Krishna Kirti On Lokanath's "Five Man Panel"

Essays

Assessing the Five-Man Panel Report in Light of Mimamsa

Posted by By Kṛṣṇa-kīrti dāsa April 8, 2022

Posted in Essays

Assessing the Five-Man Panel Report in Light of Mimamsa

To download the PDF version of this article and the original report titled “Report of the Lokanath Swami Case Panel” (71 pages) and its appendices (213 pages), click on this link.

Table of Contents

Results of the analysis

The only meaningful difference is the approach each side uses to interpretating applicable law

Classifying the textual approaches of the two sides

Majority – Textualist

Minority – Contextualist / Pragmatist

Secular character of the Five-Man Panel Report

Introduction to Mimamsa, the Vedic tradition’s system of textual interpretation

The golden rules of interpretation in Mimamsa

K.L. Sarkar: Introductory Lecture, Class II: The General Principles of Interpretation

Is the Minority’s approach to interpreting text the correct method?

Must we use Mimamsa?

Distinguishing Mimamsa from Karma-mimamsa

Results of the analysis

The only meaningful difference is the approach each side uses to interpretating applicable law

As per “Report of the Lokanath Swami Case Panel” (henceforward, the Five-Man Panel Report), both the Majority and Minority agree on 1) the material facts of the case, 2) the history of how the case had been conducted, 3) and what are the applicable laws. The Majority and Minority opinions are in full agreement on this much, and this covers the first 22 pages of the 71 page report. 

The only meaningful aspect of the report that merits scrutiny are the different approaches, or theories, of textual interpretation that the Minority and Majority use to reach their opposite conclusions. The Minority explicitly names a theoretical approach that they use for interpreting applicable law, and interpretations produced by this approach form the basis of their dissent. And although the Majority does not say they relied on any particular theory of textual interpretation, unstated assumptions on their part about how to interpret applicable law are nevertheless operative and well understood. 

It is unnecessary to examine the final decisions each side has made, since they proceed from their different ways of interpreting GBC laws. Hence, in order assess which side has more merit, it is necessary only to consider the different approaches to textual interpretation used by each side.

The question then, is which approach to textual interpretation is most suitable for this case? This can be best answered by first classifying the approach each side uses, then assessing the relative merits of each, and then comparing the two approaches with the Mimamsa system of interpretation, which is the system that our ācāryas use.

Classifying the textual approaches of the two sides

Majority – Textualist

The Majority’s approach to interpreting applicable law is clearly “textualist.” As described by Frank Cross in his book The Theory and Practice of Statutory Interpretation (2009),

"The simplest and most straightforward approach to statutory interpretation is to decide based on the text of the statute passed by Congress." And it is “grounded in the fundamental principle that judges should give effect to what the legislature actually promulgates in statutory text and not go beyond those words with judicial discretion. . . . (Cross 24)

A sign that the Majority prefers a textualist approach is its insistence that the intent of the GBC be inferred from their own written statutes.

We cannot sanction re-writing the 2007 GBC resolution concerning leadership restrictions ̨on cases decided by the CPO to cover any child abuse decisions. If that was what the GBC intended, it should have said so. And if that is what it wants now, it should amend that resolution. (50)

Also, the Minority criticizes the Majority for their “literal” (i.e. textualist) interpretation.

In considering whether a case previously dealt with by the GBC or one of its agents should be re-opened by the Task Force / CPO particularly that of whether a sentence that has been imposed is “clearly inappropriate” warrants more than a literal interpretation of the words that form this criteria. (55)

The Majority is textualist in its approach to interpreting statues governing the case.

Minority – Contextualist / Pragmatist

In their dissent, the Minority says that the legislative history of the GBC’s statutes pertaining to child abuse and child protection should be reviewed, along with specific CPO policies and rulings in other abuse cases. They say that this is necessary because it provides additional context that the text of the applicable law does not give and will give us a better idea of what the GBC law really prescribes.

To interpret a text in its context includes the intra-textual context and the enactment as a whole (in this case to ascertain whether the case should be re-opened) as well as the extra-textual context i.e. the rest of the existing law and other contextual considerations that might be applicable (in this case the purpose of the task force and the establishment of the CPO for the addressing of allegations of child abuse to be dealt with properly and consistently). (57)

[PADA: This keeps happening over and over -- there are people who keep saying that the Lokanath case was investigated already, resolved, and a consensus of conclusions / findings / results / verdicts were reached. And as such, further discussion are now "re-opening the case." No, the case was never handed off the the CPO. There never has been any actual independent investigation, or conclusion. Ever! It is not re-opening -- if it was never opened! 

