Hrdayananda replies / Torben Update 03 10 26

HRDAYANANDA FALL OUT CONTINUES

SRD:

 The following are some exchanges I had with HDG that followed my letter.

In the photo HDG with Sivaram Swami, who also campaigned dismantle ISKCON's CPO as it was, and to defend Laxmimoni, BVP, Keshava Bharati and a number of other individuals accused of child abuse.

---------------------------------------------------------------

Hare Krsna,

I just noticed that Brahmatirtha prabhu edited the list of recipients and most of you were cut out from the last messages I exchanged with HDG. I am adding them here for your reference, I put Maharaj's message in bold.

If we are to give due consideration to the fact that the egregious mishandling of Sapna's case by the GBC Executive Committee, CPOC and Champakalata constitutes the travesty of justice that it really is, and that HDG has personally contributed to this mess with his campaign to dismantle the CPO, Maharaj's current unwillingness to help Sapna is that much more concerning.

Please note that in his last message HDG effectively concedes that his claim/accusation that Kamlesh acted both as the judge and investigator in the case of Laxmimoni was inaccurate.
Given that Maharaj publicly slandered the character and professional integrity of Kamlesh with false accusations, I invited him to do the honorable thing and offer a public retraction and apology.

I hope HDG will take my suggestion under serious consideration.

S Dasa

---------------------------------------

HDG's first reply:

Hare Krishna S Dasa,

Your state:

"In recent years you have vigorously campaigned to discredit and undermine the credibility of the ICPO and its director. Your efforts contributed to the disbandment of what was, in my opinion, the most qualified CPO team ISKCON has had to date.”

Truth: I made no effort to disband an entire CPO team. My comments on the ICPO director were based on very extensive research which I presented more than once to the GBC. There was very solid evidence. Since you have offered no refutation of that evidence, your sweeping generalizations about my motives and logic are insubstantial.

You also state:

"You have consistently maintained that your involvement in the Laxmimoni case was motivated exclusively by concerns about due process. In other words, we are asked to believe that your intervention was driven by a desire to correct institutional injustice.

However, if that were the case, I would have expected that you would have been at least as invested to make sure that the new CPO system and staff be objectively more qualified than the team you fought so hard to remove, but we haven't seen any such concerns from your part.”

Your argument is basically that if I expended energy in the LM case, but did not expend equal energy in several other cases, then my motives could not be sincere. Normally, in analyzing the logical validity of an argument, one can state the argument in more general terms to check its validity. So the argument basically is this:

If there are a number of problems in a related area, and a person with knowledge of one such case raises procedural objections, but does not expend the same amount of energy in all similar cases, then the person’s motive in the first case cannot be sincere or unbiased.

This can be stated as an obviously false claim: Whenever a person tries to correct an apparent injustice, that person’s motives are sincere if, and only if, that person expends an equal or similar amount of energy in every analagous case. This is true regardless of the person’s available time, health, other duties, or familiarity with the circumstances. This is an absolute rule without exceptions.

I will leave all the recipients here to draw their own conclusions.

With best wishes,

HD Goswami

-------------------------------------------------------

S Dasa:

Maharaj,

I cannot speculate what your intentions may have been, but what is obvious is that the outcome your efforts, is that they contributed to the disbandment of the best CPO body ISKCON has ever had.

And now we have a CPO that is, in my view, significantly less qualified.

Let's forget about your motives, do you take responsibility for the consequences of your actions?

Are you willing to do anything to fix this mess?

I addressed your inaccurate claim Kamlesh had served as both the judge and the investigator in the same case, and the only point your raised was that Akuti wasn't interviewed, and I pointed out some weaknesses in what little evidence you provided on the interview.

If you want to make available more evidence, I'd be happy to look at it.

With regards to your unwillingness to help Sana, I am simply pointing of that the contrast of your investment in the case of Laxmimoni, who happens to be your friend, and your lack of interest in Sapna's case, doesn't lend credibility to your claim than you're exclusively motivated by a desire for justice.

-------------------------------------------

HDG wrote:

“He (Kamlesh Krsna das) may not have officially been the judge, but he clearly was involved in deciding what evidence was admissible, and who could testify. That is the role of the judge. So based on my research, yes—officially or unofficially—he was the judge”.

----------------------------------------------

S Dasa:

These are some interesting claims you are making.

Can you provide any evidence to substantiate them?

If you were more familiar with how the CPO actually works, or used to work, before you took your bureaucratic battle axe through it that is, you would know that your accusations are both uninformed and unfounded...

The judges for Laxmimoni's case, as with all CPO adjudications, were selected by the case manager, Laxmimoni was given the opportunity to refuse any judges she believed would be biased against her.

