKCON chosen as Minister of Social Development someone in the renounced order who made sexual advances to an 11 year old girl?
And further, why is this case not open to the Child Protection Office?
What do you suggest?
Your servant,
Dhira Govinda dasa
For instance, I've just received a message from a devotee who recently read the Prabhupadanuga Newsletter, which apparently had an article by Lokanatha Maharaja. The devotee knew something about his transgression of a few years back, and this article really aggravated her.
I'm getting similar feedback from various sectors. I think Lokanatha Maharaja is also the ISKCON Minister for Social Development. Devotees are asking, at least implicitly, why has ISKCON chosen as Minister of Social Development someone in the renounced order who made sexual advances to an 11 year old girl?
And further, why is this case not open to the Child Protection Office?
What do you suggest?
Your servant,
Dhira Govinda dasa
=========================
Sanaka Sanatan dasa: Dear Padmapani Prabhu,
Please accept my humble obeisances. All glories to Srila Prabhupada.
Thank you for writing back so swiftly. I’m very sorry that your province is dealing with wildfires and extreme heat. People here have also been suffering from heat, lack of air conditioning, and lack of water, so I know how difficult it can be. I hope and pray that all the calamities over there resolve soon.
I’m also sorry to hear that your health is less than optimal, and wish you a speedy recovery. For whatever it’s worth, from all your letters, it’s clear that you have love and gratitude for Lokanath Swami. That was never in doubt. You are a senior devotee, Srila Prabhupada’s own disciple, and so it’s very good that you speak and write your realizations, however you see fit.
As for your not being in either of the two groups, of course none of us fits completely into any given box, as we are all unique individuals. Perhaps it can be rephrased as:
“There's basically two groups of devotees that have interacted with this issue. In one group, there's devotees who aren't aware of Maharaja's statements and / or don't believe them. They have largely called for Maharaja to be stripped of sannyasa and to stop initiating (and/or be retried), even though the case was already fully adjudicated twice by the entire GBC body (with Maharaja being punished for years each time), and even though no new allegations or evidence has been presented.
[PADA: The GBC already "voted in" many deviated persons as ISKCON's acharyas, and when later on it was discovered a number of these acharyas were having fall downs -- the GBC often suppressed the complainants and covered the issue up. The fact that the GBC "adjudicates" on any matter now does not mean anyone will trust their conclusion, especially considering they already covered up for all sorts of deviations left, right and center in the past. That includes: the GBC collectively having to be sued for $400,000,000 -- for covering up mass child abuse.
Please accept my humble obeisances. All glories to Srila Prabhupada.
Thank you for writing back so swiftly. I’m very sorry that your province is dealing with wildfires and extreme heat. People here have also been suffering from heat, lack of air conditioning, and lack of water, so I know how difficult it can be. I hope and pray that all the calamities over there resolve soon.
I’m also sorry to hear that your health is less than optimal, and wish you a speedy recovery. For whatever it’s worth, from all your letters, it’s clear that you have love and gratitude for Lokanath Swami. That was never in doubt. You are a senior devotee, Srila Prabhupada’s own disciple, and so it’s very good that you speak and write your realizations, however you see fit.
As for your not being in either of the two groups, of course none of us fits completely into any given box, as we are all unique individuals. Perhaps it can be rephrased as:
“There's basically two groups of devotees that have interacted with this issue. In one group, there's devotees who aren't aware of Maharaja's statements and / or don't believe them. They have largely called for Maharaja to be stripped of sannyasa and to stop initiating (and/or be retried), even though the case was already fully adjudicated twice by the entire GBC body (with Maharaja being punished for years each time), and even though no new allegations or evidence has been presented.
[PADA: The GBC already "voted in" many deviated persons as ISKCON's acharyas, and when later on it was discovered a number of these acharyas were having fall downs -- the GBC often suppressed the complainants and covered the issue up. The fact that the GBC "adjudicates" on any matter now does not mean anyone will trust their conclusion, especially considering they already covered up for all sorts of deviations left, right and center in the past. That includes: the GBC collectively having to be sued for $400,000,000 -- for covering up mass child abuse.