Of course, why is Lokanath participating in an illicit sex with men, women and children and / or homosexual pedophile "guru lineage" in the first place is another issue. In other words, none of these issues are being resolved all along.] 

The Minority calls this the “text in context” approach to statutory interpretation (60). 

[PADA: This is another false idea. The worshipers of pure devotees are "the minority fringe." Nope. Lokanath's people who want to worship pedophiles are the minority fringe. The ISKCON GBC's pro-pedophile guru parampara -- molester messiah's etc. -- are a teeny fraction of the devotee community, and the world population, they are a teeny cult faction. Devotees in UK just made a new Krishna temple and they invited in some Babaji from india, they did not invite any ISKCON dignitaries.  

Almost everyone else has jumped ISKCON's ship a long time ago. The majority of people want to worship a pure devotee and NOT illicit sex deviants. Even Lokanath himself said that ISKCON is turning into an empty shell, a ghost town, in 1988. OK he already knew all along his pedophile worship cult is making ISKCON into an empty ghost town, with lots of evidence of temples with almost no one attending the morning programs, temples trying to hire cooks, pujaris and etc. because most people left. More leave all the time.]

It is also known by some as the “Legislative History” approach, which includes a plurality of different methods (the “mischief rule” cited by the Minority is but one among many rules used in this approach). As per Cross,

The basic theoretical case for consideration of legislative history lies in a broader theory about the importance of “intentionalism” in statutory interpretation. Per this theory, the court’s objective should be to ascertain the legislature’s intent underlying the statute and ideally how the legislature would have intended this particular statutory interpretation case to be decided. The judge basically inquires into the question of how the legislature would have meant for the instant case to be resolved, had it explicitly considered that case. 

Joseph Raz argues that since the legislature has the lawmaking power, the law must be presumed to be what it intended to enact. The interpretation of such a law would be legitimate only insofar as it reflected that enacted intent. (Cross 59)

The purpose of this approach is to understand the legislators’ intent behind their statute—especially in cases where the legislation itself is not clearly expressed. Though in wide use, this approach is not uncontroversial, and it continues to be the focus of substantial criticism.

Perhaps the best known cynical comment on legislative history refers to its use as like “looking over a crowd and picking out your friends.” Consideration of the legislative materials allegedly allows “judges to pick and choose from the diverse opinions found in much legislative history, and thereby reach result-oriented decisions.” 

A review of securities law opinions concluded that legislative history was used by the justices “for post hoc rationalization of a conclusion reached on other grounds.” Yet the degree to which use of legislative history allows such manipulation, as opposed to other interpretive theories, is an unproven empirical question. (Cross 80)

The Majority in fact criticized the Minority for trying to bypass parts of GBC statutes in order to get the result they wanted.

The “clearly inappropriate” standard that the Task Force Report thus provided for reviewing the prior sentences is not a technicality or loophole, but rather a fundamental principle of law. One can only imagine the chaos if every punishment issued by decision-makers in our world — be they criminal judge or ecclesiastical body — were subject to increase or decrease merely because another decision-maker, years later, believed a different punishment was more appropriate; (50)

[PADA: Lokanath and his handlers all promised the victim that he would never hold a prominent position in ISKCON henceforward. That was the alleged "punishment" for the crime that everyone supposedly agreed to originally, and that was never enforced self evidently. There is no point in making agreements or legislation if there is no intention to follow up. 

In sum! No actual "sentence" for Lokanath's crime of child molesting was ever factually implemented. Nor was the so-called agreed to sentence of banning Lokanath from posts of authority ever really enforced, or even publicly advertised, which created mass confusion later when Lokanath disciples discovered he had been previously investigated for child molesting.]

But there is reason to believe that the Minority is not so interested in understanding the actual intent of the GBC’s 1993 statute. There is no question that the GBC in 1993 did not want to place any permanent ban on Mahārāja. That is why temporary restrictions were placed on him, not permanent ones.