The director has one job:

Singing off on the final decisions of the judges.

That's it!

The director doesn't sit with the judges to discuss the merits of the evidence, witnesses the allegations or the sanctions.

I am curious to know if you would ever consider extending a long overdue public apology to Kamlesh Krsna Prabhu for slandering him in front of the entire society.

"When an honest man realizes that he's mistaken, he either ceases to be mistaken, or he ceases to be honest".

PADA: Yep, Brahmatirtha (Bob Cohen), Mahatma Dasa, Kalakantha, and the Gainesville / Alachua gang in general, support Hridayananda. And he says they were young and immature, which is why we had all these problems. 

OK there are hundreds of millions of young, foolish and immature folks all over the planet, but none of them EVER thinks it is a good idea to have their society's kids worship: homosexuals, pedophiles, perverts, criminals, dope heads, Vodka drunks, porno swamis etc as "God' messiahs" like their program has done. 

This is really not about mature or immature, it is about what is moral and not moral. Did I forget to mention us "dissenters" to the homosexual and pedophile guru parampara (from Vaikuntha?) -- are maybe banned, beaten, sued and -- killed? I personally am glad I stuck up for Vaikuntha, and not their pedo-loka gurus. 

I might eventually get to Vaikuntha sooner or later, they will not get there for many kalpas, or many lives of Brahma, if then. They are insulting the residents of Vaikuntha by linking them to the most abominable lusty pigs and dogs gurus imaginable, and that will not be tolerated by Lord Yamaraja. 

ys pd angel108b@yahoo.com   

====

TORBEN UPDATE

PADA: OK Torben Nielsen and Ajit Krishna dasa had PADA kicked off the ISKCON history forum because I was "making offenses" to their senior leader and guru Bhakti Vikas swami. OK and BVKS is a sannyasa disciple of the Auschwitz for kids Mayapur leader Jayapataka. 

And when a person is voted into their homosexual and pedophile guru program, Torben tells me "BVKS is a strict follower." Well yeah, he strictly follows the homosexual and pedophile guru process, true dat! 

BVKS spokesman Jayadvaita says their gurus are having illicit affairs with men, women and maybe children. Now Torben is lecturing us on what is the bona fide line, and what is not, while he has been promoting their BVKS "illicit sex with men, women and children" acharyas line. I am very proud to announce that BVKS line is avoiding sex with goats acharyas in their line, because yes, in fact they do have some standards for God's messiahs!  

For his part Ajit Krishna NOW says he will now NOT name who is guru is. Yep, probably no doubt because his guru is in the Auschwitz for kids guru sampradaya. Or what? 

Having said that, yes the Siddha Pranali line is not authorized, and moreover they "hold a grudge" against our line. So these quotes are a good collection. Credit to Torben this time!

It is amazing how some of these scholars like Torben, Sridhara Srinivasa etc. will split hairs with me over some obtuse technical points, while their guru sampradaya has less moral codes than "The Servants of Satan Church of San Francisco." Sheesh! ys pd   

ISKCON History by Torben Nielsen

ŚRĪLA PRABHUPĀDA VISITS BHAKTIVINODA ṬHĀKURA’S SON LALITĀ PRASĀDA ṬHĀKURA

THESE ITEMS ARE VERY, VERY PRICELESS THE PAGES ARE IN VERY DECREPIT CONDITION

"I am in due receipt of your letter from Calcutta dated June 12, 1972, and have appreciated the contents. I am especially pleased that you have stayed some days and got the tapes of Lalitā Prasāda Ṭhākura for posterity.

If you send them to Śyāmasundara immediately he has all facilities here to transcribe them, and get them printed immediately. As for the manuscripts, you can call Saccidānanda from Vṛndāvana, he can write in Bengali very nicely and can type also with Bengali typewriter. Tell him to bring the Bengali typewriter with him and type everything on good paper.

But best thing is, I have asked Yādubara to come there to Bīrnagara from Bombay for photographing all of the manuscripts in the possession of Lalitā Prasāda Ṭhākura page by page very completely before it is too late. The pages are in very decrepit condition, so best thing is to request Lalitā Prasāda if we may take care of them by treating them against insects and storing them in a tight, dry storage place where they may be preserved for future generations of Vaiṣṇavas to see the actual handwriting and words of such great saintly persons.

Treat this matter very seriously and thoroughly, and take all precautions to protect this wonderful boon of literatures forever. Yādubara may photograph every page, never mind Bengali or English or any other language, and later we shall see where to send the copies to different places. You also write to Yādubara at Bombay in this connection and request him to join you in Bīrnagara immediately.
I have also written him.