That also includes banning, beating, suing and even murdering some of the people complaining about these issues.
Of course, for the GBC to "administrate ISKCON's gurus and acharyas" is another deviation in itself, because there is no history of acharyas deviating, and then needing to be administrated by a committee etc. This makes the acharya into a mundane man under the control of a mundane committee. And most of the time, their acharyas have to have a giant melt down, a conflagration of crash and burn disasters on their own, and then the GBC tries to come in a pick up the remaining pieces.]
Then there's another group, which includes the professional team of experts
that dealt with the case, along with devotees that are aware of Maharaja's
side of things and have found it to be reasonable and credible. Many of
these devotees are POC (Indian, to be specific), and they largely see
Maharaja's admission of feeling uncomfortable when the back of his hand
momentarily rested on Satya while reading, as him being guilelessly honest,
and not as him having had any bad intent. These devotees are vehemently
against any further punishment and / or retrial.”
[PADA: Many devotees are calling for Lokanath's resignation because they believe the victim and not the Maharaja. In addition, many devotees do not trust "experts" that are recruited by the GBC. In addition, this ISKCON devotee who is an independent expert believes he should step down, as well as a number of other people in ISKCON:
http://krishna1008.blogspot.com/2021/08/letter-from-chaitanya-lila-devi-dasi.html
Based on everything you’ve written, it seems clear you are squarely in the
first group on this particular issue (even if you got there on your own),
and your recent letter certainly seems to confirm this.
In terms of your line of reasoning, you write:
“Regardless of whether what occurred was inadvertent or intentional, a
mother and her daughter were thrown into extreme inner turmoil over this
incident.”
It’s incredibly problematic for someone advocating to strip Lokanath Swami
of sannyasa etc., to write “regardless of whether what occurred was
inadvertent or intentional,” because establishing whether or not there was
bad intent (known as ‘mens rea’), is crucial to judging whether or not an
offense has occurred, and thus whether punishment is warranted. It’s also
worth noting that you deciding that a mother and daughter were in “extreme
inner turmoil,” isn’t a legitimate criterion for determining Lokanath
Swami’s intent.
Then there's another group, which includes the professional team of experts
that dealt with the case, along with devotees that are aware of Maharaja's
side of things and have found it to be reasonable and credible. Many of
these devotees are POC (Indian, to be specific), and they largely see
Maharaja's admission of feeling uncomfortable when the back of his hand
momentarily rested on Satya while reading, as him being guilelessly honest,
and not as him having had any bad intent. These devotees are vehemently
against any further punishment and / or retrial.”
[PADA: Many devotees are calling for Lokanath's resignation because they believe the victim and not the Maharaja. In addition, many devotees do not trust "experts" that are recruited by the GBC. In addition, this ISKCON devotee who is an independent expert believes he should step down, as well as a number of other people in ISKCON:
http://krishna1008.blogspot.com/2021/08/letter-from-chaitanya-lila-devi-dasi.html
Based on everything you’ve written, it seems clear you are squarely in the
first group on this particular issue (even if you got there on your own),
and your recent letter certainly seems to confirm this.
In terms of your line of reasoning, you write:
“Regardless of whether what occurred was inadvertent or intentional, a
mother and her daughter were thrown into extreme inner turmoil over this
incident.”
It’s incredibly problematic for someone advocating to strip Lokanath Swami
of sannyasa etc., to write “regardless of whether what occurred was
inadvertent or intentional,” because establishing whether or not there was
bad intent (known as ‘mens rea’), is crucial to judging whether or not an
offense has occurred, and thus whether punishment is warranted. It’s also
worth noting that you deciding that a mother and daughter were in “extreme
inner turmoil,” isn’t a legitimate criterion for determining Lokanath
Swami’s intent.