[PADA: The GBC in 1993 was already creating a growing suicide epidemic among their molesting victims. And! How can the guru be the successor to God, and be censured for being a child molester, simultaneously? When did Srila Prabhupada say the guru is going to be voted in, voted out, monitored, suspended, censured, removed, excommunicated and so forth? And child molester messiahs can thus be "suspended from initiating" when they never had the potency to initiate anyone from square one.]

What the Minority really wants to the GBC to do is simply do what the Minority thinks is “the right thing,” regardless of what the GBC might have said or written in the past. In other words, outcomes are what matters, not what prior, expressed intent might have been. This is the Pragmatist approach to textual interpretation.

[PADA: It is not even pragmatic to keep a child molester in the post of acharya and Krishna's guru successor. It is causing thousands and thousands of people to doubt the whole religion, abandon ISKCON, and it is alienating if not infuriating the existing victims all the more.]

Perhaps the most controversial contemporary theory of statutory interpretation is pragmatism. Unlike the theories discussed in the above chapters, pragmatism does not rely on particular legislative materials or particular interpretive rules that constrain judicial discretion. By contrast, pragmatism embraces judicial discretion and seeks to direct it toward the best outcome for society. 

Pragmatic interpretation may reject as fiction the claim that judges merely “interpret” the pre-existing defined law, contending that judges are partners in creating the law that governs America. As such, judges should dedicate their efforts to creating the wisest rules of law. (Cross 102)

Some further consideration of the history and philosophical tenets of Pragmatism will help show why the Minority’s approach to textual interpretation is better understood as Pragmatist, though there is much overlap with a Legislative Historical approach.

Pragmatism is distinguished from other theories by its broader philosophical pedigree. It developed in the latter part of the nineteenth century in the United States. It developed in the latter part of the nineteenth century in the United States. Pragmatism evolved out of a small group of Massachusetts intellectuals, including lawyers, who called themselves the Metaphysical Club. 

They included William James, John Dewey, and Oliver Wendell Holmes. Rather than pursuing a notion of absolute truth, the [103] pragmatists simply sought to find “what worked” in the world. The philosophy was a consequentialist one. 

The morality of action was grounded in its consequences, and action was evaluated based upon its results. The theory is plainly instrumentalist and abandons all pretenses that the law is a self-contained system ruled by logic. For Holmes, law was not based on a “syllogism” but on the “felt necessities of the time,” and “intuitions of public policy, avowed or unconscious.” This may be what Alexander Hamilton meant when he spoke of the important role of the judiciary in “civilizing” statutes. (102 – 103)

William James, also a pioneer in the (then) new field of Psychology, described the “cash value” of some statement or outcome as the only thing that counted as truth. 

[PADA: Yes, that is the consensus, the GBC keeps their bogus gurus to keep the cash flow coming in. It is the "cash value main concern," and not the moral or spiritual value.]

For James, theories themselves were of no consequence. In his book Pragmatism (1907), in which he explains its philosophical tenets, he declares that if a theistic or non-theistic account of the universe were to succeed equally in describing the universe as we experience it, then he would consider both theories to be of equal worth, to have equal “cash value.”

Hence, the Minority suggests numerous, different ways that the GBC could somehow ban Lokanatha Mahārāja as an initiating spiritual master or allow the CPO to retry the case, which would assuredly result in Mahārāja being banned from initiating.

[PADA: Badrinarayan says Maharaja is addicted to initiating. So the whole problem is, the GBC has become addicted to promoting false gurus to keep the economic status quo.]

(Point 1) Argues that because the GBC’s initial ruling was “decided on administrative standards,” they could just reopen the case and rule that Mahārāja’s ban on initiating be permanent. (53)

(Point 2) That the “clearly inappropriate” standard could be read in a different way through the application of a “text in context” approach to statutory interpretation in order to allow the case to be reopened. (55)

(Point 3) Ex-post-facto law: The GBC could simply add a condition to the 1998 Child Protection Task Force Report’s criteria that would allow the case to be reopened.

