Letter from Dhira Govinda Prabhu RE: ISKCON

[PADA: Yes prabhu, we are entering Jonestown or the Twilight Zone. The followers of Lokanath are saying -- even recently -- (A) PADA is going to hell for endorsing the ritvik idea, that neophytes cannot be gurus. Then (B) in the next breath, the followers of Lokanath are telling me he has fallen -- just like many Church priests have fallen in the Church of Jesus, so Lokanath is really like a -- a ritvik priest and not a guru. Wait a minute, they are arguing with -- themselves. Ooops, (C) then they said "we do not want to be like the bogus ritvik Christians." ys pd]   

August 17, 2021 Hare Krsna. I see several responses to what I wrote yesterday, regarding “…the question of how many disciples someone had…” “Prabhu was it your experience that the consideration for the number of disciples was more a matter of concern for their spiritual welfare, or more a concern of the financial fallout that would presumably follow over a disciple’s disenchantment with the organization after finding out about their guru?” 

“One really gets the impression that men and money are the prime consideration.” My impression was that, at least 80-90%, it was a political concern, and not concern for the spiritual welfare of the disciples. 

(In my usage of the term “political”, each of us of course can determine the extent to which that GBC politics is transcendental, or mundane.) “financial fallout that would presumably follow over a disciple’s disenchantment with the organization after finding out about their guru?” 

Yeah, that, and, at least just as much, concern that the ISKCON authorized guru, would just leave the institution and thousands of his disciples would follow. My impression is that, if hundreds or thousands of devotees were to leave the organization, then they (that is, members of the GBC, particularly the GBC Executive Committee) were very concerned that it would reflect badly on their performance. 

Some might deem that an unduly cynical interpretation - anyhow, that’s my perception, for whatever it may be worth. “matter of concern for their spiritual welfare”- As indicated above, that was maybe 10-20% of it. And, if I were to cut through the fluff and bluff and get to the crux of the matter, the GBC as a group, and many or most of its members, manifested that 10-20% in the form of, “Well, if we don’t continue to deceive those poor disciples, how will they ever progress towards realization of Absolute Truth……..” Hare Krsna.

In this case of Lokanath Maharaja, clearly, obviously, it is and has been, largely if not completely, about, “Yeah, but do you know who he is…how many disciples he has…..!!!!!” As many members of Vedic Inquirer fbook group are already aware, shortly after we established the ISKCON Central Office of Child Protection (CPO) in April 1998, the GBC insisted that the CPO not process (meaning, investigate or adjudicate) the case of Lokanath Maharaja. 

Ostensibly that was because, the GBC has already handled, processed, and completed this case. In other postings on this forum, in recent weeks and months, I’ve provided facts to illustrate the double-dealing, deception, and smoke and mirrors from the GBC, around that assertion, that “the GBC has already handled, processed, and completed this case”.

Here I’ll add an additional piece to illustrate the inconsistency and hypocrisy of the stance, in relation to the GBC’s weighty consideration of “But do you know how many disciples he had…” Prior to 1998, the GBC had already processed, through whatever systems they had, many cases of alleged and confirmed child maltreatment connected with the ISKCON organization. 

For example, shortly after I began my service with the CPO, I read the reports of dozens of child abuse cases related to ISKCON Mayapur. The investigations, and all aspects of the case, were conducted by the team of Dayarama, Tosan Krsna, Bhakta Rupa, and Adi Karta Prabhus. 

Those investigations and reports were from 1991. Considering the (lack of) resources that those four devotees had, they really did an excellent, highly commendable job. I was, and am, impressed. Those cases included grounded, sensible directives, or at least strong recommendations, for each of the dozens of individuals related to those cases. 

(As far as how the GBC, as a body, handled those directives / recommendations, in the months and years that followed, they, from my perspective, botched it badly- embarrassingly so………Anyhow, much appreciation to Adi Karta, Bhakta Rupa, Tosan Krsna and Dayarama…).

Okay, so, for how many amongst those dozens of cases did the GBC intervene to insist that the CPO not touch them? Zero (I trust that you’re not surprised to hear that). So what’s the difference between those cases and the case of Lokanatha Maharaja? Lokanatha Maharaja is a different category; the category of, “DON’T YOU KNOW WHO HE IS?!!!??? DON’T YOU KNOW HOW MANY PEOPLE WORSHIP HIM??!!!” And maybe to have such a special category is actually healthy for the organization and the transcendental sankirtana movement. That of course is for each of us to determine for ourselves.

So, clearly, this case, from the viewpoint of ISKCON leadership, is so much, if not completely, about, “LNS has 5000 disciples”. Suppose, as a thought exercise, that Lokanath Maharaja was, say, a rank and file temple devotee, or a member of the congregation, and, what happened 30 years ago or so in New Jersey, happened. 

And let’s say that, there in the early or mid-90s, the daughter or mother expressed about it to the temple authorities. We might imagine that, well, something like, the temple leaders in, say, Philly, New York, Towaco, would have some communication with each other, decide that this fellow sounds like a creepy guy, and they shouldn’t let him lead functions related to the temples, and, if they did permit him to attend the Sunday Feast, make sure that he’s closely supervised, that he’s not hanging out around or near women or children ….something like that ….and, maybe they would alert other temple leaders around North America about this. 

If it were, say, later in the 90s, or into the 2000s, then perhaps a picture of him would be sent around, maybe even internationally. So, the question might be, whether to allow him to the Sunday Feast, and, if yes, be sure that he’s monitored.

With the prevailing paradigm, the question, instead, is, whether he should be enthusiastically regarded and worshipped as nondifferent from God.

My personal perspective is that that paradigm is Twilight Zone, if not Jonestown.
“Dhira Govinda dasa- So, you’re saying that Lokanath Swami is a ‘creepy guy’….” No, I’m not saying that. Perhaps Lokanath Swami has completely eliminated the anarthas that manifested in New Jersey 30+ years ago, and he is firmly situated in devotional love for Sri Sri Radha-Krsna, and is undeviatingly dedicated to serve Srila Prabhupada and his movement. 

It’s not for me to guess what’s in Lokanath Swami’s heart, or what is his spiritual stage of advancement.

I’ve shared what I’ve presented above to illustrate that it likely won’t serve anyone to retain the notion, the illusion, that the GBC, to any appreciable extent, substantially values the principle that justice is blind, and to support and encourage each of us to healthily examine our paradigms of thought, in a spirit of self-discovery. Hare Krsna. Jaya Srila Prabhupada.