[PADA: The intent is clear because -- he was systematically abusing a child over a period of time. There was not only "one single incident" or a "one time lapse," there was an ongoing and repeated inappropriate touching over time. And the mother and daughter are not "in distress" over a "one time lapse" mistake, they are upset that this abuse was a consciously premeditated activity over a period of time. Abuse over a period of time does point to the intent. And we all know what that intent was and is.]
You also argue that a number of people, especially mothers, have expressed
being distressed and upset by Lokanath Swami’s case, and for you that’s
enough to determine that he should be stripped of sannyasa etc. You wrote:
“In addition to Satya and her mother, we now have mothers all over the
world feeling great stress and anxiety over this issue too. Is that right?
So you can argue the details of this or that until the cows come home, but
are you looking at the big picture? Mothers around the world are unhappy
with that decision. Are you listening, or do you even care? Well, I care.”
Yes, we all care prabhu.
[PADA: Hee hee, yep just like the GBC "cares" when they reinstated Bhavananda, after knowing he was having sex with taxi drivers in the dham. "Cares" when they made Radhanath a guru, despite some ex-children saying -- just seeing him gives them PTSD. "Cares" like they did when the children were being starved, beaten and abused in the gurukulas. Etc!]
And the details and facts of the case are important too.
Your dichotomization of facts and feelings, your giving stress to feelings
over facts (because collective feelings are the “big picture” for you), and
then your recommending punishments on this basis, is a fatal flaw in your
presentation.
[PADA: The fact is that acharyas do not deviate, and then have to be suspended and so forth. The whole foundation is false.]
It’s also noteworthy that there are thousands and thousands of mothers that don’t think the punishments you recommend are just, and they are in total agony over it (these mothers are many times more, numerically speaking, than the ones you represent). Their pain isn’t considered at all in your letter, perhaps because you aren’t personally interacting with them. Regardless, in light of this reality, your statement about caring for mothers becomes hypocritical, as you are being selectively empathetic to just one group of them.
[PADA: Right, well thousands of people were crying when Jayatirtha fell down, then Bhagavan, Hansadutta, Satsvarupa, Kirtanananda, Ramesvara, Vipramukhya, Prabhavishnu et al. left a trail of tears and so forth. Maybe you guys should not be rubber stamping conditioned souls as acharyas, and the suffering would end?]
Another major problem with your presentation is that it’s totally wrong for
someone to be swayed by public opinion at all (on either side), when
considering whether or not to re-punish and / or retry someone that’s already
been twice tried and punished, for years each time.
You also argue that a number of people, especially mothers, have expressed
being distressed and upset by Lokanath Swami’s case, and for you that’s
enough to determine that he should be stripped of sannyasa etc. You wrote:
“In addition to Satya and her mother, we now have mothers all over the
world feeling great stress and anxiety over this issue too. Is that right?
So you can argue the details of this or that until the cows come home, but
are you looking at the big picture? Mothers around the world are unhappy
with that decision. Are you listening, or do you even care? Well, I care.”
Yes, we all care prabhu.
[PADA: Hee hee, yep just like the GBC "cares" when they reinstated Bhavananda, after knowing he was having sex with taxi drivers in the dham. "Cares" when they made Radhanath a guru, despite some ex-children saying -- just seeing him gives them PTSD. "Cares" like they did when the children were being starved, beaten and abused in the gurukulas. Etc!]
And the details and facts of the case are important too.
Your dichotomization of facts and feelings, your giving stress to feelings
over facts (because collective feelings are the “big picture” for you), and
then your recommending punishments on this basis, is a fatal flaw in your
presentation.
[PADA: The fact is that acharyas do not deviate, and then have to be suspended and so forth. The whole foundation is false.]