(Point 4) Use a double-jeopardy exception that had been discontinued by the GBC in 2009. (62)

(Point 5) Argues that that “finality of judgment” does not apply to GBC decisions, because they are administrative, not judicial. (62)

(Point 6) Just reopen the case on any pretext. (63) As said by the Minority, “In short, there are many valid and acceptable reasons why an administrative decision can be changed or amended.” (64)

Etc. (the Minority gives further suggestions not mentioned here)

So, the Minority’s “spamming” the report with numerous, more or less creative suggestions for getting the case against Mahārāja reopened, or just even outright banning Mahārāja from initiating, without regard for actual intent of past legislation, and for the sake of bringing about what the Minority thinks is the right outcome, shows that the Minority’s approach to statutory interpretation is also as Pragmatic, though that also includes legislative history (“text in context”) as a tool in the Pragmatic interpretive toolbox.

[PADA: Well yep, it is very pragmatic to keep molesters OUT OF the guru seat, or the whole religion becomes a laughing stock, or worse, considered a dangerous child molesting cult with child molesting gurus.]

Secular character of the Five-Man Panel Report

Aside from the fundamental role of specific theories of textual interpretation, another remarkable feature of the report is its thoroughly secular character.  The only references to anything in śāstra or something Śrīla Prabhupāda said are from his Gītā commentary on ślokas 9.30 and 31 (cited on page 35, and in its entirety in Appendix T) and excerpts from some conversations (Appendix U). 

[PADA: Right, the GBC makes long winded "secular" analysis of all sorts of things, without quoting Srila Prabhupada, or quoting him out of context etc.]

And these were used only by the report to clarify what was meant by the assessments of Mahārāja’s behavior, made by the original 1993 Committee and by representatives of Child Abuse Prevention Behaviour Associates, Inc. (the “CAP Team”). Nothing else in the more than 280 pages of the report and appendixes seems to rely on these references.

While no one, including Mahārāja himself, disputes that Mahārāja’s offense occurred because of negligence in following the rules and regulations of dharma and bhakti, the remarkable thing is that hardly anyone who has been involved in conducting this case or in reviewing it seems to have ever questioned whether the exercise of justice itself has been in accord with the principles of dharma and bhakti.

The fact is -- that the report’s Minority party, in accordance with secular legalistic principles and secular principles of textual interpretation, is aggressively recommending all manner of legislative maneuvers just to obtain a particular outcome against Mahārāja. In a similar manner, secular societies are constantly adjusting their own laws in order to produce some good result yet always end up creating social unrest and chaos.

[PADA: So the only option left for people who disagree with the GBC program of making child molesters into messiahs is to create social unrest. OK and that is common when corrupt regimes oppress the citizens. Agreed.]

“The Vedic principles (mahājano yena gataḥ sa panthāḥ) urge us to follow in the footsteps of great liberated souls. In this way we can receive benefit in both this life and the next, and we can also improve our material life. . . . 

In democratic government at the present moment all kinds of fools and rascals are making decisions. But what can they do? What is the result of their legislation? They enact something today just to whimsically repeal it tomorrow.” (SB 4.14.4)

“The demons, therefore, do not accept any instruction which is good for society, and because they do not follow the experience of great sages and the rules and regulations laid down by the sages, the social condition of the demoniac people is very miserable.” (BG 16.7)

Consequently, the social unrest that has accompanied this case for the past thirty years seems to be increasing, not decreasing. That should at least raise some suspicion that the execution of justice within ISKCON may be to some degree opposed to the principles of dharma and bhakti, not in accord with them. Bringing our system of justice in line with Vedic principles would reduce the problem of social unrest.

[PADA: Correct. If the GBC has followed their own rules, to get Lokanath off of any post of authority, they might have dodged a bullet for some time. However the next question is, why are child molester prone people being made into GBC gurus in the first place. That question then emerges. Which means, they are certifying unqualified persons as their gurus all along, while the cover up of their misdemeanors and crimes gurus is simply a component part of that issue.]

It so happens that within the Vedic tradition, there is an extensive tradition of theory and practice of law as well as advanced principles of textual interpretation. In particular, the Vedic science of interpreting texts is called Mimansa, and it is used wherever there is need of interpreting difficult passages or resolving them.

[PADA: Child molesters are not gurus, not God's successors, and so forth. This is not a difficult passage that needs a lot of debate.]

Moreover, ācāryas within our own disciplic succession use mimamsa to harmonize texts with one another or to clarify the meaning of esoteric passages. As will be shown in the next sections, matters that will remain forever controversial within the framework of Western secular law are easily resolved by mimamsa.