These items are very, very priceless and are a great treasure house of Vaiṣṇava lore, so be very careful in the matter and take all precautions to guard them."

Prabhupāda letter to Acyutānanda, 12th June, 1972

Yes, that is nice, you may continue to photograph all of the manuscripts of Bhaktivinoda Ṭhākura and other great ācāryas in our Vaiṣṇava line, but for now do not photograph anything of Lalitā Prasāda's manuscripts. When I go there I shall see. First of all let us see Bhaktivinoda Ṭhākura's works, then we shall see further."

Prabhupāda letter to Yādubara, 29th July, 1972

"Regarding Lalitā Prasāda Ṭhākura, as I have advised Acyutānanda above, unless he keeps his promise than we are not interested to publish any of Bhaktivinoda Ṭhākura's books. That animosity against Guru Mahārāja is going on, so we shall have nothing to do with it."

Prabhupāda letter to Jayapatākā, 22nd July, 1972

"Regarding Bhaktivinoda Ṭhākura's manuscripts, immediately we do not have any program for printing them. You keep them carefully and when I return I shall consider the matter. The translating work can be done both by Rāmānanda and Nirañjana in Benares."

Prabhupāda letter to Yādubara, 21st August, 1972

"I am pleased to hear that the song books and tapes of Lalitā Prasāda Ṭhākura are in New York for being edited and distributed."

Prabhupāda letter to Acyutānanda, 28th June, 1972

"N.B. I have just now got one letter from Acyutānanda Mahārāja from Māyāpura, and his plan is to photograph all of the original manuscripts of Bhaktivinoda Ṭhākura which are held by his son, Lalitā Prasāda Ṭhākura, in Bīrnagara.
This is a very, very important work, so I think you are just the right man for going there with Acyutānanda to make photos of each and every page of the old manuscripts as they are in very bad condition."

Prabhupāda letter to Yādubara, 20th June, 1972

NEXT YEAR THIS: I REQUEST YOU NOT TO SEE HIM ANY MORE

"Now, one thing is I understand that in the past you were visiting Lalitā Prasādajī and that you may also be planning to continue to visit him when you return to India. This is not approved by me and I request you not to go to see him anymore. He holds a grudge against my Guru Mahārāja and even if it is transcendental it will gradually appear mundane in our eyes.

Whatever is to be learned of the teachings of Śrīla Bhaktivinoda Ṭhākura can be learned from our books. There is no need whatsoever for any outside instruction."
Prabhupāda letter to Gurukṛpā and Yaśodānanda Svāmīs, 25th December, 1973
"That's all right, you can forget the Lalitā Prasāda Ṭhākura chapter for the time being.

Let it be and help Girirāja with the construction work in Bombay immediately.
When I return to India in October I shall see what is the situation and we shall consider further. Lalitā Prasāda Ṭhākura also wants to consult with me so I shall do that." 

Prabhupāda letter to Yādubara, 6th August, 1972

I DON’T KNOW WHERE THESE IDEAS ARE COMING FROM

"One thing is, Śrīmān Lalitā Prasāda Ṭhākura has not fulfilled his promise to give us that place in Bīrnagara for our ISKCON Temple. So I don't want you to mix with him further. I have just got one letter from Ācārya dāsa, wherein he requests to live with Lalitā Prasāda Ṭhākura for taking instruction from him. I do not like this idea; I don't know where these ideas are coming from.

No one should go there anymore.

Let Yādubara take his photos as he has taken so much trouble and they may be valuable for the future, but besides Yādubara no one else should go there, and Ācārya dāsa should not go there either."

Prabhupāda letter to Acyutānanda, 29th July, 1972

THEN THIS: LALITĀ PRASĀDA ṬHĀKURA HAS NOT FULFILLED HIS PROMISE

"I am in due receipt of your letter dated June 16, 1972, along with two tapes and one book. The book contains some derogatory remarks about my Guru Mahārāja, therefore we shall having nothing to do with printing it. In fact, since Lalitā Prasāda Ṭhākura has not fulfilled his promise to give us that Bīrnagara land for our ISKCON center, so we shall not have any more to do with printing any books by Bhaktivinoda Ṭhākura or anyone. Try to induce him to fulfill his promise, otherwise we want nothing more to do with the whole business."

Prabhupāda letter to Acyutānanda, 22nd July, 1972

"Regarding your questions, no, the descendants from Advaita are to be considered as dvijabandhu, that is, unless they are like brāhmaṇas, that is, very highly qualified to know the higher values of life in the Vedic traditional way, so in that way even he is long descended from Advaita, unless he is qualified he cannot be worshipable.