It’s also noteworthy that there are thousands and thousands of mothers that don’t think the punishments you recommend are just, and they are in total agony over it (these mothers are many times more, numerically speaking, than the ones you represent). Their pain isn’t considered at all in your letter, perhaps because you aren’t personally interacting with them. Regardless, in light of this reality, your statement about caring for mothers becomes hypocritical, as you are being selectively empathetic to just one group of them.
[PADA: Right, well thousands of people were crying when Jayatirtha fell down, then Bhagavan, Hansadutta, Satsvarupa, Kirtanananda, Ramesvara, Vipramukhya, Prabhavishnu et al. left a trail of tears and so forth. Maybe you guys should not be rubber stamping conditioned souls as acharyas, and the suffering would end?]
Another major problem with your presentation is that it’s totally wrong for
someone to be swayed by public opinion at all (on either side), when
considering whether or not to re-punish and / or retry someone that’s already
been twice tried and punished, for years each time.
[PADA: Trials in a kangaroo GBC court do not count. The GBC adjudicated that I was wrong to protest Jayatirtha, no -- they were wrong to defend Jayatirtha. Everyone knows that by now?]
That’s because the promise of any system of justice involving punishment must be closure in the form of that punishment, for both the victim and accused (even if it doesn’t ultimately satisfy a given person or party). Without such closure, then anyone can call for a retrial (or more / less punishment), simply on the basis that they aren’t personally or collectively satisfied.
[PADA: There never was a proper investigation.]
And considering and “arguing the details of this or that,” isn’t wrong (as you indicated in your statement above). Rather, it’s exactly what fair people do when adjudicating a situation like this. These are some of the reasons that Lady Justice is often depicted with a blindfold (as she’s not swayed by the court of public opinion, nor by the emotion of the victim and / or accused, sans evidence).
That’s because the promise of any system of justice involving punishment must be closure in the form of that punishment, for both the victim and accused (even if it doesn’t ultimately satisfy a given person or party). Without such closure, then anyone can call for a retrial (or more / less punishment), simply on the basis that they aren’t personally or collectively satisfied.
[PADA: There never was a proper investigation.]
And considering and “arguing the details of this or that,” isn’t wrong (as you indicated in your statement above). Rather, it’s exactly what fair people do when adjudicating a situation like this. These are some of the reasons that Lady Justice is often depicted with a blindfold (as she’s not swayed by the court of public opinion, nor by the emotion of the victim and / or accused, sans evidence).
[PADA: There is plenty of evidence Satya and her family tried to get the GBC to give them justice, and they did not get any.]
For example, you quote Satya’s mother, and describe that what she said “broke my heart and upset me the most.” That’s totally understandable. However, the mother wasn’t there for the incidents in question, and so her reporting having been upset and / or losing respect for Maharaja doesn’t (by itself), tell us what actually happened, nor does it tell us what Maharaja’s mindset was, nor does it tell us what should be done about it.
It’s also noteworthy that Satya herself describes her mother’s reaction
totally differently in that very same interview:
“Yes, she (my mother), had told my older sister, who hadn’t really thought
anything of it. But my mom didn’t think anything of it but she just told my
sister.”
It’s worth noting that we detail all these varying accounts in our analysis (that you haven’t responded to). I don’t know if you read it carefully, or if you even have the bandwidth to do so, considering your current health state. If you don’t have the ability though, to carefully read all the details of this case, then you aren’t in a position to fairly weigh the evidence and intelligently recommend what should be done. This is perhaps one reason why (in the past), kings would retire from ruling towards the end of their life (which is how you described your current situation).
[PADA: Satya has made the details of her case very clear with her own statements, and the GBC has given her the off - putting cold shoulder the whole time.]
Please remember that His Divine Grace recommended retiring to Vrindavan towards the end of one’s life, and please know that you are most welcome here, and that we are ready to serve and facilitate you if / when you are
able to come prabhuji. Also, we are personally living in the Vrindavan Goshalla (just next the cows), and one of our primary services is taking care of Krsna’s cows, so when you mentioned “until the cows come home,” for us that is twice daily.