When there are conflicting statements, we must decide which is stronger and which weaker. This relative strength and weakness applies to differences between one scripture and another as well as to different statements within a single scripture.

What was the existing law (the legal position) before the legislation in question was adopted? ii. Which problem (mischief or defect) was not adequately addressed before the new legislation (in this case the CPO Guidelines) was adopted? iii. What remedy is proposed by the new legislation to solve this problem? iv. What is the true reason for the proposed remedy? (59)

This shows that Sarkar’s criticism of the English system directly addresses the issue as to whether the Minority’s interpretive approach is justified, or whether even the Majority’s approach is justified. What we have seen in the report is that both the Majority and Minority have accused each other of using inappropriate methods of interpreting GBC laws. 

[PADA: But the GBC is defective, and therefore the laws they are making are defective. At the same time, they do not even follow the laws they make anyway, making their own laws not only defective but null and void from the get go. A law that is not followed, and not enforced, is not a law at all. It is simply a waste of ink and paper.] 

Is the Minority’s approach to interpreting text the correct method?

[PADA: No, the people who do not worship homosexuals, illicit sex with men, women and children, crooks, drug addicts, drunks, porno swamis and / or pedophiles etc. on the planet are the majority, never the minority.]

The Minority’s dissent rests primarily on an interpretation of GBC laws that utilizes a wide variety of sources in addition to the text of the laws themselves. And they not only criticize the Majority’s literal interpretation of GBC statutes but also go to great lengths to argue for the use of a much broader interpretation.

[PADA: Nope. The minority (the non-pedophile guru folks who worship pure devotees) really do not care about GBC legislation and laws, since the GBC does not follow their own laws anyway. Moreover a guru is not subordinated to GBC statutes and rules anyway, the guru gets dictation from Krishna and not some bogus committee.] 

In this regard, the (GBC) Majority’s approach to interpretation, “textualism,” or literalism, in mimamsa is the Śruti principle of construction. As described by Sarkar. “. . . where the writing exhibits the statement of an independent proposition in clear grammatical language couched in terms of unambiguous meaning, that proposition must be accepted and acted on as it is, however disagreeable or objectionable it maybe to those who are called upon to interpret the writing.”

[PADA: The GBC spokesman Jayadvaita swami already says that their gurus are often fallen into illicit sex with men, women and maybe children. That is the text of their idea, but Srila Prabhupada says -- anyone who thinks gurus are fallen is a demon who is going to hell, and it is thus one of the ten offenses to say gurus are ordinary and fallen. They can write whatever texts they want to, but unless they follow the texts of the Vedas, they go to hell, and so do their followers.]

Must we use Mimamsa?

Finally, it may also be said that there may be some approach to interpretation that is useful but not governed by mimamsa. To a significant extent, this is true, as vyākaraṇa (grammar) and nyāyā (logic) also deal with interpretation, but each within their own domains. And different fields such as dharma have their own rules regarding hierarchies of pramāṇas (evidences) and how they are to be understood and reconciled. So, vyākaraṇa (grammar), mīmāṁsā (textual interpretation), nyāyā (logic), along with śabda (Vedic literature) together constitute a comprehensive system of pramāṇa in which all kinds of evidences may be reconciled. In other words, pramāṇa–śāstra is a comprehensive and scientific system of epistemology with universal application—on the vyāsāsana, in the laboratory, and in court rooms and legislative assemblies.

[PADA: OK so pedophiles should sit on Vyasasanas because of the Vedic process of mimamsa? Umm, nope, there are no pedophiles in bona fide guru paramparas ever sitting in Vyasa seats found in the Vedas.]   

Within the Śrī Vaiṣṇava sampradāya there was a great ācārya known as Vedānta Deśika. He began writing a commentary on Pūrva-mīmāṁsā-sūtras, and it is known as Seśvara-mīmāṁsa (seśvara = sa-īśvara, lit. “with God”), which explains that how the mīmāṁsā-sūtras establish that there is the Supreme Personality of Godhead, īśvara, not nirīśvara. The point is that the Mīmāṁsa–sūtras are not at all opposed to Vaiṣṇavism or bhakti. If it were, the great ācāryas, including those in our own sampradāya, would not have accepted its authority.

[PADA: OK which authorized guru sampradaya contains illicit sex with men, women and children, found in the Vedas? ys pd angel108b@yahoo.com]