Nityānanda has no seminal descendants; his son Bīrbhadra was never married.
If someone said he is descended from Nityānanda, that means from one of his disciples. These persons may be given some respect, but they are not equal to Advaita. Dvijabandhu means son of a brāhmaṇa father but without the qualifications. Similarly, there are Advaita-bandhus."

Srila Prabhupada's Desire / Worst Decision / Hrdayananda's Video / Book Changes 03 09 26

 

Worst decision ever made!

Good news! China is getting a slew of new emergency orders

for "green tech" -- wind, solar and water power, 

stuff that operates -- without oil!

Making China Great Again!

This might help actually things over the long run. 

Oil is just nasty stuff for the environment, no question.

=================

SRD: About Hrdayananda Video

I wrote this letter to Hridayananda Maharaj following his recent interview with Damodara das/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hva4rsXgqF8

Hare Krsna Hridayananda Maharaj,

I recently watched your interview and wanted to share some of my reflections. The interview contains a number of thoughtful observations and does acknowledge that serious failures took place in ISKCON’s handling of child protection.

At the same time, the explanations you offered for 50 years of gurukula crisis relies heavily on contextual factors such as amateurism and the general chaos of the early movement. While these factors likely played a role, they do not fully address the deeper institutional and structural dynamics that allowed abuse to occur and persist.

I am not raising these observations to attack you personally, nor to diminish the sincere service you have rendered to Srila Prabhupada’s movement. My concern is simply that the protection of children requires us to examine these issues honestly. If we do not, we risk repeating the same mistakes. If we want to understand what happened in a meaningful way, we have to look beyond individual mistakes and examine the organizational culture and authority structures that shaped decision-making during that period.

A central theme in your explanation is that the early movement suffered from amateurism and a lack of professionalism. According to this view, young and inexperienced devotees suddenly found themselves responsible for running schools, caring for children, and managing institutions without the training or expertise that such responsibilities require. This certainly describes an important part of the historical context.

PADA: Yeah there are millions -- or billions -- of young and inexperienced people -- all over the place -- covering the entire planet. Yet! There is never a SINGLE day of their lives that these folks EVER wake up and decide, "Hey I got an idee! Lets get our children to worship our pals, i.e. our sexual predators, homosexuals, pedophiles, drunks, perverts, porno swamis, illicit sex with men, women and children lusty dogs and hogs etc. as these children's 'messiahs from Krishna loka.'" 

The ordinary young and inexperienced would never even dream of advocating such perversions and deviations, and placing children in peril. In short, worshiping homosexuals and pedophiles as messiahs is simply NOT DONE EVER by ordinary people, even the young and inexperienced. And to claim ordinary young people would advocate for such deviations is an INSULT to them.    

However, as the main explanation it remains incomplete. Lack of experience may explain early mistakes, but it does not explain the persistence of an abusive culture after years of complaints and warning signs. At that point the issue is no longer simply one of inexperience, but of institutional negligence and responsibility.

PADA: Right, even if a young and inexperienced person made the mistake of advocating worship of sexual predators unknowingly, he would immediately try to correct the situations once rampant child abuse surfaced. And he would demand the removal of ALL the administration personnel responsible -- in this case -- the entire GBC. He would not tolerate having the enforcers and enablers of that process remaining in posts of authority, never mind as messiahs. In sum, he would correct his wrongs once his wrongs were known.

They say that: “If you cannot understand a person’s actions, look at the outcomes and infer the intentions”.

As someone who has spent a great deal of time trying to understand the systemic child abuse problem in ISKCON, I find it difficult to accept your extremely generous oversimplifications when the consequences have been so severe.

In recent years you have vigorously campaigned to discredit and undermine the credibility of the ICPO and its director. Your efforts contributed to the disbandment of what was, in my opinion, the most qualified CPO team ISKCON has had to date. What followed was the reappointment of Champakalata as CPO Director, despite her poor track record, and the creation of the CPOC.

Something that stood out to me in the interview is that you seemed unable to recognize your own bias. When speaking about your own mistakes or those of the ISKCON leadership in general, you were very understanding, you used the “royal we” and offered generous mitigating explanations. At times it was not entirely clear whether that “we” included yourself, the GBC body, or ISKCON leadership more broadly, this lack of clarity further dissipated responsibility. Yet when discussing Kamlesh Krsna’s alleged mistakes, the same generosity and understanding were notably absent.

To substantiate your position you assured viewers that you had conducted an in-depth investigation into the handling of the Laxmimoni case, and you stated that Kamlesh Krsna was “both the investigator and the judge.” This statement is simply not true. Kamlesh was neither the investigator nor the judge. But what is even more problematic is the fact that in making this statement you effectively implied a bias to Kamlesh Krsna. This is actually defamatory!