[PADA: Nice, Vrndavana is where the ISKCON India folks are burying sex with cats (?) pedophiles and / or porno swamis in samadhis. Sign me up! The ICC has no idea who belongs in the post of guru, and who belongs in a samadhi. My Brijabasi friends are totally shocked and appalled at the bogus GBC orchestrated samadhis there.]
There’s an overarching problem with your whole presentation as well, and it
pervades everything you’ve written. It is your bias. You mention “I hear their cries and I can't ignore them.” I understand prabhu. You clearly feel obliged to, and inspired to, champion the women/mothers that have reached out to you for shelter (you even mention that you consider it to be Krsna’s indication that you should get involved, despite your advanced age).
The problem is that you feel moved by one group of women / mothers, and consequently you have a desire to represent that select group. However noble that desire may be, it disqualifies you from being able to fairly and dispassionately weigh all the evidence and testimony. Your inability to engage with the evidence is clearly shown, even in your most recent letter, when you neglected to respond to Lokanath Swami’s version of events (after it was detailed publicly, for the first time). You chose to just dismiss it as irrelevant, in comparison to the feelings (you perceived), in those you’ve chosen to champion. You wrote:
“Regardless of whether what occurred was inadvertent or intentional, a mother and her daughter were thrown into extreme inner turmoil over this incident.”
In this vein, you also wrote that after reading Satya’s testimony “it was clear to me that some tomfoolery was involved.” Hearing just one side of the story and then reaching a conclusion, isn’t how to fairly determine what happened, and it isn’t how to fairly determine what should be done in response. Also, referring to what Satya reported as “tomfoolery,” seems quite casual, and thus inappropriate and disrespectful.
As for the statement that your previous quotations from Srila Prabhupada were generic, that doesn’t minimize Srila Prabhupada’s statements at all, or invite peril. It just acknowledges that Prabhupada made both generic and specific statements, with Prabhupada’s generic statements requiring one to then consider how to best apply them to a specific circumstance.
It was really just a respectful way of saying that your previous quotations of Srila Prabhupada weren’t at all definitive, regarding this particular situation. The quotes you presented were about a wide variety of topics: Vaisnava children, being a perfect gentleman, compassion, the GBC, and having spotless character (which doesn’t necessarily mean never having made a mistake). They weren’t directly about the situation under discussion.
For example, you quote Satya’s mother, and describe that what she said “broke my heart and upset me the most.” That’s totally understandable. However, the mother wasn’t there for the incidents in question, and so her reporting having been upset and / or losing respect for Maharaja doesn’t (by itself), tell us what actually happened, nor does it tell us what Maharaja’s mindset was, nor does it tell us what should be done about it.
It’s also noteworthy that Satya herself describes her mother’s reaction
totally differently in that very same interview:
“Yes, she (my mother), had told my older sister, who hadn’t really thought
anything of it. But my mom didn’t think anything of it but she just told my
sister.”
It’s worth noting that we detail all these varying accounts in our analysis (that you haven’t responded to). I don’t know if you read it carefully, or if you even have the bandwidth to do so, considering your current health state. If you don’t have the ability though, to carefully read all the details of this case, then you aren’t in a position to fairly weigh the evidence and intelligently recommend what should be done. This is perhaps one reason why (in the past), kings would retire from ruling towards the end of their life (which is how you described your current situation).
[PADA: Satya has made the details of her case very clear with her own statements, and the GBC has given her the off - putting cold shoulder the whole time.]
Please remember that His Divine Grace recommended retiring to Vrindavan towards the end of one’s life, and please know that you are most welcome here, and that we are ready to serve and facilitate you if / when you are
able to come prabhuji. Also, we are personally living in the Vrindavan Goshalla (just next the cows), and one of our primary services is taking care of Krsna’s cows, so when you mentioned “until the cows come home,” for us that is twice daily.