You have consistently maintained that your involvement in the Laxmimoni case was motivated exclusively by concerns about due process. In other words, we are asked to believe that your intervention was driven by a desire to correct institutional injustice.

However, if that were the case, I would have expected that you would have been at least as invested to make sure that the new CPO system and staff be objectively more qualified than the team you fought so hard to remove, but we haven't seen any such concerns from your part.

Your concern for justice was extremely high when your friend Laxmimoni was accused of child abuse, yet with regards to the invitation to offer your support and concern to the case of Sapna, you have said that you are now too tired and too old (I am paraphrasing) to take any meaningful interest in her case.

Somehow you have neither the time nor the energy to investigate the gross miscarriages of justice that have emerged under the new CPO system that you helped set up.

This contrast raises uncomfortable questions. The injustices perpetrated against Sapna are, objectively speaking, far more severe than the procedural concerns you raised regarding the handling of the Laxmimoni case, yet you have declined to offer her any meaningful help. As far as I am aware, your intervention in defense of Laxmimoni remains the most significant public involvement you have undertaken in the discussion of child protection in ISKCON.

You attribute past failures largely to collective amateurism. But that explanation does not account for why the GBC removed Kamlesh Krsna, who holds a Master’s degree in Advanced Child Protection, and replaced him with a team whose members possess significantly less relevant experiences or qualifications.

PADA: Well yep, the people with good understanding of child care are often removed and the compromised people who neglect to enforce GBC and perps misconduct are kept. 

Over the past decade the GBC has received extensive reports describing extreme abuse taking place in the Vrindavana gurukula, yet they have repeatedly voted to keep the same individuals in charge without implementing meaningful changes. In July 2022 the GBC also voted to allow Lokanath, whom they publicly acknowledged they believe to be a child sex offender, to continue serving as a guru and sannyasi. In doing so, the GBC established the precedent that someone believed to have sexually abused a child can remain as one of the highest ecclesiastical authorities in Srila Prabhupada’s movement.

This demonstrates that the problem is not merely historical. It is ongoing, cultural and structural.

In the interview you stated that abusing children is asuric behavior, demonic and completely contrary to dharma. On this point I fully agree with you.

What remains unclear, however, is whether the same standard would apply to leaders who repeatedly fail to act decisively to protect children after receiving extensive evidence of abuse, or to those who publicly defend and honor known child abusers. It is difficult to argue that such gross negligence does not also constitute asuric behavior.

Another argument raised in the interview is that abuse was unfortunately common in many institutions during that era, including churches and boarding schools. While historically true, this comparison does not meaningfully reduce responsibility. Communities, such as ISKCON, that claim to operate according to higher spiritual principles should reasonably be expected to uphold higher standards of care and accountability.

You also emphasized the sincerity and good intentions of early leaders. Intentions do matter, but they are notoriously difficult to ascertain. More importantly, when the protection of children is involved, intentions cannot be the central issue.

It is not particularly useful to assess policies and institutions primarily by their intentions rather than by their outcomes. Results are a far more concrete basis for evaluation.

Leadership carries an ethical responsibility to protect vulnerable individuals. A well-meaning leader who fails to intervene in harmful situations still bears responsibility for negligence. When discussions focus primarily on intentions, attention inevitably shifts away from outcomes and accountability.

At some point, the outcome of prolonged incompetence becomes indistinguishable from malice. In the interview you also framed the crisis within the broader chaos of the early movement: rapid expansion, cultural experimentation, communal living, and a general lack of structure.

While these factors undoubtedly contributed to the situation, this explanation again risks diffusing responsibility by attributing failures to an atmosphere of disorder. Many of the decisions that allowed abuse to continue—keeping abusive staff in positions of authority or ignoring repeated complaints—were not inevitable consequences of chaos. They were the result of specific administrative choices.

There is something particularly pernicious about selective retelling of events. By omitting certain details it becomes possible to create a misleading picture. In gurukula we called that these the 'Ashvattama lie' which can be more destructive than an outright lie, because it is disguised with half truths.

In describing the Laxmimoni case, for example, you stated that Akuti, a key witness, was not personally interviewed by the CPO. Presented in isolation this sounds extremely troubling. What you did not mentioned is that Akuti submitted a written statement to the CPO, she was given the opportunity to share her testimony, which was included in the case file. When that additional piece of information is included, the portrayal of a rogue and vigilante CPO becomes far less convincing.

You also shared an example in which you took decisive action after being informed that a teacher was mistreating children, presenting yourself in a positive light.
What you did not mentioned is that during the period when you served as GBC for Latin America, devotee children were sexually abused in at least three countries.

To be clear, as far as I know, at the time you were not made aware of those incidents. Nevertheless, in any institution leaders bear responsibility not only for their personal actions but also for establishing systems capable of detecting and preventing abuse and for failing to do so!

You described the child abuse problem as a problem pertaining India or to some dark past of ISKCON in the west that has now been adequately tackled. You offered the example of the Dallas Gurukula as an exemplary school. You did not mention that there was a relatively recent incident of child abuse in the Dallas gurukula that exposed egregious negligence from the staff and temple management.

PADA: Yep, a friend of mine saw a sexual predator sitting in a big seat in Dallas, and as soon as he complained, he was banned from the temple and a legal restraining order was placed on him. The predator gets to stay however.

Something conspicuously absent from the interview was any substantial discussion of what proactive steps you have personally taken to prioritize child protection within ISKCON during the past fifty years. The anecdotal example you provided is not very substantial.

Considering the many years you served as a GBC and senior leader, it is reasonable to ask what concrete actions you have personally taken to make child protection a priority.

You would also have voted on a number of GBC resolutions during your time in leadership, including:

1977 – “There will be no marriages of girls until they are 16 years old.”
1980 – “That the previous resolution which required that young girls wait until 16 years old to be married be rescinded.”
1981 – “That ISKCON’s standard policy is to send all of its young boys (from outside of India) to the Bhaktivedanta Swami Gurukula in Vrndavana from at least the age of 9–10 until at least the age of 12.”

I wonder whether you feel any responsibility for the devastating consequences these resolutions had for so many devotee children...

The narrative you present appears to assume that the theological and institutional framework of ISKCON itself is fundamentally sound, and therefore explains the crisis mainly through human factors such as immaturity, chaos, or lack of professionalism. This assumption limits the scope of the analysis and discourages examination of structural features that may have contributed to the problem, such as strong hierarchical authority, intense reverence for leaders, and a widespread reluctance to question spiritual authorities.

The unfortunate reality is that ISKCON as an institution has repeatedly prioritized protecting its reputation, avoiding public scandal, and preserving confidence in leadership over transparency and the protection of victims.

In ISKCON the culture of blind obedience is often framed as surrender, and described as a virtuous spiritual quality, while questioning leadership can be treated as a serious offense. This dynamic dis-empowers individual devotees and encourages a structure in which abusive authorities may face very few effective checks.

Abusive environments often involve extreme power imbalances. In gurukulas children have been geographically isolated, dependent on authorities, taught absolute obedience, and separated from their parents. These conditions create an environment where abuse can remain hidden for long periods of time. These are structural realities, and many of them continue to exist today.

Ultimately your explanation leaves an unresolved tension. On the one hand ISKCON leaders are believed to be spiritually advanced and morally exemplary. On the other hand the systemic child abuse crisis is explained primarily through immaturity, incompetence, and administrative confusion.

Reconciling these two narratives requires deeper reflection on the relationship between spiritual authority, institutional structure, and accountability. Effective safeguarding would require independent oversight, professional safeguarding expertise, mandatory training for leaders, and serious attention to conflicts of interest.

As long as ISKCON’s leaders continue to be spiritually revered, institutionally powerful, not subject to independent oversight, and lacking adequate safeguarding training, the structure itself will continue to facilitate abuse and hinder effective child protection.

Aspiring to serve Sri Guru and the Vaishnavas,
SR das

PADA: Yup. When we were helping the victims of the child mistreatment with a lawsuit, Hrdayananda was giving me the stink eye in the Watseka sidewalk. He never once asked me anything about all the testimony he knew I was collecting. And his legal team assistant told me "we have to vigorously defend ISKCON from these greedy and grubby hands gurukulis who want to fleece and exploit ISKCON." 

OK many of those kids were already mistreated, a number had PTSD and other trauma issues, some were ending their lives due to all the trauma, and now the -- victims -- are being branded as greed and grubby exploiters. Sorry, this is making a bad situation worse, and Hrdayananda as only talking to the lawyer's team, and not us. The Jayapataka people later complained that my helping various lawsuits was costing ISKCON $100,000,000. OK this begs the question, why wasn't that $100,000,000 spent on facilitating children, instead of buying Luis Vuitton suits for lawyers? Who decided we should invest in lawyers and not children? And why does no one ever ask that to Hrdayananda and his pals? ys pd

GPD: Yes, why don't people ask iskcon gurus why they spend big money on their top notch lawyers and spend small amounts on children. I think the answer will be as always. "That's an offensive question to ask us! Who are you to be our authority, get out of here etc."

A Dasi: Seriously, was there ANY of the 11 gurus, or any gurus after, that treated you or the victims with respect? I'm hoping you could PLEASE tell me there was at least 1 who understood Prabhupada's actual mood... 