[PADA: Nice, Vrndavana is where the ISKCON India folks are burying sex with cats (?) pedophiles and / or porno swamis in samadhis. Sign me up! The ICC has no idea who belongs in the post of guru, and who belongs in a samadhi. My Brijabasi friends are totally shocked and appalled at the bogus GBC orchestrated samadhis there.]
There’s an overarching problem with your whole presentation as well, and it
pervades everything you’ve written. It is your bias. You mention “I hear their cries and I can't ignore them.” I understand prabhu. You clearly feel obliged to, and inspired to, champion the women/mothers that have reached out to you for shelter (you even mention that you consider it to be Krsna’s indication that you should get involved, despite your advanced age).
The problem is that you feel moved by one group of women / mothers, and consequently you have a desire to represent that select group. However noble that desire may be, it disqualifies you from being able to fairly and dispassionately weigh all the evidence and testimony. Your inability to engage with the evidence is clearly shown, even in your most recent letter, when you neglected to respond to Lokanath Swami’s version of events (after it was detailed publicly, for the first time). You chose to just dismiss it as irrelevant, in comparison to the feelings (you perceived), in those you’ve chosen to champion. You wrote:
“Regardless of whether what occurred was inadvertent or intentional, a mother and her daughter were thrown into extreme inner turmoil over this incident.”
In this vein, you also wrote that after reading Satya’s testimony “it was clear to me that some tomfoolery was involved.” Hearing just one side of the story and then reaching a conclusion, isn’t how to fairly determine what happened, and it isn’t how to fairly determine what should be done in response. Also, referring to what Satya reported as “tomfoolery,” seems quite casual, and thus inappropriate and disrespectful.
As for the statement that your previous quotations from Srila Prabhupada were generic, that doesn’t minimize Srila Prabhupada’s statements at all, or invite peril. It just acknowledges that Prabhupada made both generic and specific statements, with Prabhupada’s generic statements requiring one to then consider how to best apply them to a specific circumstance.
It was really just a respectful way of saying that your previous quotations of Srila Prabhupada weren’t at all definitive, regarding this particular situation. The quotes you presented were about a wide variety of topics: Vaisnava children, being a perfect gentleman, compassion, the GBC, and having spotless character (which doesn’t necessarily mean never having made a mistake). They weren’t directly about the situation under discussion.
Your recent quotes in this last response were more to the point, but even
then you had to acknowledge:
“Yes, I know that this case is not the same as a regular fall-down.”
So seriously arguing for how to apply His Divine Grace’s instructions requires looking at his statements on a specific topic (and related topics), and also looking at how Srila Prabhupada actually dealt with similar situations during his pastimes. After this, one needs to harmonize Prabhupada’s varying instructions and examples (if variety exists), and finally try to best apply Prabhupada’s example and precept to the unique circumstance being considered (after having understood said circumstance).
We need to understand the circumstance we’re considering, and then see what
Srila Prabhupada said and did in similar situations. We should avoid just
finding some quotes and then trying to force the circumstance to match them.
Your servant,
Sanaka Sanatana Das
then you had to acknowledge:
“Yes, I know that this case is not the same as a regular fall-down.”
So seriously arguing for how to apply His Divine Grace’s instructions requires looking at his statements on a specific topic (and related topics), and also looking at how Srila Prabhupada actually dealt with similar situations during his pastimes. After this, one needs to harmonize Prabhupada’s varying instructions and examples (if variety exists), and finally try to best apply Prabhupada’s example and precept to the unique circumstance being considered (after having understood said circumstance).
We need to understand the circumstance we’re considering, and then see what
Srila Prabhupada said and did in similar situations. We should avoid just
finding some quotes and then trying to force the circumstance to match them.
Your servant,
Sanaka Sanatana Das
[PADA: Finding Srila Prabhupada's quotes is easy, he says false guru rot in hell, and that means the entire GBC's illicit sex with men, women and children (and cats?) guru program is headed there. Any questions? ys pd]
angel108b@yahoo.com]
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.