BW: Amazing and eloquent letter, I hope Maharaj takes it to heart. SR is the voice of our generation.

A Dasi: Agree, but let's not be part of historical reframing, please.

Even if it was "amateurish"... the lawyering up & partitioning of ISKCON properties to avoid paying the Turley lawsuit was professional Machiavellianism at its finest.

The opportunity to be unlike other established religions was fumbled extraordinarily. 

There is zero doubt in my soul, Srila Prabhupada would've sold every single temple, brick by brick if he had to, to help ease the pain caused to Krishna's children. Yes, the majority of the money would've gone to the Turley law firm, but healing would've started. The PR and healing would've helped other faiths to look at themselves in the mirror, too.

Instead, we have a corporate entity of Good Ol' Boys Club continuing to refuse accountability, dismantling CPO to another bed of lawyers, and continue to fumble the faith to their non-taxed benefit.

MM: Good points and analysis!

L Dasi: He will only accuse you of attacking him and will never give any proper and reasonable answers to anything. Waste of time, but it's a very good letter.

C Dasi: Thank you for this brilliant counter analysis.

MB: Karma, that is what it is! Everyone is under the spell of Maya's forces. Karmis, for example, are subject to Epstein-style gaslighting and blackmail. Devotees, however, are under the influence of the same forces. Followers of Krishna Consciousness live in a dream where they believe that purification is the main driving force of the movement, especially in our case, when it comes to addressing child abuse, when in reality, that dynamic is unproven, and the belief in it is reinforced by --hypocrisy (we are brahmanas).

What I am writing here, is the core of what I wrote a long time ago in an article for Priti-lakshanam, edited by Pranada. So, please don't take it personally.

Hope, it is clear enough for you.

M Dasi:  Anyone who accepts the title "Maharaja" would have to be suss.

E Dasi: Excellent reflection...this is the on-going trend, to go after their statements.

GSD: Thank you for your comments Prabhu. Seems to me it will be hard to argue with any of your points.

GC: Excellent reply.

S Dasi: Very well written, it's a shame it will be lost on the recipient.

SDD: Yes. What a shame! 

MB: Karma, that is what it is! Everyone is under the spell of Maya's forces. Karmis, for example, are subject to Epstein-style gaslighting and blackmail. Devotees, however, are under the influence of the same forces. 

Followers of Krishna Consciousness live in a dream where they believe that purification is the main driving force of the movement, especially in our case, when it comes to addressing child abuse, when in reality, that dynamic is unproven, and the belief in it is reinforced by --hypocrisy (we are brahmanas).

What I am writing here, is the core of what I wrote a long time ago in an article for Priti-lakshanam, edited by Pranada. So, please don't take it personally.
Hope, it is clear enough for you.

======

GITA CHANGES

Mahesh Raja says:

Note: Jayadvaita ADDED this in the CHANGED Bhagavad Gita it is NOT there in the Original: “nor by independent study of books of knowledge can one progress in spiritual life” (Bg. 4.34, purport)”.

“Srila Prabhupada cannot be a diksa guru now since “nor by independent study of books of knowledge can one progress in spiritual life” (Bg. 4.34, purport)”.

Note: Here you will see some of the changes Jayadvaita made and ADDED his OWN words:


*Unauthorised changes to Srila Prabhupada’s Bhagavad-Gita made by Jayadvaita swami*


Note: spot the difference between the old version and the new concocted manipulated by Jayadvaita.


Here he has inserted **souls** and **they**


Bg 4.34 (new version by Jayadvaita swami)


Just try to learn the truth by approaching a spiritual master. Inquire from him submissively and render service unto him. The self-realized **souls** can impart knowledge unto you because **they** have seen the truth.


Note: here he has ADDED a text which was NEVER there in the original.


**Nor by independent study of books of knowledge can one progress in spiritual life.**


PURPORT Bg 4.34 (new version by Jayadvaita swami)


The Bhagavatam (6.3.19) says dharmam tu saksad bhagavat-pranitam: the path of religion is directly enunciated by the Lord. Therefore, mental
speculation or dry arguments cannot help lead one to the right path. **Nor by independent study of books of knowledge can one progress in spiritual life.** One has to approach a bona fide spiritual master to receive the knowledge.
Bg 4.34 ( Srila Prabhupada’s ORIGINAL untampered version)


Just try to learn the truth by approaching a spiritual master. Inquire from him submissively and render service unto him. The self-realized **soul**can impart knowledge unto you because **he** has seen the truth. (Bg 4.34)


PURPORT


The Bhagavatam (6.3.19) says, dharmaṁ hi sākṣād-bhagavat-praṇītam–the path of religion is directly enunciated by the Lord. Therefore, mental speculation or dry arguments cannot help one progress in spiritual life. One has to approach a bona fide spiritual master to receive the knowledge.


The changes made are **very significant** because they change the **entire** meaning of the text.


Diksa (transcendental Knowledge) is imparted by one self-realized person–the acarya (Srila Prabhupada)


It is **one singular** person uttama-adhikari (Srila Prabhupada) that transmits diksa (see antya 4.192-4.194) into the madhyama-adhikaris heart.
Krishna’s pastimes reflected in the heart of Prabhupada are transmitted (televised) in the Madhyama-adhikari’s heart when he chants offenselessly —this is transcendental knowledge (diksa).


Therefore the concocted plural words “The self-realized **souls** can impart knowledge unto you because **they** have seen the truth” are totally incorrect. The clever manipulation OF WORD JUGGLERY “they” means Jayadwaita swami wants to IMPOSE a new breed of so called INITIATING gurus in ISKCON—in spite of Srila Prabhupada’s clear instruction of July 9 1977 letter to the society of order to institute a Ritvik system (which incidentally was NEVER revoked by Srila Prabhupada). The bogus initiating gunda “guru” brutes dismantled Srila Prabhupada’s Ritvik system.


Adi 1.35


A devotee **must** have only **one initiating spiritual master** because in the scriptures acceptance of more than one is always forbidden.
Next change, the ADDED text in the purport:


**Nor by independent study of books of knowledge can one progress in spiritual life.**


Devotee: Srila Prabhupada when you’re not present with us, how is it possible to receive instructions? For example in questions that may arise…


SRILA PRABHUPADA: Well the questions are answ… answers are there in my books. (Morning Walk, Los Angeles, 13/5/73)


SRILA PRABHUPADA: So utilise whatever time you find to make a thorough study of my books. Then all your questions will be answered. (Letter to Upendra, 7/1/76)


SRILA PRABHUPADA: Every one of you must regularly read our books at least twice, in the morning and evening, and automatically all questions will be answered. ( Letter to Randhira, 24/01/70)


SRILA PRABHUPADA: If I depart there is no cause for lamentation. I will always be with you through my books and orders. I will always remain with you in that way. (BTG 13:1-2, December 1977)


74-11-22 Letter: Bahurupa


In my books the philosophy of Krishna Consciousness is EXPLAINED FULLY so if there is anything which you do not understand, then you simply have to read again and again. By reading daily THE KNOWLEDGE WILL BE REVEALED TO YOU AND BY THIS PROCESS YOUR SPIRITUAL LIFE WILL DEVELOP.


Note: This clearly indicates that Srila Prabhupada’s books are understood through their own potency, and that there is therefore no need for a physically present guru to understand the books. Our Srimad Bhagavatam is unique because the verses of the Bhagavatam are directly complemented with the purports of Srila Prabhupada, who is the bonafide maha-bhagavata; therefore, the book Bhagavata and the person Bhagavata are combined in Srila Prabhupada’s Srimad Bhagavatam.


Therefore, there is no need for a third party, “the so called current Iskcon links” to (mis)interpret what Srila Prabhupada “really means to say”. sic


Srila Prabhupada’s books are not ordinary books of knowledge. Therefore this change is totally meaningless and unjustified. This are**NOT** Prabhupada’s words in the Bhagavad-Gita. Here it appears Jayadwaita is trying to manipulate the devotees into searching for a CONDITITIONED SOUL “guru” of the concocted


2/3 majority votes.


SRILA PRABHUPADA AND HIS BOOKS ARE NOT DIFFERENT.


Adi-lila 1-35


There is **no difference between the spiritual master’s instructions and the spiritual master himself**. in his absence, therefore, his words of direction should be the pride of the disciple.


Note: Srila Prabhupada’s words of direction—-Srimad-Bhagavatam there is no difference between Srila Prabhupada’s Instruction and himself the uttama-adhikari is powerful to give Diksa from his books:


SB 1.7.22


The spiritual master, **by his words**, can penetrate into the heart of the suffering person and **inject knowledge transcendental**, which alone can extinguish the fire of material existence.


SB 2.9.8


….the potency of transcendental sound is **never minimised** because the vibrator is **apparently absent**.


Watch this :


ISKCONspiracy Envious Jayadvaita vs Srila Prabhupada
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1C6RUmW0YQQ


ISKCONspiracy – Jayadvaita Swami Campaigns to Remove the Chanting of Prabhupada’s Name
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pRTtkGMAg8Q

====

Dive into this beautiful Bhajan By Srila Prabhupada! pic.twitter.com/8gMmHonG9U

— Krishna Connect (@krishnaconnect8) March 9, 2026